Certamen epistolare, or, The letter-combate. Managed by Peter Heylyn, D.D. with 1. Mr. Baxter of Kederminster. 2. Dr. Barnard of Grays-Inne. 3. Mr. Hickman of Mag. C. Oxon. And 4. J.H. of the city of Westminster Esq; With 5. An appendix to the same, in answer to some passages in Mr. Fullers late Appeal.

Certamen Epistolare, Or The Letter Combate. PART. II. Containing the Intercourse of Let∣ters between Peter Heylyn, D. D. And Mr. Hickman of Magd. Coll. Oxon. Relating To the Historicall part of a Book Intituled The Justification of the Fathers and Schoolmen, &c.

Vell. Puterc. Histi. Lib. 2.

Ubi semel a recto deerratum est in preceps pervenitur, nec quisquam sibi turpe putat, quod aliis est Fructó∣sum.

Ide. ibid.

Familiare est hominibus, omnia sibi remittere, nihil aliis; Et invidiam non ad causam sed advolunta∣tem personas{que} dirigere.

LONDON, Printed in the Year, 1659.

To His much Respected Friend, Thomas Peirce, Master of Arts, and Rector of Bringhton in the Diocess of Peter-burrough.

SIR,

1. BEfore you had writ your Letter of the 8th of March, I had received another from an unknown hand, by which I was made ac∣quainted that your Antagonist of Magdalen Coll. had published his Pamphlet a second time, and made bolder with me in the second then the first Edition. And having given me some account of the Book, (which I could find no time of sufficient leisure to Enquire much after) he makes this request, that I would undertake an answer to the Historical part thereof, in which he labours to Evince, that the Cal∣vinistical opinions were the avowed doctrines of this Church. I had then some other work in hand, from which I was not willing to be taken off, by this di∣version, and therefore desired him to excuse me from that ingagement, which he so zealously (but very modestly withal) recommended to me. It was not long before I had received the like Advertise∣ment from a friend nere London, which I past over with as little Apprehension of the indignities and affronts which were done unto me, as I did the o∣ther. But yours of the Date above mentioned, fol∣lowing close upon them, I began to consider with my selfe, that there was somewhat more then ordi∣nary in this invitation, in which so many men con∣curred of such different dwellings, without com∣municating

their designs and thoughts unto one a∣nother. I found many Reasons in my selfe to de∣cline the business; my growing into years, my de∣cay of Sight, my want of necessary helps, the dis∣parity between the persons; and that having Ad∣versaries enough already, it would be a great impru∣dence in me to encrease their number, and make them swell into an Army. But on the other side, I considered also, the multiplicity of your Employ∣ments, the Charity which might be shown in easing you of some part of your burthen, the bitterness of the man against persons of Eminence, on whom he ought not to have looked without veneration; but most especially, that as I had appeared in de∣fence of the Church in my younger dayes, so it might ill become me to desert her now, being as yet in some Capacity of doing that service which you and others have so earnestly desired of me. Defen∣di Rem publ. Adolescens, non deseram senex, was Cicero's Resolution once, and shall now be mine. And because it was your Letter which pre∣vailed upon me more then any other, I have made bold to render my account to you from whose hand most especially I received the charge. First laying down the narrative of such preparatory Entercourse as passed betwixt me and your Antagonist, before I setled positively on the undertaking; and then de∣scending to the satisfaction of so many good friends, as far as I am able to serve them, and the Church in performance of it. Give me your patience for a time, whilest I address my lines unto you in my own behalf, and I shall little doubt of it, when I write of him, who hath made one Enemy of both. Alte∣rum a te p••to, ut me, pro me benigne; Alterum ipse

Efficiam, ut contra illum cum dicam attente audias, in the Orators words. But it is time to end my pre∣amble, and begin my story, which is thus.

2. It was by accident that Mr. Baxters Book of the Grotian Religion was unexpectedly offered to me, with intimation that I should find somewhat in the preface, which concerned my selfe. By the like accident, and with the same intimation also I came to know of Mr. Hickmans late Book in Justification of the Fathers, and Schoolmen, &c. It is not to be wondred if my Curiosity, or desire of self satisfacti∣on, first carried me to the consideration of my own concernments (as before it did) or that I should be much amazed to find my self so coursely hand∣led by a person I never heard of, nor perhaps ne∣ver might have done, but on that account. The Positivity of Sinne might be a Paradox or a truth, and so declared on either side without drawing me into the Quarrel, who have not hitherto engaged on the one side or the other. But Mr. Hickman that thinks so well of his own abilities, as to conceive no one man was to be looked upon as a competent Adversary, on whom to exercise his Pen, and there∣fore must raise up another who had not the least thoughts of contending with him. And that he might be sure to sharpen me to the Encounter he doth not onely touch upon me and so pass it over, as Mr. Baxter did before, but spends the best part of a leafe in loading me with Reproach and infamy. He had before given this unhandsome Character of you, whom he looks on as his principal Adversary; that you are one that drinks up scorning like water, and knows not how to mention the worthiest man alive,

if of a different judgment, without contempt; which he concludes with this smart Expression, that rather then you will not fight, you would contend with your own shaddow. Which said, he calls me a Bird of the same feather, makes me to take my flight from the Angel in Ivy-lane, intitles it to no small wonder that a Doctor in Divinity should so unworthily handle a Reverend Person, (it is the Lord Primate whom▪ he means) and finally declares, that a Book of mine had received the desert of its bitterness, in being burnt (for so he saith he was informed) by the hand of the Hangman. But let not these vinegar expres∣sions be a trouble to you, which I assure you stirre not me, who have long learnt with him in the old Historian, civili animo laceratam existimationem ferre, to bear with an undisturbed mind, the great∣est Calumnies which either the tongues or pens of malitious men can lay upon me.

3. For though this provocation might have been sufficient to have awakened one of a duller spirit, yet I resolved to sleep on still, and lookt no other∣wise on this passage then as the inconsiderable Phan∣tasme of an Idle Dream. I had before resolved not to put my hand to any controversie in which the Lord Primate was concerned, and so far satisfied Mr. Baxter in the not burning of the Book, that I conceived all further answer to that scandalous charge, to be altogether as unnecessary as the Charge was false. In satisfying him I should have sati••fied all others who had taken up the informati∣on or vulgar Hear-s••y, without inquiring into the falsity or malice of the first Report, if Mr. Hickman would have had the patience to have stayd so long.

4. But long I had not lain in this quiet slumber,

when I was rouzed by your Letter of March 8. in∣forming me of a second Edition of that Book; in which I did not bear a part in the Prologue only, as in that before, nor was made one of the Actors only in the body Tragi-Comedy, but that the mat∣ter of the whole Epilogue was of my mistakings: All which I could have slept out also, if the same Letter had not directed me to page 23, 24. where I should find a passage to this effect, viz. That Dr. Holland had turned Dr. Laud (the most Renowned Arch-Bishop of Canterbury) out of the Schools with disgrace, for but endeavouring to maintain, that Bi∣shops differed in order, not only in Degree from inferi∣our Presbyters. A son of Craesus which was dumb from his very birth could find a tongue, when he perceived his Father in danger of death, whom no extremity of his own might possibly have forced on so great a Miracle: And therefore I conceive, that it will not be looked upon in me as a matter of Pro∣digie, that the Dishonour done to so great a Pre∣late, who in his time was one of the Fathers of this Church, and the chief amongst them, should put me to a Resolution of breaking those bonds of si∣lence, which had before restrain'd me from advoca∣ting in my own behalfe. I was not willing howso∣ever to engage my self too rashly with an unknown Adversary, without endeavouring further to inform my self in his Grounds or Reasons. In which re∣spect I thought it most agreeable to the ingenuity which I had shown to Mr. Baxter on the like occa∣sions, to let him see how sensible I was of the injury done unto my self, and the indignity offered to the fame of so great a Person, before I would endea∣vour the righting of my self, or the vindicating of

his honour, in a publique way. To which end I addrest unto him these ensuing Lines.

Dr: Heylyn's first Letter to Mr. Hickman:

SIR,

5. YOur Book of the Justification of the Father••, &c. was not long since put into my hands, w^th a direction to a passage in the Preface of it. It was not long before I consulted the place; in which I found mention, that a Book of mine had received the desert of its bitterness, in being burnt by the hand of the publique Hangman. It seems you were so zealous in laying a Reproach upon me, that you ca∣red not whether it were true or false: It was thought a sufficient warrant to you, that you were informed so, without any further enquiring after it: Which pains if you would please to take, you might have learned, that though such a thing was much endea∣voured, yet it was not effected, i. e. that it went no further then noise and fame, which served to some instead of all other proofs. I was advertised yester∣day by several Letters, that the Book is come to a second Edition, in which you have not only made bold with me (which I can easily contemn) but have laid a fouler Reproach on the Late Arch-Bi∣shop of Canterbury, in being disgracefully turn'd out of the Schools by Dr. Holland. But Sir, however you may please to deal with such a poor fellow as I am, you ought to have carried a greater Reverence towards a Prelate of such eminent Parts, and Place, whose Memory is more precious amongst all that love the Church of England, then to suffer it to be

so defamed, and by such a person. You pretend Information for the ground of your other errour, but for this I believe you would be troubled to pro∣duce your Authors. And if there be no more truth in the other parts of your Book, in which you deliver points of Doctrine, then you have shown in these two passages, in which you relate to mat∣ters of fact; you had need pray to meet with none but ignorant Readers, such as are fit to be abus'd, and not with any knowing and intelligent man. Excuse me if my love to truth, and my tenderness to a name which I so much honour, have extorted from me these few lines, which are most heartily recommend∣ed to your consideration, as you are to the grace and blessings of Almighty God, by

Your very affectionate friend, and Christian Brother Peter Heylyn.

Abingdon. March. 19. 1658.

6. By this time I had got the Book, which I cau∣sed to be read over to me, till I came to page 38. where I found my self as much concerned as be∣fore in the Preface, and the integrity of Dr. Burlow once Dean of Chester, and afterwards successively Bishop of Rochester, and Lincoln, to be more de∣cryed, then Dr. Laud the late Arch-Bishops, was dishonoured in the former passage. This put me to a present stand, and I resolved to go no further till I had certified the Author of my second Grie∣vance, which I did accordingly. I had waited some∣what more then a week since I had writ my other Letter, without receiving any answer. The shoot∣ing of a second Arrow after the first might possibly

procure a return to both, and so it proved in the event. But take my second Letter first, and then we may expect his answer unto both together. Now the second Letter was as followeth.

Dr. Heylyn's second Letter to Mr. Hickman.

