Historia quinq-articularis exarticulata, or, Animadversions on Doctor Heylin's quintquarticular history by Henry Hickman.

Dr. H. Pag. 104.

But so it hapned, that while matters went thus fairly for∣wards, Conradus Vorstius, suspected for a Samosetenian or Socinian Heretick, &c was chosen by the Curators of Leiden, 1611, to succeed Arminius.

Answ. While things went thus fairly forward: How fairly forward? You told us before of the preferments of cer∣tain Bishops that had espoused your opinions: several of whose preferments were bestowed on them after this ele∣ction of Vorstius, into the place of Arminius. You also little credit your History, by saying that Vorstius was but suspect∣ed of Socinianism: and your friends the Remonstrants did less credit themselves in appearing so stre••uously for a man suspected of such prodigious blasphemies, if he had been only suspected. But what ever secret good liking you had, either for the Remonstrants, or Vorstius by whom they would feign have been headed, your Loyalty and Allegeance should have kept you from saying, that King James used many harsh and bitter expressions against Arminius and his followers, as if guilty of the same impieties with Vor∣stius.

For why might not King Iames charge the Remonstrants with Vorstius his blasphemies, when as they so apertly de∣clared, that they had nothing against Vorstius, nor had found any thing in his Writing which was contrary to truth or piety: and that it would be most profitable to Church and Commonwealth, if his calling should proceed?

Vid. praef. ad acta Synodi.

But how inexcuseable a piece of — is it to say as you do, Chapt. 6th, Numb. 7, that King James was carried so to express himself against the Arminians, not so much by the clear light of his own understanding, as by reason of State; and that it was a part of Kings craft, to contri∣bute to the suppression of the weaker party? For doth not King Iames in his Declaration tell you the clean con∣trary? Doth he not also call Arminius an enemy to God, his followers Atheistical sectaries?

Doth he not call Bertius his Book of the Apostasie of Saints, a blasphemous Book, worthy of the Fire for its very Title? Doth he not say, that Bertius l••ed grosly in averring his heresie, contained

in his said Book, was agreeable with the profession and Religion of our Church of England?

And will you after all this make the world believe, that setting aside political considerations, and a design to serve the Prince of Orange, King Iames had no zeal against Arminianism. What if one should say, that this Book you have written is not the clear result of your Judgment, but wrested from you by the im∣portunity of your Friends, who would not suffer you to be quiet till you had reproached the Calvinists, and wrested the History of Church affairs to serve their ends? You would think your self wronged. And have not you then much more wronged King Iames under whose Government you lived, in telling the world so long after his death, that he put all the harsh expressions against Arminius into his De∣claration, to serve other mens turns rather than to advance his own, as you speak, Chap. 22. Numb. 10. But you think you have reason to charge this hypocrisie on him; for say you, pag. 106, That King James condemned not the Arminian Doctrines in themselves though he had taken some displeasure against their persons, appears, not only by rejecting the Lam∣beth-Articles, and his dislike to the Calvinian Doctrine of predestination in the Conference at Hampton-Court, but also by instructing his Divines commissionated for the Synod of Dort not to oppose the Article of Universal Redempti∣on, which they accordingly performed. You told us before Chap. 6. Numb 7th, that King James sent such Divines to the assembly at Dort, as he was sure would be sufficiently active in their (i. e. the Remonstrants) condemnation: and have you now so soon forgot your self as to say, that he instruct∣ed his Divines thither commissionated, not to oppose the Ar∣ticle of Universal redemption, which accordingly they per∣formed; and make this an argument that King James, condemned not the Arminian Doctrines in themselves? Was that Universal redemption which you say King James in∣structed his Divines not to oppose, and which they did not op∣pose, an Ar••inian Doctrine▪ or was it not? If it was nor, how is King Iames his directing his Divines not to oppose it, any evidence that he condemned not the Arminians opinions in themselves? If it were, and that our Divines did not condemn it, why is the King charged with sending Divines, that would be sufficiently active in condemning the Arminian opinions?