SIR,

7. SInce the writing of my former Letter, the last Edition of your Book hath been brought unto me. In which I find p. 23. that you ground your self upon the Testimony of some who are still alive, for Laud's being disgracefully turned out of the Di∣nity Schools by Dr. Holland. I find also p. 38. that Dr. Burlow did upon his death-bed with grief complain of the wrong he had done to Dr. Reynolds, and those who joyned with him in mis-reporting some of their An∣swers, and certain passages therein contained. And of the truth of this you say that you are able to give a satisfactory account to any person of ingenuity, who shall desire it. Sir, I am not ashamed of having so much of a Suffenus, as to entitle my self to some in∣genuity, and therefore think it not amiss to claim your promise, and to desire a more satisfactory ac∣count in that particular then your bare, affirmation. This with your nomination of the parties, who are still alive, and able to testifie to the truth of the o∣ther, I desire you would please to let me have with the first conveniency. If no speedy opportunity doth present it self, you may send to me by the Prea∣cher who comes hither on Sunday. I expected that my former Letter would have been gratified with an answer; but if you send me none to this, I sha••l

think you cannot And so commending you and your Studies (so far forth as they shall co-operate to the peace of the Church) to God's heavenly Blessing, I subscribe my self,

Your very affectionate Friend, to serve you, Peter Heylyn.

Abingdon, Mar. 28. 1659.

8. This Letter being sent after the other, it was no hard matter to divine of the answer to it, if any an∣swer came at all. I might have learned by my ad∣dress to M. Baxter, that there was nothing to be gained by such civilities, but one reproach upon ano∣ther, men of that spirit being generally for quod scripsi scripsi (as we know who was) seldome accusto∣med to retract or qualify what they once had writ∣ten: But as my own ingenuity invited me to write the first, so to the sending of the second, I was direct∣ed in a manner by the Justificator, pag. 15. where he complains, that you, M. Peirce, did not endea∣vour to purge the peccant humor by a private Letter, be∣fore you made the passionate adventure, of calling him obstinate: This made me not without some thoughts, that a private Letter might prevail upon such a per∣son, who desired not to be accounted obstinate in his own opinions; from which modesty I might col∣lect a probable hope, that he would not persevere in any error when he was once convinced of it, but rather make amends to truth, and reparation to the parties which were injured by him: The least I could expect (if he vouchsaft me any answer) was to learn the name or names of those, by whom the yong man

had been abused in the information, which might entitle me perhaps to some other adversary, whom I had more desire to deal with: But if no answer came at all, as perchance there might not, I should be able to conclude, that he had neither proof nor Author for either calumny; which whether he had or not, will evidently appear by the following Letters; which, though unlookt for, came at last, to make good the Proverb, and are here subjoyned verbatim, without alteration.

M. Hickman's Answer to D. Heylyn's first Letter.

SIR,

9. YOu are pleased to honour me with a Letter, and to subscribe your self, my very loving Friend, and Christian Brother; I take it for a great favour, and shall be heartily glad, if my Answer may procure a good understanding betwixt us, and pre∣vent any further trouble. Your charge is threefold. 1. That in the Preface to my first Edition, I say, That your Book had, as I was informed, received the desert of its bitterness, being burnt by the hand of the common hang-man. I deny not the words, nor can I see any reason to be ashamed of them: For 1. There is an Ordinance of the Lords and Commons still in force, commanding that all Books of the com∣plexion yours is of, should be seized, and publique∣ly burnt. 2. It was commonly noised, that your Book against the Arch-Bishop of Armagh was actu∣ally burned. 3. I proceeded not barely upon com∣mon

report, but had my intelligence from one of no mean employment, who hath his constant resi∣dence at White Hall; and I am pretty confident your Book had been de facto so disgraced, if the sick∣ness and death of the late Protector, had not put the Privy counsel upon minding matters of higher concernment. And will you now say that I was so zealous in fastening a reproach upon you, that I cared not whether it were true or false. You have in your own Books printed many matters of fact, with more confidence, for which you cannot pretend so much ground. 2. You charge me that I have made bold with you in my second Edition, Novum crimen & ante haee tempora inauditum: You had in your Examen Historicum bestowed some ugly words up∣on a Colledge, never to mentioned without honour and I, by a true relating the whole business, against which you so much exclaim, labour to vindicate the credit of the Society, and for this I must be account∣ed bold: Who can help it? 3. You charge me for laying a fouler reproach on the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, because I intimate, that he was disgrace∣fully turned out of the Divinity Schooles by Dr. Hol∣land; and for this you say, I would be troubled to produce my Author: It may be you and I are not agreed what it is to be disgracefully turned out of the Schools; but if this be it, to be publiquely checkt for a seditious person, who would unchurch the Protestant Churches beyond the Sea, and sow division betwixt us and them, by a novel Popish Posi∣tion: You cannot sure think, that it will be any trouble to me to produce my Author: For you cen∣sure, and therefore I presume have read M. Prinne's Breviate, in which all this is extant totidem verbis;

That Author having laid such a charge, and none of the Arch-Bishops friends having all this while plead∣ed not guilty, I might take it pro Confesso: yet I must tell you, M. Prinne's is not the onely Ground on which I proceed, though what my other Grounds be I shall not declare, till I well understand what use you intend to make of my Letters.

And now, Sir, I hope that lamentable jeer of my standing in need to pray for Ignorant Readers, and such as are fit to be abused might have been spa∣red, (& been bestowed upon some Temporizer, whose design it is to ingratiate himselfe with great ones, who can complement a Prince so Highly, as to style himselfe his Creature, and the workmanship of his hands; For my own part, Favour, and Riches, I nei∣ther want nor seek: I have so much of a man in me, to be very subject to Errors, but I hope I have not so little of a Christian in me, as not to be very willing to recall any Error, which by any learned man shall be discovered to me. The Design of the Historical part of my Book, is to prove that till Bishop Laud sat in the Saddle, our Divines of prime Note, and Authority, did in the Five points deliver themselves consonantly to the determinations of the Synod of Dort; and that they were enjoyn'd Recantation, who were known either to Broach or Print that which now is called Arminianism: Can any one deny this? In my Doctrinal part, I assert that malum morale quà tale non est Ens positivum. In which I promise my self, that I shall not have you (who profess to take your Opinions from the Fathers) an Adversary. I deny not whose name you so much honour, hath in many things deserved well of the University, but that his name should be so precious as you intimate

to all who love the Church of England, I am not yet convinced▪ Me thinks the Character Isidor. Pelus▪ gives of Eusebius, lib. 2. Epist. 246. doth too well suit him. That whole Epistle is most heartily recom∣mended to your Reading, and so are you to the Grace of Jesus Christ by

Your most humble Servant, Henry Hickman.

Mr. Hickmans Answer to Dr. Heylyns se∣cond Letter.

SIR,

10. THis Letter was drawn up the last week, and had been sent but that I was necessitated to be absent from the University for two or three days: I have now received a second Letter, wherein you desire (by virtue of a promise made in my second Edition) to know what Grounds I had had to af∣firm, that Dr. Burlow, did declare his trouble for some wrong done to Dr. Reynolds, &c. in relating the Hampton-Court Controversie. Sir, I will not censure you to have no Ingenuity; but yet you must pardon me if I refuse to give you any further account of the matter till I understand, first, whe∣ther you will deal as plainly with me about some things contained in your own Examen Historicum. Will you send me word what the names of those men are, who said two of your Sermons about the Tares had done more mischief to the Papists, then all the Sermons that ever Dr. Prideaux preached

against them, and what the name of that man is, who did by Bishop Williams his appointment, give a pension out of his place for the maintenance of a Scholar. 2. I would gladly know whether you in∣tend what I write, onely for your own private sa∣tisfaction, and not for publick view. 3. I would willingly be informed what you would take for sa∣tisfaction, whether it will suffice if I prove the bu∣siness from the mouth of one, who was a lover of the English Prelacy, Liturgy, and Ceremony. When you have satisfied me, you may suddenly expect an answer from him, who again subscribes himself

Your humble Servant, Henry Hickman.

Magd. Coll. Ap. 1. 1659.

11. These Answers leaving me as unsatisfied as before I was, I found that I had lost both my hopes, and labour, for the declining of a business which I was not willing to appear in, if any satisfaction had been given me otherwise▪ And therefore since he was not pleased to declare himselfe so freely to me in a private way, as to beget between us such a right understanding, as might prevent all further trouble (which his first Letter seemed to wish) I see not how I can avoid the making of a more publick busi∣ness of it then I first intended, unless I should betray my self unto scorn, and censure: My Letters being in his hands cannot be recalled, and if I should not now proceed, to give the world that satisfaction which I lookt for from him, in the retracting of his Calumnies, and salfe Reports; he and his friends might think I could not. In the pursuit whereof I purposed, to have gone no further, then the vindi∣cating

of my self, and those whose names are dear unto me, from the obstinacy of his Reproaches. But he hath hinted me, I thank him, to another Argu∣ment, relating to the Historicall part of his dis∣course; of which perhaps I may render you an ac∣count also before we part. Beginning at the lowest step I shall ascend at last by leisure, to the top of the Stairs; that having answered for my self, I may be credited the more when I speak for others.

The Answer of P. Heylyn D. D. to Mr. Hick∣man's Letters of April 1. Relating to some Passages in a Book called, The Justifica∣tion of the Fathers, &c.

11. IT was good Councel which Demaratus of Co∣rinth gave to Philip of Macedon, when he ad∣vised him to settle all things well at home, before he intermedled in the differences, amongst the Grecians. In correspondence whereunto I shall first do my best Endeavour, to acquit my self from those Re∣proaches, which the Justificator with a Prodigal hand hath bestowed upon me; and thereby fit my self the better for advocating in behalf of those e∣minent persons, of whose Renown I am more so∣licitous then my one Concernments. Beginning therefore with my self, in the first place I must take notice of his practise to make me clash with the Lord Primate, whose Rest I desire not to disturbe upon any occasion. He should have first reconciled those two passages which I proposed to D. Barnard. p. 103. 104. of Respondit Petrus, before he had made it such a wonder that a Doctor of Divinity should so

unworthily handle a Reverend person, and fasten up∣on him a dissent from the Church of England, in a mater wherein he doth so perfectly agree with her. If so, if he agree so perfectly with the Church of Eng∣land, how comes he to differ from himselfe, and speak such contradictions as D. Barnard, nor no o∣ther of his great Admirers can find a way to recon∣cile to the sence of the Church? Or if they can, or that they think those contradictions, not consider∣able for making his Agreement the lesse perfect with the Church, of England, you have gained the point which you contended for, in your dispute which M. Bu••le, and D. Barnard laboured to de∣prive you of in his Book of the Lord Primates Judg∣ment, intended against none by name, but your selfe and me, though others be as much concerned in the General Interess.

12. Much good may the Concession do you. What comes after next? the burning of the Book by the common Hangman. I thought that Ignis fatuus had had been quencht sufficiently by the assurance, which I gave him to the contrary in my Letter of the 19th of March. But his desire to have it so is so prevalent with him▪ that he neither doth deny the words, nor can find any Reason to be ashamed of them, be they never so false. And what Ground can we find for so great a confidence? 1. He appeals un∣to an Ordinance made in the year 1646. Which Or∣dinance he pretends to be still in force▪ but whe∣ther it be so or not, is a harder Question then a greater Lawyer can determine. That Ordinance ma∣king ••o Report▪ he flyes next to a common noise, which Rings still in his Ears, and must gain credit, either as a noise or common, or as both together;

though for the most part, the louder the noise is, and the more common it grows, the less credit to be gi∣ven unto it. You know well what the two great Po∣ets say of Fame,

—Fama malum velox—quae veris addere falsa, Gaudet, & Eminimo sua per mendacia crescit.