Again you say expresly, pag. 107, that he gave com∣mand to his Divines, sent to the Synod of Dort, not to rec••de from the Doctrine of the Church of England, in the point of Universal Redemption by the death of Christ: a point so incon∣sistent with that of the absolute decree of reprobation, and gene∣rally of the whole Machina of predestination and the points de∣pending thereupon as they are commonly maintained in the Schools of Calvin, that fire and water cannot be at greater difference.

Sir, I beseech you consider whether you do not contradict your self, whilst you think you only contradict Calvin. Universal redemption by the death of Christ overthrows the whole Machine of the Calvinian predestination and the points thereon depending. Thus I argue from this, They that were sent with Order to assert Universal redemption by the death of Christ, were sent with order to destroy the whole Machine of Calvinian pre∣destination. Our Divines by King James were sent with Or∣ders to assert Universal redemption by the death of Christ. Therefore, Our Divines were sent with Orders to destroy the whole Machine of Calvinian predestination. Again, They that asserted Universal re••emption by the death of Christ destroyed the whole Machine of ••he Calvinian predestination. Our Divines at the Synod of Dort, asserted Universal Redemption by the death of Christ. Therefore, Our Divines at the Synod of Dort, destroy∣ed the whole Machine of the Calvinian predestination. The premises in both Syllogisms are your own. Yet I suppose you disown the conclusion, naturally and necessarily flow∣ing from them: Or if you do not, why did you say, that our King thought it a piece of King-Craft to contri∣bute to the suppression of the weaker, i. e. Remonstrant party, and sent Divines that would be active in their condem∣nation?

Finally, you tell us that this point of Universal Redem∣ption, was, together with the rest, condemned in the Synod of Dort.

Now nothing was in that Synod condemned, but what our Divines consented to: they have subscribed to all the determinations of the Synod, relating to the death of Christ: Therefore either the Synod did not condemn Uni∣versal redemption, of our Divines did not a••cording to their Orders.

The Reader, by this time sees what terrible executions the Doctor hath done on himself: and more need not be said about the Synod of Dort, as it relateth to our English affairs.

Some things done in England, and misrelated by the Do∣ctor, must be rectified. Pag. 105, he essays to make a Salve for the Recantation imposed on Mr. Sympson, for some pas∣sages in a Sermon before the King, at Royston, 1616, and he would fain have us think, that the King took no offence at his saying, that the committing any great Sin did for the present ex∣tinguish grace, and Gods Spirit; for in that he went no further than Overal had done.

This is very untrue; for Overal never said so, nor could say so, according to his principles. But what then did the King take exception at?

At nothing but the Preachers expounding the seventh to the Ro∣mans as Arminius had done, or rather, his Fathering the expo∣sition on Arminius.

But either the Preacher did bring this exposition of Ar∣minius to credit an Arminian notion, or he did not. If he did, then it was the Arminianism of the exposition that gave distast. If not, would it not sound like tyranny in the King, to injoyn a Learned man a Recantation, meerly be∣cause he used such an exposition of a place of Scripture as Arminius had used?

Take the place of a Regenerate man, Arminius his Do∣ctrine cannot stand, as the wise King well saw; and therefore he sent to the two Professors of Cambridge to have their judgment in the case, who sent their judgment in fa∣vour of St. Austins exposition.

But the Doctor observes, that the Professors did not do this of their own Authority, but as set on by the King, pag. 106.

I wonder how they could give their judgments to the King at Royston, of a Sermon Preached before him, until they were by his Majesty required so to do.

I, But the Professors were not so forward as to move in it of themselves; as may appear by their not answering of Tompsons Book, de intercisione gratiae & justificationis, though the Au∣thor of it were a member of that University, but leaving it to be co••futed by Dr. Abbot, their Brother in the Chair at Oxford: so

great an alteration had been made in Cambridge, since the first striking up of their heats against Baro, and Barret.