But yet not seeming to lay much strength upon common Fame (though it be one of his best Authors in some other cases) he pretends unto a special Re∣velation from the Privy Council, and grows so con∣fident upon the strength of the intelligence, that he holds at White-Hall (which all great States-men must pretend to) that he is sure the Book de Facto had been so disgraced (though whether disgraced by being so burnt is another question) if the sick∣ness and death of the late Protector, had not put the Privy Council upon minding maters of higher concern∣ment. The contrary whereof my Postscript unto M. Baxter hath most clearly Evidenced.

13. The second charge wherein I stand single by my self, is onely toucht at in the Letter, where I am said to have bestowed some ugly words upon a Colledge not to be mentioned without honour; in∣sisted on more largely in the fag end of the Book without the least coherence or relation to it. And there this man of brass makes me worse then a Tin∣ker (a rude Expression, which declares him to be better studied in his Metaphisicks, then his Mo∣ral Philosophy) in committing more and fouler Errors then those I find in Mr. Fuller. Not universally I hope, but in that particular passage touching Mag∣dalen Colledge; but whether so or not, we shall see a∣non;

first taking notice of the Proverb, Concern∣ing Birds which defile their own nests, as he thinks I do. But (be it spoken in good time) there is an observation or tradition amongst Country people, that the Cuckow layeth her Eggs in the Hedge. Spar∣rows nest, where they are hatched and cherished till they grow so strong, as to drive the poor Sparrows out of their nest, and keep it wholly to themselves. Now, Sir, if any of the old Sparrows, should disco∣ver the Rapacity of these young Cuckowes▪ & signifie the same to the rest of the Birds; could they be properly accused for defiling their own nest in so doing? I believe they could not, and I conceive all understanding men will believe so to. In this parti∣cular I stand condemned, but not convicted, for being injurious to the Reformation, and to Magdalen Colledge, for disquieting the Ashes of a Reverend and most pious professor, by telling the world so long after his death, that he had the infelicity of being joyn∣ed to an unthrifty wife; and finally for uttering as much uncharitableness and partiality as could well be contained in so few lines.

14. But first where is it to be found, that I im∣pute this act of Rapine to the Reformation. The Re∣formation may be good, and the Alteration to the better for any thing that can be found in that Ani∣madversion, though some that had the benefit of it intended more their private gaine then the publick honour If any were injurious to the Reformation, it must be they that took the purse, and not the of∣ficers who follow the Hue and Cry, to bring back the money. I confess Magdalen Colledge is a name by me never to be mentioned without honour, and I should be more ashamed of my self then the Justi∣ficator,

had I bestowed any ugly words▪ upon that foundation. But the Cuckowes do not make the nest, nor can some Ʋsu-Fructaries, though they pre∣tend a jus in re, (as you know who saith) affirme themselves to be the Colledge. As little injury then is done to the name and memory of that Pious Pro∣fessor, D. Humphries, of whose unthrifty wife, it is he that tells the world, not I. He distinguisheth fre∣quently in his Book, betwixt a Negation and a Pri∣vation, betwixt Positivum, and Privativum; and therefore cannot chuse but know that there is a difference, betwixt my Character, and his. The Gen∣tlewoman might be no provident Housewife, which is all I say, and yet not be unthrifty neither, as the Phrase is varied, w^ch of the two hath more disquiet∣ed the husband, or been more injurious to the wife, may be easily judged without putting the difference to a tryal in the Court of Honour. And for unchari∣tableness and partiality, I would fain know, in what respect I can be charged with either of them▪ un∣less it be, in speaking more favourably of the Fact, then it hath deserved; and passing by in silence the offence it gave to the Right Learned Selden, which as is said (but I am sure not said by me) did hinder him from bestowing his Library on the Ʋniversi∣tie.

15. Let us next see whether the Brasier or the Tinker, make the foulest work. The Tinker charges it no farther then to be a Tradition, that some considerable summe of Mony had been left by the Founder, for the ends there mentioned. The Bra∣sier hath produced a Statute for it, to which all those of that Society ought to take their Oath, and con∣sequently in excusing them of Rapine, he condemns

them of perjury. The Tinker takes no notice of any but the Fellows who had the division of the spoil, of no more then thirty double Pistolets to every Fel∣low; and of no greater Exchange for every Pistolet then 16 s. 6 d. In which particulars he had as good intelligence as some Friends whom he imploy'd in the Enquiry, could return unto him. The Brasier acknowledges, that every Pistolet was exchanged for 18 s. 6 d. at the least, some of them for 19 s. and some for 20 s. that every fellow had 33 peeces for his single share, and that the booty was so Rich, that even the under graduate Choristers had their part therein; Which as it makes the crime the greater, and the more diffusive, so is the guilt there∣of increased by the Distribution. The Tinker saith as he was inform'd, that the Old Doctor had no fewer then 100 peeces for his part of the spoil, of which the Brasier doth assure us, that little justice, if not great injustice hath been done her in it. How so? because saith he, That he first denyed his con∣sent. For taking the Gold out of the Tower. Secondly, Because the Doctor, said once at a publick meeting▪ That all mony must be restored. And 3. because he continued in the same minde, when he lay on his death bed. All which might be, or might not be, 'tis no matter which; and yet he might have no fewer then 100 of those peeces for his part of the spoil; which with so little justice or great injustice is impu∣ted to him. If any General Restitution hath been made of the Money, it was well done of them that did it, of which as I never heard before, (D. Cross excepted) so I am glad to hear it now; though if the summe should be made up it will not be preser∣ved with such care and conscience, as in former

times. The secret being once discovered, will be a strong temptation to some itching fingers, when any colour of necessity may disguise the sacriledge. If this be all he hath to say, in the defen••e of the society, for which he fears to have provok'd me to become his adversary, I shall absolutely free him from that fear, as I shall do a common Lawyer that speaks for his Client, with better title to his Fee, then this Ad∣vocate can pretend unto for the present service, for Causa Patrocinio, and the rest that follows, proves plainly, that a broken cause is made much worse by often and unskilful handling.

16. But for all that the Brasier is the better trade he makes all things new, a fine New Nothing touch∣ing the Miraculous discovery of this Golden Mine, not to be parralell'd by Purchas his Pilgrims. Josk∣pha Costa his Navigations, or Hackluit's Voyages. Necessitated by a vast debt of 1600 l. contracted by the old Sparrows with the Great Rush of Madagas∣cer, of which huge bird Mr. Buvechus telleth us out of Paulus Venetus lib. 7. cap. 2. Which if it were false, why was it told to the Demites; if true, why told to no body else. This vast debt payd, and 500▪. layd up in the common Treasury, and that too in so ••hort a space, that the Fellows and Scholars must be ••hought to live in the mean time upon air, or hope, ••r somewhat of as thin a nature, an arrear of 700▪. being also lost, like King Johns Bag and Bagga••••, ••n the Fenns of Lincolnshire. The mistaking of a ••iberal summe in old French Pistolets, unknown to ••ny of the society for a mutuum annually borrowed, ••nd repaid in good English Silver, the apprehensi∣••n of their danger, left the Souldiers garrisoned in ••he Town, and looking on themselves as Lords of

the soil should lay some claim unto the money as Treasure trou-ve though it were only lockt up in a chest, not under the ground. But the strange man∣ner how they found it goes beyond all this, Porce∣de luck on't. Hilkiah the High-Priest by searching into the treasures of the Temple, found the book of the Law; but these good Fellows looking after a book of the Law, must find the treasures of the Temple. What pitty was it, that such a heap of dainty Gold should be spoiled with rust, whilst so many Purses languisht under a vacuity, then which there could be nothing more abhorrent from the Rules of Philosophy. I had before read over the Legenda Aurea, and some part of the Legenda Lig∣nea also. But row behold, Tertia post illam suc∣c••ss•••• Ahenea. See here a brazen legend to be ad∣ded to the other two, but more worth then both.

17. But your Adversary will not leave me yet; he hath two questions to propose. 1. Whether he that takes money for the Resignation of a fellowship be bound to restore. And 2. Whether he that is married, and carrieth it so clancularly, that the house can make no just proof of it, be not bound to restore all the bene∣fits that he received from his place, after his halfe year is expired. And here I might take leave to fol∣low your Adversaries way of Disputation, in answer∣ing one Question with another, and standing for some satisfaction to two Queries of mind before I re∣turn any to his. And my two Queries shall be these. 1. Whether the taking away of the Almes-Basket and the suppressing of so many Gaudies, and Pie-Gaudies, to the destruction of the hospitality and charity of the noble f••undation, do not tend more unto the profit of the present Fellows then to the credit of the Society?

2. By what Rule of Equity they can dep••ive the De∣mies and Choristers (whose dinners were too small be∣fore) of that unlimited allowance of bread and beer which of old they had, reducing them at first to an al∣lowance of 2^s 6^d by the week, and afterwards retrench∣ing that to two shillings only. I might defer the sa∣tisfying of his Questions till he answer these; but I shall deal more freely with him, and content him presently. First then for answer to the last. Mime ad∣sum qui feci. This reflects on me, who held my Fel∣lowship above a twelve month more then his allow∣ance. But first it was no clandestine or clancular marriage, but carried openly enough▪ The Col∣ledge Chappel was set out by my appointment with it's richest Ornaments, the Marriage was performed on St. Symons and Judes day, between 10 and 11 of the clock in the morning, and in the presence of a sufficient number of Witnesses of both Sexes, ac∣cording both to Law and Practise. The wedding dinner kept in my own Chamber, some Doctors and their wives, and five or six of the Society invited to it. My wife placed at the head of the Table, and by me publickly desired to make much of the company▪ the Town Musick playing, and my self waiting at the Table the most part of the Dinner, no old for∣mality wanting to my best remembrance which was accustomably required (even to the very giving of Gloves) at a solemn wedding. No clancular carri∣age in all this, no deceit put upon the Colledge, and therefore no necessity of a Restitution; the Colledge saving my dyet, and the Fellows getting my Minor Dividents for the greatest part of the time till I left the house. And for the other, admitting I should determine in the Affirmative, what would the Col∣ledge

get by that; For granting that he who takes money for a Resignation, be bound to restore it; yet must it be restored unto the parties, and to their Re∣lations, of whom he received it, and not to the So∣ciety or corporation of whom he received it not. And therefore granting, that those who have taken money for a Resignation should be bound to restore it, the Colledge Chest would prove so far from being fuller then the Founder left it, that it would still remain as empty as these Confounders made it. If he hath any more questions to propound unto me he shall not take me unprovided of as ready An∣swers.

18. In the mean time I must desire you to take notice how Eagle-ey'd he is in his own concern∣ments, and how blind in others. He tells you p. 14. that if you had been a Resident at the Ʋniversity, Mr. Vice-Chan. had been bound upon his complaint to have punished you with banition, or at least with incarcera∣tion or publique Recantation, for bestowing some smart speeches and expressions on him: and there∣fore I may tell him, on far better Reasons, that if I were a resident in Magdalen Colledge▪ the Presi∣dent had been bound to put him out of Commons, upon the Local Statute of Verba Brigosa; or the Vice Chancelour obliged to inflict the same punish∣ments on him which he finds for you, or the next Justice to have bound him to his Good Behaviour, for offending contra bonos mores, in using to a Doctour of Divinity such reproachful words as he doth in the Preface, and giving him the odious name of Tinker in the end of his Pamphlet. But I leave him to Gods mercy, and your Castigation, saying no more of him at this present time, then Bishop Jewel

did of Cartwright, when he first took up arms against the Church, viz Stultit••a est in corde p••eri, sed virga disciplinae fugabit eam.

19. In the next charge I cannot seperate my own interest from that of the right Reverend Father in God, D. William Burlow, once Lord Bishop of Lincoln; though there be somewhat in it which con∣cerns my self, and some which relates only to that Reverend Prelate. In reference to my self alone, he tells me in his second Letter, That though he will not censure me to have no ingenuity, yet I must par∣don him if he refuse to give me any account of that particular, which I conceived by vertue of a promise he was bound to give me: Where you may see, that though he will not censure me to have no ingenuity, yet he doth not grant me to have any; which whe∣ther it be a negative or a privative condemnation, I leave to be disputed at the next encounter in the School of Complement. And secondly, you may see what shifts he hath to avoid the satisfying of the debt, which he cannot pay, but by putting such Conditions on me as are not to be found in the Ob∣ligation: I am charged also in the Book, for lashing the Church Historians for any expression that is in the least favorable to the poor Puritans (as he calls them) of which let him that feels the smart seek out for re∣medies. That which concerns me in relation to Bishop Burlow, is my acquitting him from shewing any par∣tiality, in summing up the conference at Hampton Court; a matter never charged upon him by the Puritan faction, more then twenty years after his death, and more then thirty years after the publish∣ing of that Book; which as the Church Historian saith, to have been complained of, so doth he only

say, not prove it; and affirmations or complaints are no legal evidences, where there are any reasons of strength to evince the contrary; but what he wants shall be supplied by the Antagonist; who fearing to be prevented in it, puts the best legg for∣wards, crying out with more hast then good speed, That he will Answer the Doctor: Admit him to his Answer, and he will tell us, That the times were evil, that the prudent did think themselves obliged to be si∣lent, and that God did so order the matter, that they lost no credit by a quiet committing their cause to him. How so? Because (saith he) D. Burlow lying on his death bed▪ did with grief complain of the wrong which he had done to D. Reynolds, and others that joyned with him in that conference. If this be prooved, we will admit of all the rest; but if this be not proved, all the rest is nothing: And for the proof of this he is able (as he saith) to give a satisfactory account to any person of ingenuity, who desires it of him: I would have took him at his word, desiring earnestly to be satisfied in the truth thereof, presuming that I might lay claim to so much ingenuity, as would entitle me to a capacity of obtaining that favour▪

20. But in this point I reckoned without my host; for though I pressed my desire so far, as to conclude that if he did not gratifie me with an Answer, I should think he could not; yet I am stil as far from satisfacti∣on as at first I was: I must first gratifie him, in an∣swering such demands as he puts unto me, imperti∣nent to the cause in hand, and such as the nature of the point in issue cannot bind me too, by any Rule of Disputation in the Schools of Logick, or else the evidence desired must not be produced. I gave some reason why I was not willing to name the parties

who received or paid the pension, given by Bishop Williams▪ towards the maintenance of a Scholer; two of the parties to my knowledg, and the third for any thing I know to the contrary, being still alive otherwise I could not only name the men, but pro∣duce the acquittance. And for the words relating to Bishop Prideaux, they were spoke at a great Ta∣ble in the Court in the hearing of many; and being spoken in the Court, must refer only to such Ser∣mons as were preached at the Court, and not to all which had been preached elswhete, by that learned Bishop: The Sermons will be shortly published, if not done already, and will be able to speak as much for themselves, as can be desi••ed of me to do. The witness in the cause touching Bishop Burlow, may appear securely, without drawing danger to himself, and will be heard, no Question, both with love and freedom: For if he be a lover of the English Prela∣cy, Liturgie, and Ceremonies, who is to attest unto this truth, I know of none who can refuse to give credit to it; but if he take up the report at the se∣cond hand▪ from one who told him that he took it from the Doctors mouth, and not from the man himself that spake it, his witness may be lyable to just exception, and then we are but as we were, without proof at all. He vaunts it somewhere in his Book, That he is furnished with a cloud of Witnesses, to ju∣stifie his cause against you; but in this point, and the next that follows, his Witnesses are all in a cloud (shadowed as Aeneas and his followers were from the sight of Dido) so that no mortal eye can see them. Et idem est non esse et non apparere, was the Rule of old.

21. Upon no better grounds then this, he lays a

fouler reproach on the late most Reverend and still Arch-Bishop of Canterbury, as being turned out of the Divinity Schools with disgrace by D. Holland, in publi¦cis, commitiis, for but endaevouring to maintain▪ That Bishops differed in order, and not in degree only, from in∣feriour Presbiters. I reproved him for this in my first Letter, and told him how much he would be trou∣bled to produce his Author; he shifted it off, by say∣ing that he means no otherwise by being turned out of the Schooles with disgrace, then that he was pub∣liquely checkt by the said D. Holland, for maintain∣ing the said opinion; and having M. Prinnes Brevi∣ate for the truth of this, he thinks it a sufficient proof▪ also to confirm the other: but is it possible that any man, who pretends but to a grain of ingenuity or learning, should dare to lay so base a calumnie on so great a person, and hope to salve the matter by such a ridiculous explication, as may justly render him contemptible to the silliest School-boy: Assu∣redly if he received a publique check, be that same with being disgracefully turned out of the Schools, there must be more turned out of the Schools with as much disgrace, because as much reprehended and checkt as he, of whom the foulest mouth could ne∣ver raise so leud a slander. The Doctor of the Chair in the Divinity Schools at Oxon, would be more ab∣solute in his decisions and determinations, were this once allowed of, then all the Popes that ever sate in Peter's Chair, since they first laid claim to it.

22. But he goes on, and adds that this disgrace was put upon him, for maintaining such a novel Popish Position, as that before. Not Novel I am sure: for the ancient Writers call the solemn form of consecrating a Bishop by no other name then that of Ordinatio

Episcopi; and if the Bishop at his Consecration doth receive no Order, his consecration ought not to be styled an Ordination. And if it be not Novel, then it is not Popish, (for id verum quod pri∣mum, as they Father it) unlesse he will be pleased to make Popery Primitive, and intitle it to the Eldest times of Christianity. But Popish if it needs must be, then must the Form of Consecration of Arch-Bishops, Bishops, &c. be accounted Popish, for which it stands acquitted by the Book of Arti∣cles, and the two Parliaments of K. Edw. 6. Queen Eliz. must be Popish also, by which that Form of Consecration was confirmed and Ratified. Twice in the Preface to the Book, we find mention of three Orders, of Ministers in the Church of Christ, Bi¦shops, Priests, and Deacons, and this distinction made as antient as the very times of the Apostles. And in the Book it selfe, besides the three distinct forms of Ordination; the one for Bishops, the other for Priests, and the third for Deacons, in one of the Prayers used at the Consecrating of a Bishop, it is distinctly called an Order; all w^ch he could not chuse but see in that very Chapter of the Book called, Respondit Petrus, in which he finds me questioning the Lord Primates Iudgement, touching the univer∣sality of Redemption by the death of Christ. The Books confirmed by Act of Parliament in the 5th. and 6th. of Edw. 6. Repealed in the first yeare of Queen Mary, continuing notwithstanding in use and practise for the first seven years of Queen Eli∣zabeth, and reconfirmed by Parliament the next year after, upon occasion of a difference, between Bon∣••er the late bloody Bishop of London, and Horn

then Bishop of Winchester. His Grace had there∣fore very good Reason not to change his judge∣ment, and to press very hard on Bishop Hall not to wave that point (for which he stands censured by our Adversary, p. 24.) and to insist upon it more then at other times when the Scotish Presbyterians had began to revive the question, for which he stands condemned also. p 25.

23. But see the Candor of the man, and how like he seems to Aesops Dog when he lay in the Manger; not giving the Arch-Bishop a good word himselfe, nor suffering any other to do it without snarling at him. I had signified in my first Letter, that the Arch-Bishops memory was too precious, amongst all that loved the Church of England, to suffer him to be so defamed, and by such a person. Your Adversary doth not deny, because he cannot, that in many things he had deserved well of the Ʋniversity, but will not yield himself convinced, that his memory should be so precious, (as my Letter intimates) to all that love the Church of England. And a squint eye he casts on some body for a Temporizer, whose design it was to ingratiate himself with great ones, and could complement a Prince so highly, as to style him∣self his Creature, and the workmanship of his hands. But who it is whom he so decyphereth, or whether he means any one man or not, but onely casts abroad his censures (as Boyes throw their stones) without any proper aim▪ or object but the love of the sport; I am not able to find out, in my best remembrance. Passing by therefore such Aenigma's as I cannot unriddle, I must needs take notice, how he applyes the Character to him, of which Isidore Pelusi.

gives unto one Eusebus a wretched fellow of those times, and one who took upon himself the name and office of a Bishop; The Character to be found in the 24. Epistle, of his second Book; and the Epi∣stle recommended to my diligent Reading.

23. He tells me that the Character contained therein▪ doth two well suit with the Arch-Bishop; but I find it otherwise. Eusebius (as the Author tells us) would not know the difference between the Temple and the Church, between the place of the Assembly, and the Congregation; sparing no cost to build, repair, and beautifie the one; but vex∣ing, disquieting and expelling the righteous soul, to many of which, he had given great matter of of∣fence or scandal, dum multis offendiculis causam prebet, probos viros expellere, &c. The same he flo∣risheth over again in the following words, conclu∣ding with this Observation, That in the Primitive times when there were no Temples, the Church was plentifully adorned with all heavenly Graces; but that in his time the Temples were adorned beyond Moderation; Ecclesia vero, Canviciis & Cavillis in cessitur, but the poor Church reproached and re∣viled upon all occasions, such is the Character which Isidore gives to this Eusebus. But that this Cha∣racter should suit too well with the late Arch-Bi∣shop, is a greater scandal then ever Eusebus gave to the weak brethren of the Church of Pelusium. For will your Adversary confine the Church (as some wild Affricans did of old) intra partem Do∣nati, within the Conventicles and Clancular meet∣ings of the Puritan Faction? Or hath he confidence to averre, that any Righteous and Religious person

was expelled this Church (understand me of the Church of England) whom either Faction or Se∣dition, in conformity or disobedience, spiritual pride, or fear of punishment did not hurry out of it.* 6.1 Just so it was Railed out by Brother Burton, in his Libel falsly called a Sermon, where he affirms that the edge of Dscipiline was turned mainly against Gods people and ministers, even for their virtue, piety and worth; and because they would not conform to their (the Bishops) impious Orders. Just so it was once preached in a Latine Sermon at St. Maryes in Oxon, by Bayley one of the old brood of Puritans in Mag∣dalen Colledge, that good and Godly men were purposely excluded from preferments there, ob hoc ipsum, quod pii, quod boni, onely because they were enclined to virtue and piety. With spight and cal∣lumnie enough, but not to be compared with his who so reproachfully hath handled this Renowned Prelate, and the poor sequestred, and ejected Clergy of the Church of England. But Judas did the like before to his Lord and Master. And there∣upon St. Cyprian very well inferres, nec nobis turpe esse pati▪ quae passus est Christus, nec illis gloriam fa∣cere, quae f••cerat Judas.