O what superfoetations of Doctrines are here upon no∣thing, or what is less than nothing? First, Dr. Abbot when he confuted Tompson, was not Doctor of the Chair but Bishop of Salisbury and so no Brother to the Professors at Cam∣bridge, 1616. Secondly, The Professors at Cambridge then, were Dr. Richardson originally of Emanuel, a Colledge that in those days afforded few Arminians; and Dr. Iohn Dave∣nant, a very able and zealous opposer of Arminianism, as all know. Thirdly, The Cambridge Professors might not count themselves concerned to confute Tompson, because his Book was not Printed in their University, nor indeed in England, and because Tompson's life had confuted his Book at Cambridge. He was a man of a most debauched conversa∣tion, and confirmed himself in his debauchedness, by his Arminianism; for when men reproved him for his propha∣ness, he would say My will is free, I am a Child of the Devil to day, to morrow I will make my self a Child of God: this more than any Answer to the Book, would confirm the Cantabridgians, that he was not an enemy to perseverance as a Doctrine leading to impiety.

Well, but Did not King James, by his Directions to the Uni∣versity, Jan. 18. 1619. require that young students in Di∣vinity be appointed to study such Books, as be most agree∣able in Doctrine and discipline to the Church of England, and excited to bestow their time in the Fathers, and Councels, School-men, Histories, and Controversies: and not to insist too long upon Compendiums, and Ab∣breviations, making them the ground of their study in Divinity?

Really he did so, and I heartily wish the direction had been observed: for then had Arminianism been crushed in the shell. I think next to the study of the Holy Scriptures, the reading of the Fathers is the best preservative against Arminianism; which came into the Low-countrys with the contempt of the Fathers. As for Calvinism, it cannot be condemned, if sentence be pas∣sed upon it out of the Fathers; those I mean, who professed to set themselves, to handle the Controversies

concerning grace and predestination. Sure I am the Roy∣al directions notwithstanding, the University continued as highly, or more highly Calvinistical than ever: a manifest argument that the University looked upon the Kings di∣rections, as no way tending to root out Calvinistical Do∣ctrine, but rather as a means to confirm it, and so indeed they were.

The Doctor will not yet give over, but, pag. 108, tells us of certain Orders sent out, Anno 1622, August the fourth, designed to put a bridle into the Calvinists mo••ths.

These Orders it is notoriously known were put out at such a time when the Spanish match was driving on, and common people began to have thoughts of heart whither the releasing of Recusants, and the Articles of Marriage might tend.

In those Orders care was taken, among o∣ther things, that no undecent expressions should be used against Puritanes; but it was also provided that no Preacher of what title soever under the degree of a Bishop or Dean at least, should thenceforth presume to teach in any popular auditory, the deep points of predestination, &c. but rather leave those points to be handled by learned men, and that modestly and moderately, by Use and application rather than by positive Doctrine.

And this was a right good Or∣der for Calvinists, who never suffer so much from any thing, as the declamatory attempts of men in popular Sermons. In the Schools, where Syllogisms must be u∣sed, their Doctrine is not in much danger; because he who disputes must keep himself close to the State of the Question, through not representing of which, Armini∣ans get all their Advantage. Mr. Hoard did make choice of that piece of Calvinism which is most liable to ex∣ception, the absolute decree of reprobation. And I con∣fess, when I was a young proud Graduate, I had read his Book, and did think it perfectly unanswerable: but when I had the good hap to meet with Bishop Dav••nants answer to it, I was marvelously altered in my opinion and estimation concerning the strength of the Book, (keeping still an high opinion of the

Author of it;) for I found that the absolute decree of reprobation was quite another thing than it was repre∣sented.

There was in Oxford, after the coming out of the aforesaid Orders of the King, a Sermon Preached in the University Church by Mr. Gabriel Bridges, a∣gainst the absolute decree: this, saith the Doctor, was a violating of the Kings Order, (you must pity him, he had nothing else to say,) and this laid him open to the per∣secution of Dr. Prideaux, and to the censure of the Vice-chancelor.