24. And here I would have ended with your puis∣sant Adversary, but that his Letter carries me to a new ingagement. He tells me there, that in the Hi∣storical part of his discourse he hath proved, that till D. Laud sat in the Saddle, our Divines of prime Note and Authority did, in the five points, deliver themselves consonantly to the determination of the Synod of Dort, and that they were enjoyned Recan∣tation,

who were known either to preach or print that which is now called Arminianism, and thinks that no body can deny it for a truth infallible. But first if we allow this for a good and sufficient Argument, it will serve as strongly for the Papists against all those who laboured in the Reformation. For what one point do we maintain against those of Rome in which the Divines of prime Note and Authority in the Church of Rome did not deliver themselves as con∣sonantly to the preceding Doctrines of the School∣men there, and to the subsequent determinations of the Council of Trent; and for opposing which manner of Persons, were constrained to a Recan∣tation, who either preacht or printed in defence of that which is now called Protestantism. And 2dly, if we behold the constitution of our University, when D. Humphrys a moderate non-conformist (but a non∣conformist howsoever) as M. Fuller is pleased to call him, possest the Divinity Chaire, for almost forty years; and D. Reynolds, a Rigid non-Confor∣mist, publiquely read a Divinity Lecture, founded by Sir Francis Walsingham (the principal Patron of the Sect) as you will find in the beginning of his Lectures on the Books Apocriphal; it is no marvail if we find that the Doctrine and Discipline of Cal∣vin, should be so generally received by the Students there; or being so generally received, that they should put all manner of disgraces upon all or any of those that opined the contrary. The like may be affirmed of Cambridge, when D▪ Whittakers sat in the Divinity Chair, and M. Perkins great in the esteem of the Puritan Faction, had published his Book, Intituled, The Golden Chain; which Book

containing in it the whole Doctrin of the Supra-Lap∣sarians, was quarrelled first by Arminius in the Belgicks Churches, and sharply censured afterwards by D. Robert Abbot in his Book against Tompson. By these two first, and after on the coming down of the Lambeth Articles (of which more anon) as hard a hand was kept upon all those who embrace not the Calvinian Rigors, as was done at Oxon: the Spirit of that Sect being uncapable of opposition, in the least degree. Under which two Generall An∣swers, but the last especially, we may reduce all Ar∣guments which are drawn from the severe proceed∣ings of those Professors, and their adherents against all such as held any contrary opinion to them; that is to say against Bishop Laud, by Doctor Holland, and D. Abbot; by the last against D. Houson also, and by D. Prideaux against Mr Bridges; and in the other university by D. Whittakers against M. Barret, by the whole faction there against Peter Barrow; and finally, by the two Professors then being against M. Simpson. And yet those times were not without some Eminent men, (and men of prime Note and Authority, as he calls their opposites) which bear witnesse to the genuine Doctrines of the Church of England now miscalled Arminianism; who never were subjected to the ignominy of a Recantati∣on. Amongst which I may Reckon, D. Hursnet for one, Master of Pembrook Hall in Cambridge, after∣wards successively Bishop of Chichester, Norwich, and Arch Bishop of York. Whose Sermon a•• St. Pauls Cross, the 27 of Octob. 1584. sufficiently declares his judgment in those points of Controver∣sie. And I may Reckon D. Buckridge for another

President of S. Johns Colledge, &c. and Tutor unto Bishop Laud at his first coming to Oxon; who car∣ring these opinions with him to the See of Rochester, maintained them in a publick conference at York house, against D. Morton Bishop of Lichfield, and D. Preston Master of Emanuel Colledge in Cam∣bridge, Anno 1626.

25. I have already written, a full discourse shew∣ing upon what Principles and Positions, the Church of England did proceed at her first Reformation. But this being designed as an Ingredient to a larger work now almost finished, I must not wrong that work so far, as to make use of it at the present, and therefore you must needs have patience till a further time. In the mean season I shall endeavour an an∣swer to all those Arguments, which your Adversa∣rie hath made use of to evince the point he chiefly aims at; leaving the positivity of Sin to your abler hand. Where by the way give me leave to tell you, that one who seems to wish me well, though known no further to me then by the first Letters of his name, signified in his Letter to me of the 3d. of March, that Mr. Hickman was not the Author, but the Compiler of the Book, which is now before us, having all the Assistance (as he was credi∣bly informed) which the University could afford him. But in this I cannot be of his opinion, far less as∣sistance being needful to this petty performance, then the united Councels of an university: Though my Eyes be very bad, and unuseful to me in this way, yet I am able to trace the steps of this young Serpent in all the Cliffs and precipices of the Rock upon which he glideth; not onely as to follow him in his

Proofs and arguments, but many of his Phrase•• and florishes also. I could direct you to the Authors from which he borroweth his faining, and his fail∣ing in the Advertisement at the End of his Book; his charging you with tumbling in your Tropes, and rowling in your Rhetorick, p. 4 his dealing with you as Alexander did with his Horse Bucephalus, ta∣king him by the Bridle, and leading him gently into the Sun, that other men may see how lustily you lay about you, though your selfe do not▪ p. 7. I could di∣rect you also to the very pages in M. Prinns book of Anti-Arminianism, and that called Canterburies Doom▪ out of which (without acknowledging his Benefactor) he takes all his Arguments, Except that of Gabriel Bridges in Oxon, and M. S••mpson in Cam∣bridg, & perhaps these also. But being they are made his own, (as some unhappy Boys mak•• knives when they do but steal them) I will Answer them one by one in Order as they come before me.

26. In the first Entrance to his proofs he begins with Wicklife, concluding, that because the Papists have charged it on him, that he brought in fatal necessity, and made God the Author of sinne, therefore it may be made a p••obable Gu••ss, that there was no disagree∣ment between him and Calvin. The Course of which Argument stands thus, that there being an agree∣ment, to these points betwixt Wickliffe and Calvin, and the Reformers of our Church, embracing the Doctrins of Wickliff, therfore they must embrace the Doctrine of Calvin also. But first it cannot be made good that our Reformers embrace the Doctrine of Wickliffe, or had any Eye upon that Man; who though he held many points against those of Rome,

yet had his field more tares then wheat, his Books more Heterodoxies then sound Catholick Doctrines. And secondly admitting this Argument to be of any force in that present case, it will as warrantably serve for all the Sects and Heresies which now swarm amongst us, as for that of Calvin, Wickliffe affording them the Grounds of their several dota∣ges, though possibly they are not so well studied in their own concernments. For they who have con∣sulted the works of Thomas Walde••sis, or the Hi∣storia Wiclesiana, writ by Harpfield, will tell us that Wickliffe amongst many other Errors maintained these that follow. 1. That the Sacrament of the Al∣tar is nothing else but a piece of Bread. 2. That Priests have no more Authority to Minister Sacra∣ments then Lay men have. 3. That all things ought to be common, 4. That it is as lawful to Christena child in a Tub of water at home, or in a ditch by the way as in a Fontstone in the Church. 5. That it is as lawful a•• all times to confess unto a Layman, as to a Priest. 6. That it is not necessary or profitable to have any Church or Chappel to pray in, or to do any divine ser∣vice in. 7. That buryings in Church Yards be un∣profitable and vain. 8. That Holidayes ordained and instituted by the Church (taking the Lords day in for one) are not to be observed and kept in Reverence in as much as all dayes are alike. 9. That it is suffici∣ent and enough to believe, though a man do no good works at all. 10. That no humane Laws or Con∣stitutions do oblige a Christian, and finally, that God never gave Grace or knowledge to a great person or Rich man, and that they in no wise follow the same. What Anabaptist, Brownist, Ranters, Quakers, may not as well pretend that our first Reformers were

of their Religion, as the Calvinists can; if Wick∣lif•• doctrines be the Rule of our Reformation.

27. It is alledged in the next place, that the Cal∣vinistical Doctrines in these points may be found in the writings of John Fryth, William Tyndall, and Dr. Barnes, collected into one Volumne▪ and to be seen the easier (as he knows who saith) because it was printed by John Bay 1563. Who as they suffe∣red death for their Religion in the time of King Hen. 8. so Mr. Fox in his Preface to the said Book, calls them the Ring-leaders of the Church of England. But first, I do not take Mr. Fox to be a fit Judge in matters of the Church of England, the Articles of whose confession, he refused to subscribe, being thereto required by Arch-Bishop Parker; and therefore Tyndal, Fryth, and Barnes, not to be hearkened to the more for his commendation. Se∣condly, If this Argument be of any force, for de∣fence of the Calvinists, the Anti-Sabbatarians may more justly make use of it in defence of them∣selves against the new Sabbath speculatio••s of Dr. Bound, and his Adherents, imbrac'd more passio∣nately of late then any one Article of Religion here by Law established. For which consult the Histo∣ry of the Sabbath, lib. 2. c. 8. Let Fryth and Tyndal be admitted as sufficient Witnesses when they speak against the Sabbath Doctrines, or not admitted when they speak in behalf of Calvin; and then the Brethren I am sure will lose more on the one side then they gain on the other. Thirdly, taking it for granted that they maintain'd the same opinions in these points which afterwards were held forth by Calvin, yet they maintained them not as any points of Protestant Doctrine in opposition to the Errors

of the Church of Rome, but as received opinions of the Dominican Friars, in opposition to the Francis∣cans; the doctrine of the Dominicans, by reason of their diligent Preaching, being more generally re∣ceived in England then that of the other. Fourthly, it is to be considered that the name of Luther at that time was in high estimation▪ as the first man which brake the Ice, and made the way more easie for the rest that followed; who concurring in judg∣ment with the Dominicans, as to these particulars, drew after him the greatest part of such learned men as began to fall off from the Pope. And so it stood till Melancthon (not underservedly called the Phae∣nix of Germany) by moderating the rigours of Lu∣ther, and carrying on the Reformation with a gent∣lier hand, became a pattern unto those who had the first managing of that great work in the Reign of King Edward. Fiftly, it is Recorded in the 8^th of St. Mark, that the blind man whom our Saviour at Bethsaida restored to sight, at the first opening of his eyes saw men, as trees walking, v. 24. that is to say, that he saw men walking as trees; quasi dicat homines quos ambulantes video, non homines sed arbo∣res mihi videntur▪ as we read in Maldonate. By which words the blind man declared (saith he) so quidem videre aliquid, cum ante nihil videret, im∣perfecte tamen videre, cum inter homines & arbores distinguere non posset. More briefly Estius on the place, Nondum ita clare & perfecte video, ut discer∣nere possim inter homines & arbores; I discern some∣what said the poor man, but so imperfectly, that I am not able to distinguish betwixt trees and men. Such an imperfect sight as this the Lord gave many times to those whom he recover'd out of the Aegyp∣tian

Darkness, who not being able to discern all di∣vine truths at the first opening of the eyes of their understanding, were not to be a Rule or precedent to those that followed, and lived in clearer times, and under a brighter beam of illumination then the others did.

28. In the third place he referres himself to our Articles, Homilies, Liturgies, and Catechisms, for the proof of this, that the Calvinistical opinions were the establish'd doctrines of the Church of Eng∣land; and if his proof holds good in this he hath gained the cause. But first he directs us to no par∣ticular place in the Catechisms, Homilies, or Litur∣gies, where any such matter may be found, but keeps himself aloof, and in generals only; and we know who it was that said, Dolosus versatur in gene∣r••libu••. When he shall tell us more particularly what he would insist on, I doubt not but I shall be able to give him a particular answer. Secondly, skipping over those passages of the Liturgie and Ca∣t••chisms, which maintain the Universality of Re∣demption by the Death of Christ; and taking no notice that the possibility of falling from grace is po∣sitively maintained in the 16^th Article, and the Co∣operation of mans will with the Grace of God, as clearly published in the tenth; he sets up his rest on the 17th. Article, touching Predestination and Ele∣ction, as if the Article had been made in favour of Calvin's Doctrine.

But first the Papists have observed two Reforma∣tions in the Church of England, the one under King Edward the 6th. which they called the Lutheran, and the other under Queen Elizabeth, which they called the Calvinian. And thereupon we may conclude

that the 17^th Article, as well as any of the rest, be∣ing framed, approved, and ratified under Edward 6. was modelled rather in relation to the Lutheran then Calvinian doctrines; the Reformers of the Church of England, and the Lutheran Doctors, holding more closely to the Rules of Antiquity, and the practise of the Primitive Church, then the Zuingli∣ans and Calvinists were observed to do. Secondly, The 17th. Article doth visibly presuppose a curse or state of Damnation in which all Mankind was pre∣sented to the sight of God, which overthrows the Doctrine of the Supra-lapsarians▪ who make the Purpose and Decree of Predestination to precede the Fall, and consequently also to precede the curse. Thirdly, It is to be observed, that the Ar∣ticle extends Predestination to all those whom God hath chosen in Christ out of Mankind, that is to say, to all true Believers. For so the phrase Ephes. 1. 4. is generally interpreted by the ancient Fathers. For thus St. Ambrose amongst others. Sicut eligit nos in ipse, as he hath chosen us in him; Prescius enim Deu••, omnes scit qui credituri essent in Chri∣stum; for God (saith he) by his general Presci∣ence did fore-know every man that would believe in Christ. The like saith Chrysostom on that Text. And that our first Reformers did conceive so of it, appears by that of Bishop Latimer in his Sermon on the third Sunday after the Epiphany.

When (saith he) we hear that some be chose••, and some be damned▪ let us have good hope that we be amongst the chosen, and live after this hope, that is, upright∣ly and godly, then shall we not be deceived. Think that God hath chosen those that believe in Christ, and Christ is the book of life. If thou be∣lievest

lievest in him, then art thou written in the book of life, and shalt be saved.

29. In the last place we are to note, that there is a clause in the end of the Article, viz. that we are to receive Gods promises in such wise as they be generally set forth to us in holy Scripture; then which nothing can be more contrary to the Doctrine of the Supra∣lapsarians, which restrains Election unto life to few particulars without respect had to their Faith in Christ, or Christs death for them; and extendeth the Decree of Reprobation to the far greatest part of Manking without relation to their incredulity or un∣belief. And though your adversary tells us, that he who reads the common Prayer Book with an un∣prejudiced mind, cannot chuse but observe divers passa∣ges which make for a personall and eternal Election; yet I find but little ground for the affirmation, the Promises of God as they are generally set forth unto us in Holy Scripture, being the ground of many Prayers and Passages in the Publique Liturgie; for in the General Confession it is said expresly that the Promises of God, in Christ Jesus our Lord, are de∣clared (not to this or that man particularly) but to all mankind; declared to all, because first made to all mankind in Adam, in the promise of Redempti∣on by the seed of the woman, Gen. 3. 15. Secondly, it is said in the Te de um, that when our Saviour Christ had overcome the sharpness of Death he did open the Kingdom of Heaven to all Believers. Thirdly, we find a Prayer for the day of the Passion, commonly called Good-Friday▪ which is so far from pointing to any personal Election, that it bringeth all J••ws, Turk••, and Infidels within the possibility and compass of it, Morciful God (so the Church teach∣eth

us to pray) who host made all men, and hatest no∣thing which thou hast made, nor wouldest the death of a sinner, but rather that he should be converted and live, have mercy upon all Jews, Turks, Infidel••, and Hereticks, and take from them all ignorance, hard∣ness of heart, and contempt of thy word, and so fetch them home (blessed Lord) to thy flock, that they may be saved amongst the remnant of the true Israelites, and be made one fold under one Shepherd Jesus Christ our Lord, who liveth and reigneth, &c. Can your Antagonist read this Prayer, and observe those pas∣sages, and think the Liturgy so contradictory to it self, as to afford him any proof, that such a perso∣nal Election from all Eternity, as an unprejudiced mind may desire to meet with. If not, why doth he talk so confidently of divers passages which a careful Reader cannot chuse but observe in the Com∣mon Prayer Book which enclines that way; yea, let him direct us to those passages, and reconcile the differences which he finds betwixt them.

30. And though it was not my intent to produce any arguments at this time in Justification of the Doctrine of the Church of England, as by you maintained; yet since your Adversary stands so much on the 17th. Article, and thinks it makes so strongly for defence of the Calvinists. I will here lay down the Judgment of two Godly Martyrs, who had a chief hand in the Great Work of this Refor∣mation, and therefore must needs know the mean∣ing of the Church therein more then any of us. The first of these shall be Bishop Hooper, who in the Preface to his Exposition on the ten Command∣ments hath expresly told us,

That Cain was no more excluded from the Promise of Christ, till he

excluded himself, then Abel, Saul, then David, Judas, then Peter, Esau then Jacob; that God is said to have hated Esau, not because he was dis-inherited of Eternal Life, but in laying his Mountains and his Heritage waste for the Dragons of the Wilderness, Mal. 1. 3. that the threatnings of God against Esau (if he had not of his own wilful malice excluded himself from the Promise of Grace) should no more have hindred his Sal∣vation then Gods threatnings against Nineve, &c. That it is not a Christian mans part to say that God hath written Fatal Laws as the Stoick, and with necessity of destiny violently pulleth the one by the hair into Heaven, and thrusteth the other headlong into Hell, that the cause of Rejection or Damnation is Sin in man, which will not bear neither receive the Promises of the Gospel, &c.

And secondly we shall find Bishop Latimer in his Sermon on the third Sunday after the Epiphany, speaking in this manner, viz.

That if the most are damned the fault is not in God but in themselves; For, Deus vult omnes homines salvos fieri, God would that all men should be saved; but they themselves procure their own Damnation, and despise the passion of Christ by their own wicked and inordinate living.

He telleth us also in his fourth Sermon preached in Lincoln shire,

That Christ only, and no man else, merited Remission, Justification, and sound felicity for as many as will believe the same; that Christ shed as much blood for Judas, as for Peter; that Peter believed, and therefore was saved; that Judas did not believe, and therefore was condemned; the fault being in him only and in no body else.

More to which

purpose I have elsewhere noted (as afore was said) and give you this only for a tast to stay your stomack. And though Archbishop Cranmer, the principal Ar∣chitect in the work, spent his endeavours chiefly a∣gainst the Papists; yet that most holy Martyr tells us somewhat in his fifth Book against Gardiner, fol. 372. which doth directly look this way. Where speaking of the sacrifice which was made by Christ, he lets us know,

That he took unto himself not on∣ly their sinnes that many years before were dead, and put their trust in him; but also all the sinnes of those, that until his coming again, should truly be∣lieve in his Gospel, so that now we may look for no other Priest nor sacrifice to take away our sins, but onely him and his sacrifice; that as his dying once was offered for all, so as much as pertained unto him, he took all mens sinnes unto himself.

In all which passages, and many others of like na∣ture in the other two: there is not any thing which makes for such a personal, absolute, and irreversible decree of Predestination, as Calvin hath commen∣ded to us; and therefore no such meaning in the 17th. Article, as his Disciples and adherents (in de∣fence of themselves, and their opinions) would ob∣trude upon it. For if there were, your Adversary must give me some better Reason then I think he can, why Cranmer, Ridly, Hooper, and the rest that la∣boured in this Reformation, should command the Paraphrases of Erasmus to be translated into Eng∣lish, studied by Priests, and so kept in Parish Chur∣ches to be read by the People, whose Doctrines are so contrary in all these particulars to that of Cal∣vin and his followers.

31. But I return again unto your Adversary, who in the next place remembreth us of a Catechism, published by John Poynet Bishop of Winton, which he sets forth with many circumstances to indear it to us; as namely, that it was publick in the next year af∣ter the passing of the Book of Articles in the Reign of K. Edw. 2dly. That being by that King commit∣ted to the perusal of certain Bishops; it was by those Bishops certified to be agreeable to the Scriptures, and Statutes of the Realm. and 3dly, That upon this Certificate the King prefixt his Royal Epistle before it, charging their moral Schoolmasters within his do∣minions, that diligently and carefully they should teach the same. Thus have we seen the Mountain, now comes out the Mouse; for having thus swelled our expectation, we had reason to look for some great matter but finde none at all. Instead of lay∣ing down some clear passages out of Poynets Cate∣chism, which might evince the point he aims at: he asks the Question, (answer him any man that dares) How do the Master and the Scholar plainly declare themselves to be no friends to any of the Tenents M. P contends for? A Question which a very well studied man may not easily answer, that Catechism being so hard to come by, that scarce one Scholar in 500. hath ever heard of it, and hardly one of a thousand hath ever seen it. But your Antagonist hath good reason for what he doth, there being some∣what in that Catechism, which more confirms the points M. Pierce contends for then he is willing to make known, witness this Passage of the Catechism in the Anti-Arminianism (from which your Ad∣versary makes the greatst parts of his proofs & evi∣dence)