But all who have searched the Register do know, that violation of the Kings Order was never so much as once laid to Mr. Bridges his charge. He was accused for Preaching contrary to the Articles of Religion established among us: and was Ordered to maintain in the Schools, the Contrary to what he had Preached in the Pulpit: and he did so, and never altered his mind afterwards. In∣deed it had been most ridiculous once to imagine, that a Sermon Preached in the University Church, could violate the Kings Order manifestly restrained to popular Auditories, in which number the University Auditories were never placed.

The Doctor hath one Card more left to play, which if it hit not, he will have a perfect Slam. What is that? It is his dear friend Mr. Mountague, whom he imagineth in his Gagger to have disclaimed all the Calvinian tenents, and to have asserted the Church to her primitive and genuine Do∣ctrines.

(Creditis? an qui amant ipsi sibi somnia fingunt?)

Well, what of this Gagger? Why, information was prepa∣red against him by two worthy men, Mr. Yates, and Mr. Ward. (A sign he was looked on as designing innovation.) What doth Mr. Mountague? After he had got a copy of this informa∣tion, be flees for shelter to King James, (Poor man! did he flee for shelter, against the information of two Lecturers? What shelter did he there find? Why,) King Iames (ha∣ving now acted a Part at the Synod of Dort, condemned

the Arminians that he might save the Prince of Orange, and Archbishop Abbot coming not at him, and Dr. Iames Mounta∣gue being dead,) was Master of himself, (it seems before he had been a servant to others,) and Governed by the Light of his own most clear and excellent judgement, took both Moun∣tague and his Doctrines into his Protection, and gave him a quietus est from all those Calumnies of Popery and Arminian∣ism that were by the Informers laid on him, commanded Dr. Francis White to see his Appeal he was in hand with Licenced for the Press, and finally gave Order to Moun∣tague to dedicate the Book, when Licenced, to his Royal self.

These things are very unlikely; that a King should give command to have a Book Licenced before he had seen it or knew what would be in it, and that he should give Or∣der to have it Dedicated to himself: and because they are unlikely, I could be glad to see them confirmed by some irrefragable Authority; but find no Authority al∣ledged. Wherefore I am a very unbeliever in all these matters: so are most I meet with. But these things I am certain of, First, That in Mr. Mountagues Appeal there be down-right untruths in matter of fact; in which I do not find the Doctor going about to justifie or excuse him. Secondly, That never Book gave more discontent than his did; for it was answered by no fewer than five or six, all considerable in the Nation, all agreeing that he had de∣parted from the Doctrine of the Church. The Book was also censured in Parliament, as contrary to our Articles. Archbishop Abbot indeavoured the stopping of it before it came to light. Dr. White who had approved it, did pub∣lickly complain what a trick the Bishops had served him, promising to joyn with him in the approbation of the Book, but yet cowardly slipping their necks out of the Collar and leaving him to bear the whole envy of the Midwifery of so distastful a Book. Finally, King Charles himself, was feign both to pardon Mountague for all his Writings, and at last to call in his Book, as the great occa∣sion of many unneces••ary troubles. So I let pass Mr. Moun∣tague, of whom Dr. Prideaux publickly said that he was more a Grammarian, than a Divine.

As for King Iames, we are sure, from the Pen of Dr. Featly, (never used to wrong his Sovereign,) that, not many weeks before his death, he called the Arminians Hereticks: and so we conclude, that, for all his and Queen Elizabeths days, they were accounted Hereticks and their Doctrine Heresie. And seeing they were then so accounted, why now the broachers of that Doctrine, should be ac∣counted the most obedient Sons of the Church, is a questi∣on in which I would most gladly be satisfied. Until such satisfaction be gained, it will be at least a pardonable error to suppose, that that is not the Doctrine of the Church of England, which, for above threescore Years after her first esta∣blishment, was not averred in any one Licenced Book, but confuted in many.