p. 44. After the Lord God (faith the Cate∣chism) had made the Heaven, Earth he determined to have for himself a most beautiful Kingdom and ho∣ly commonwealth. The Apostles and ancient Fathers that wrote in Greek, called it Ecclesi••, in English, a Congregation or Assembly, into the which he hath admitted an infinite number of men, that should be subject to one King, as their soveraign and onely head: him we call Christ, which is as much as to say, anoint∣ed, &c. to the finishing of this Common-wealth belong all they, as do truly fear, honour, and call upon God, duly applying their minds to holy and Godly living, and all those that putting all their hope and trust in him, do assuredly look for bliss of everlasting life. But as ma∣ny as are in this faith stedfast were fore-chosen, prede∣stinate and appointed to everlasting life before the world was made. For though he seems to make such onely to be the members of the Church, as were predestinated unto life from all Eternity, yet we must understand it of them chiefly (as being the most Excellent Members of it) not of them alone: For afterwards he enlargeth the acception of the word Ecclesia, according to the natural and proper construction of it▪ telling us that the Church is the com∣pany of those who are called to eternal life by the Holy Ghost; The company of all those which are called to Eternal life, and therefore not of those onely which are chosen or elected out of the number; For many are called but few are chosen, saith our Lord and Saviour. Secondly, it is not said, that such as are Members of this Church were chosen to this end and purpose, that they might be stedfast in the Faith, and being stedfast in the faith, might in the end ob∣tain

everlasting life; but that being stedfast in the faith, that is to say considered and beheld as such in the eternal Prescience, or fore-knowledge of Al∣mighty God, they were predestinate and appointed to eternal life before the beginning of the world. And Thirdly, if these words or any other which he finds in Poynet, may be drawn to any other construction, which may serve his turn, he must be made to speak contrary, to the three Godly Bishops and Martyrs before remembred, who being men of greater age and more experience in the affairs of the Church, the chief Architects in the Great work of Reformation, & withal being three for one, are more to be relyed on for delivering the true sence of the Church, then any one single witness who speaks o∣therwise of it. 31. For whom speaks Poynet in this place, for M. Peirce or Mr. Hickman? If he had spoke for M. Hickman, we shovld have heard of it more at large, as in that which followeth out of Nowel; and if he do not speak for him, it must speak for you more plainly, speak the Answers unto cer∣tain Questions, to which M. Prinne directs him in the end of the Bible Printed by Robert Barker, Anno 1607. But the worst is they signifie nothing to the purpose which they were produced for. For I would fain know by what Authority those Questi∣ons and Answers were added to the end of that Bi∣ble? If by Authority, and that such Authority can be proved, the Argument will be of force which is taken from them; and then no question but the same Authority, by which they were placed there at the first, would have preserved them in that place for a longer time then during the sale of that Edition.

The not retaining them in such Editions as have fol∣lowed since, show plainly that they were of no au∣thority in themselves, nor intended by the Church as a Rule to others; and being of no older stand∣ding then the year 1608. they must needs seem as destitute of Antiquity as they are of Authority. So that upon the whole matter your Adversary hath limited me with a very strong argument, that they were foysted in by the fraud and practise of some Emissaries, of the Puritan Faction, who hoped to have them pass in time for Canonical Scripture, such piae Fraudes, as these are, we have too many, were those once allowed of; some prayers, were also added at the end of the Bible in some Editions, and others at the End of the publick Liturgie; which being neglected at the first and afterwards beheld as the authorized prayer of the Church, were by command left out of those Books and Bibles, as be∣ing the Compositions of private men, not the Acts of the Church, and never since added as before.

32. In the next place it is said, That the Compo∣sers of the 39. Articles were the Disciples and Au∣ditors of Martin Bucer, and Peter Martyr; or at least such as held consent with them in Doctrine: none of them their Disciples, and but few of them their Auditors, I am sure of that: Our first Reformers were too old (Bishops, and Deans most of them) to be put to School again unto either of them. And as for their consent in points of Doctrine, it must be granted in such things, and in such things onely in which they joyned toge∣ther against the Papists, not in such points whe••••in those learned men agreed not between themselv••••; Bucer being more enclined to the Lutheran Do∣ctrines,

and Martyr (as it afterwards appeared) unto those of Calvin. Besides it is to be observed, that the first Liturgy of K. Edw. 6. which was the Key to the whole Work, was finished, confirmed, and put in execution before either of them was brought over; dispatcht soon after their arrival to their several Chair'es, Martyr to the Divinity, Lecture in Oxon, and Bucer, unto that of Cam∣bridge where he lived not long. And dying so quickly as he did, vix salutata Accademia as my Author hath it, though he had many auditors there, yet could he no•• gain many Disciples in so short a time▪ And though Peter Martyr lived to see the death of King Edward, and consequently the end of the Convoca∣tion, Anno, 1552. in which the Articles of Reli∣gion were first composed and agreed on; yet there was little use made of him in advising, and much less in directing any thing which concerned that busi∣ness. For being a stranger, and but one, and such an one as was of no Authority in Church or State; he could not be considered, as a Master builder, though some use might he made of him as a Labourer to advance the work. Calvin had offered his assist∣ance, but it was refused. Which showes that Cran∣mer, and the Rest, to whom he made offer of his service, (Si quis mei usus esset, as his own words are) if they thought it needful were not so favou∣rable to the man, or his Doctrines either as to make him or them the Rule of their Reformation.

33. Pass we next to Alexander Nowel, Dean of St. Pauls, and Prolocutor of the Convocation. An. 1••••2. in which the Articles were Revised, and af∣terwards ratified, and confirmed by the Queens au∣thority.

In which capacity I must needs grant it for a truth, that he understood the conduct of all af∣fairs in that Convocation, as well as any whosoe∣ver. But then it is to be observed, that your Adver∣sary grants their 17. Articles to be the very same verbatim, which had before passed in the Convo∣cation of King Edw. 6. No new sence being put up∣on it by the last establishment: And if no new sence were put upon it, (as most sure there was not) it must be understood no otherwise then according to the Judgement of those learned men, and God∣ly Martyrs before remembred, who concurred unto the making of it. From which if M. Nowels sence should differ in the least degree, it is to be looked upon as his own, not the sence of the Church. And secondly, it cannot rationally be inferred, from his being Prolocutor in that Convocation, and the knowledge which he needs must have of all things which were carried in it; that therefore nothing was concluded in that Convocation, which might be contrary to his own judgement as a private per∣son; admitting that he was inclinable to Calvin in the points disputed, which I grant not neither. For had he been of his opinions, the spirit of that Sect is such as could not be restrained from showing it self dogmatically, and in terms express, and not oc∣casionally onely, or upon the by; and that too in such general terms, that no particular comfort for your Adversary can be gathered from them. And it were worth the while to know, first, why your An∣tagonist, appealing to his Catechism, should decline the Latin Edition of it, which had been authorized to be publiquely taught in all the Grammer Schools

of England, and the English translation of the same by a friend of the Authors, 1572. both still in use, and both reprinted in these times since the year 1647 And secondly, what it was which moved him to fly for succour to the first draught of it in the English Tongue, out of which the two last were extracted; that first draught or Edition being laid aside many years ago, and not approved by any such publick Authority as the others were, somewhat there must be in it, w^ch brought that first Edition so soon out of credit, and therefore possibly thought fit by your Ad∣versary for the present turn: and thought to let us know which Catechism it is he means, he seems to di∣stinguish it from the other by being dedicated to the two Arch-Bishops, yet that doth rather betray his ignorance then advance his cause; the Authors own Latine Edition, and the English of it being dedicated to the two Arch-Bishops as well as that▪

34. But since he hath appealed to that English Catèchism, to her English Catechism let him go▪ In which he cannot find so much as one single que∣stion touching the Doctrine of Predestination, or the points depending thereupon; and therefore is ne∣cessitated to have recourse unto the Articles of the Catholick Church, the members, and ingredients of it. from thence he doth extract these two passages following; the first whereof is this, viz. To the Church do all they properly belong, as many as do tru∣ly fear, honour, and call upon God, altogether apply∣ing their minds to live holily and Godly, and with put∣ting all their trust in God, do most assuredly look for the blessings of Eternal life, they that be stedfast, stable and constant, in this faith, were chosen and appointed,

and (as we term it) predestinate to this so great feli∣city. The second which follows not long after (as his Book directeth) is this that followeth, viz. The Church is the body of the Christian Commonwealth, i. e. the universal number and fellowship of the faith∣ful, whom God through Christ hath before all begin∣ning of time appointed to everlasting life. And here a∣gain we are to Note, that the First of these two pas∣sages not being to be found in the Latine Edition, nor the English Translation of the same, is taken almost word for word out of Poynets Catechism, and therefore to be understood in no other sence then before it was: And that the second makes the Church to consist of none but the Elect, which the nine and tenth Article makes in a more comprehen∣sive signification. So that to salve this sore, he is fain to fly to the destinction of a visible, and invisi∣ble Church, fit for his definition unto that which he calls invisible; making the visible Church of Christ to consist of such as are assembled to hear the Go∣spel of Christ sincerely taught, to call on God by prayer, and receive the Sacraments. Which persons so assembled together, are by the Article called a Cong egation of faithful men, as well as those which constitute and make up the Church invisible. And yet I doubt your Adversary will not not grant them all to be in the number of the Elect. But granting that the Church doth consist of none but the Elect, that is to say, of none but such who have been through Christ appointed to everlasting life from be∣fore all time, as is there affirmed; yet there is no∣thing in all this, which justifieth the absolute and ir∣respective decree of the predestinarians, nothing of Gods invincible workings in the hearts of his chosen

ones, which your Antagonist maintains; or which doth manifestly make for such a personal Election, as he conceives is to be found in many passages of the Common Prayer Book; though what those passages are, and where they are to be found; he keeeps as a secret to himself for some new discovery.

35. For M. Nowel▪ who sate Prolocutor in the Convocation Anno 1562. he takes a leap to the year 1587. in which he findes a Book published by D. John Bridges, Dean of Salisbury (and afterwards Lord Bishop of Oxon) Entituled, A Defence of the Government established in the Church of ENG∣LAND: And that he might come to it the sooner, he skips over the admission of Peter Barro a French man, to the Lady Margarites Professor-ship in the University of Cambridge, Anno 1574▪ who con∣stantly held these points in a contrary way to that of the Calvinian plat-form, and relinquished not that University, till after the year 1595. of which more hereafter. And he skips over also Doctor Hars••ets Sermon at Pauls Cross, Octob. 27. 1584. in which he so declared himself against the Calvinistical Do∣ctrines of Predestination, that neither Mountague, nor any that have writ since him, did ever render them more odious unto vulgar cars: But being come to him at the l••st, what finds he there? Marry, That D. Bridges was of opinion, That the Elect fall not fi∣nally and totally from Grace; and so did D. Overal also (of whom more anon) who notwithstanding, disallowed the Doctrine of Predestination, as main∣tained by Calvin, and puts not any such Comment on the 17. Article as your Antagonist contends for. The like he findes in M. Hookers Discourse of Justifi∣cation; from whence he concluded no more, but that

M. Hooker was of a different opinion from you, in the point of falling away from Grace▪ Which point he might maintain as D. Overal, D. Bridges, and some others did, and yet not be of the same judgment with the Calvinistical party, either sub or supra, touching that absolute and iresistable decree of Pre∣destination, the restriction of the benefit of Christs death and passion to particular persons, and the in∣vincible or rather irresistable operations of the grace of God, in the conversion of a sinner, which were so rigidly maintained in the Schools of Calvin. I see then what is said by D. Bridges, and what is said by M. Hooker; but I see also what is said by the Church of England, in the 16. Article, in which we find, That after we have received the holy Ghost, we may depart from Grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God, we may arise again and amend our lives. No such determination as either totally or finally to be found in the Article, nor suffered to be added to it when it was motioned and desired by D. Reynolds, in the conference at Hampton Court; that old saying, Non est distinguendum, ubi lex, non distinguit, being as authentical as true, and as true as old. Howsoever I am glad to hear from your adversarie, that M. Hooker could not tell how to speak Judicially, as he saith he could not; and then I hope he may be brought in time to approve of all things, which he hath written so judiciously, in behalf of the Liturgie, and all the Offices, Ceremonies, and Performances of it, which whensoever he doth, I make no question but but that he may come to like the Episcopal Govern∣ment, and by degrees desert the Presbiterians, both in Doctrine and Discipline, as much as he. Certain I am, that M. Hooker maintained no such determi∣nation

of humane action, by any absolute decree or prelimitation, as the Calvinists do, and declared his dislike thereof in Cartwright, the great Goliah of that Sect, who had restrained all and every action which men do in this life, to the preceding will and determination of Almighty God. Even to the take∣ing up of a straw, a fine piece of Dotage.

36 But he demands, How the Church came to dispose of the places of greatest influence, and trust to such as hated Arminianism as the shadow of death? If she her self consented to those opinions, which he calls Arminian; amongst which reckoning the Arch Bishops till the time of Laud he first leaves out Arch Bishop Cranmer, the principal instrument under God, of this Reformation; which plainly shews, that Cranmer was no favourer of those Opinions, which your Antagonist contends for, and consequent∣ly that the Articles were not fitted in these points unto Calvin's fancie▪ And secondly, he brings in Parker and Grindal, whom M. Prinne (whose dili∣gince few things have escaped which serve his turne) hath left out of his Catalogue; in which he hath di∣gested all our English Writers, whom he conceived to be Antiarminianly enclined, in a kind of Cronolo∣gie. Thirdly, he brings in Bishop Bancroft, as great an enemy to the Predestinarian and Puritan Faction, as ever sate in the See of Canterbury; he had not else impeacht the Doctrine of Predestina∣tion, as it was then taught by the Calvinians for a desperate Doctrine. You have the whole passage in the Conference at Hampton Court, impartially re∣lated by D. Burlow, though your Adversary hath some invisible vileness or other to affirm the contra∣ry:

Whereon a motion made by D. Reynolds, about falling from Grace,

The Bishop of London (this very Bancroft whom we speak of) took occasion to signifie to his Majesty, how very many in these days, neglecting holiness of life, presumed too much of persisting Grace. If I shall be saved, I shall be saved, which he tearmed a desparate Doctrine, shewing it to be contrary to good Divinity, and the true Doctrine of Predestination: Wherein (saith he) we should reason rather ascendendo, then descendendo, thus; I live in obedience to God, in love with my neighbour, I follow my vocation, &c. therefore I trust that God hath elected me and predestinated me to salvation: Not thus, which is the usual course of argument, God hath predestinated and chosen me to life, therefore though I sin never so grievously, yet I shall not be damned:

for whom he once loveth, he loveth to the end; so little a friend was this great Pralate to the Calvinian Doctrine of Predestination, and persisting Grace.

37. But your Adversary not content with this, hath found some proofs, as he conceives, That Bancroft hated that which he calls Ar∣minianisme like the shadow of death, he telleth us that in his time came out the Book called, The Faith, Religion, Doctrine, professed in the Realm of Eng∣land, and Dominions thereof. In this as much mista∣ken as in that before, that Book being published in the time of Arch-Bishop Whitgift, Anno 1584, as he might have found in Mr. Fullers Church History lib. 9 fol. 172. being twenty years almost before Ban∣croft came to the See of Canterbury, and 12. at least

before he was made Bishop of London. And being then published, was (as he saith) disliked by some Protestants of a middle temper, whom by this his Restrictive Comment, were shut out from a con∣currence with the Church of England whom the discreet ••uxity of the Text admitted thereunto. And if disliked by Protestants of a middle temper, as he saith it was, there is no question to be made, but that it was disliked much more by all true Prote∣stants (such as your Adversary calls Arminians) who constantly adhered to the determinations of the Church of England, according to the Literal and Grammatical sense, and the concurrent Expo∣sitions of the first Reformers. I grant indeed that the Book being afterwards re-printed was dedicated with a long Epistle to Arch-Bishop Bancroft. But that intituleth him no more to any of the propositi∣ons or opinions which are there maintained, then the like Dedication of a Book, to an Eminent Pre∣late of our Nation in denyal of Original Sin, inti∣tuled him to the maintenance of the same opinion, which he as little could digest (they are your Adver∣saries own words in the Epistle to the Lecturers of Brackley) as the most rigidly Scotized Presbyterian. Nor stays he here; for rather then lose so great a Patron he will anticipate the time, and make Dr. Bancroft Bishop of London almost 18 moneths be∣fore he was, and in that Capacity agreeing to the Lambeth Articles. An errour which he borrowed from the Church Historian, who finding that Ri∣chard Lord Elect of London contributed his Assent unto them, puts him down positively for Dr. Ri∣chard Bancroft, without further search, whereas

he might have found upon further search, that the meeting at Lambeth had been held on the 26th of November, 1595. that D. Richard Flesher Bishop of Worcester, was then the Lord Elect of London, and that D. Bancroft was not made Bishop of that See, till the 8th of May, Anno 1697.

38. The next Considerable preferments for learn∣ing the Clergy, he makes to be the two Chairs in the Universities, both to be occupied by those who were profest Enemies to such Doctrines as he calls Arminianism. Which if it were granted for a truth, is rather to be looked on as an infelicity which befell the Church, in the first choice of those Professors, then to be used as an argument, that she concurred with them in all points of Judgement. That which was most aimed at in those times in the preferring men to the highest dignities of the Church and the chief places in the Vniversities, was their zeal against Popery, and such a sufficiency of learn∣ing, as might enable them to defend those points, on which our separation from Rome was to be main∣tained, and the Queens interess most preserved. The Popes supremacy & the Mass, with all the points and niceties which depended on it justification by faith the marriage of Priests, Purgatory, and the power of the civil Magistrate, were the points most agitated. And whosoever appeared right in those, and did withal declare himself against the corruptions of that Church in point of manners, was seldome or never looke into for his other opinions, until the Church began to find the sad consequents of it, in such a general tendency to innovation both in doctrine and discipline as could not easily▪ be redressed.

From hence it was that we find a non-conformist▪ though •• moderate one in the chaire at Oxon; a Mother, but a violent Patron of in-conformity▪ in a Professorship in Cambridge, so many hankering after Calvin in almost all the Headships of both Vniversities. And it was hardly possible, that it should be otherwise; Such of the learned Protestants as had been trained up under the Reformation made by King Edw. 6. and had the confidence, and cou∣rage to stand out to the last in the Reign of Queen Mary; were either martyred in the flames, or con∣sumed in prisons, or worn out with extremity of Grief, and disconsolation. And most of those which had retired themselves beyond the Seas returned with such a mixture of outlandish Doctrines, that it was hard to find amongst them, a sufficient number of men so qualified, as to fill up the number of Bi∣shops, and to be dignified with the Deanrys of Ca∣thedral Churches. By means whereof there follow∣ed such an universal spreading of Calvinism over all parts of the Church▪ that it can be no matter of wonder if the Professors of the Vniversity should be that way byassed. And yet as much as the times were inclined that way: I believe it will be hard, if not impossible for your Antagonist to prove that those Professors did agree upon such a platform of Gods decrees, as he and others of the same perswasi∣ons would fain obtrude upon us now. In Cambridge, D. Whitaker maintained the supra-Lapsarian way of Predestination, which D. Robert Abbot of Oxon condemned in the person of Perkins. And I have heard from persons of very good Esteem, that Dr. Abbot himself was as much condemned, at his

first coming to the Chair, for deviating from the moderation of his Predecessor, D. Holland; who sel∣dome touched upon those points, when he might a∣void them. For proof whereof it may be noted, that five onely are remembred by Mr. Prynne in his An∣ti. Arminianism, to have maintained the Calvinian tenents in all the time of that Professor, from the year 1596. to the year 1610. whereas there were no fewer then 20. who maintained them publickly in the Act (as the others did) in the first six years of D. Prideaux. And as for D. Overal (one D. Ove∣ral as your Adversary calls him in contempt) after∣wards Dean of S. Pauls, Bishop of Lichfield, and at last of Norwich, that his opinion were not that for which you are said to stickle: I am sure it was not that for which he contends, that he did not Ar∣mintanize in all things, I am sure he Calvinized in none.

39. Proceed we next to the Consideration of that Argument which is derived from the censures in∣flicted in either Vniversity upon such as trod the Ar∣minian path, so soon as they began to discover them∣selves Exemplified in Cambridge by the proceedings there against Barret, Barrow, and Simpson, in Oxon by the like, against Laud, Houson, and Bridges. Of Barret, Simpson and Bridges, I shall now say no∣thing, referring you to the 23. Section of this dis∣course, where you will find a general answer to all these particulars; In the case of Dr. Laud, and Dr. Houson, there was somewhat else then that which was objected against the other. Your Adversary tells us of D. Housons Suspention for ••••urting onely a∣gainst

Calvin. If so the greater the injustice, and the more unjustifiable the suspension; for what was Calvin unto us, but that he might be flurtad at as well as another, when he came cross unto the disci∣pline or Doctrine of the Church of England. But Mr. Fuller tells you more particularly, that at a Ser∣mon preached in St. Maries in Oxon, he accused the Geneva Notes, as guilty of mis-interpretation touching the divinity of Christ and his Mesiah-ship, as if symbolizing with Arrians and Jewes against them both▪ and that for this he was suspended by D. Robert Abbot, propter Conciones publicas minus Ortho∣doxas & offensione plenas: Which though it proves this Reverend person to be rufly handled, yet it makes nothing to the purpose of your mighty Ad∣versary, which was to show that some such Censures of Arminianism might be found in Oxon, as had been met withal in Cambridge; nor doth he speed much better in his instance of D. Laud, inveighed a∣gainst most bitterly in a Sermon preach'd by the said D. Robert Abbot, then Vice-Chancellor, on Easter Sunday, doth affirm it was. For in that Ser∣mon there is nothing charged upon him in the way of Arminianism (which was the matter to be pro∣ved, but that under Colour of preaching against the Puritans he showed himself so inclinable to some Popish opinions, that he seemed to stand upon the brink, and to be ready on all occasions to step over to them; a Censure which hath little truth and less charity in it; that Renowned Prelate, giving a grea∣ter testimony of his aversness from the Romish Re∣ligion at the time of his death, then any of his per∣secutors, and accusers did in the best Act of their lives.

40. More pertinent, but not more memorable is the case of Peter Bar••e, Professor for the Lady Mar∣garet in the University of Cambridge; a forrainer by birth, but one that better understood the Do∣ctrine of the Church of England; then many of the Natives, his Contemporaries in the University: Some differences falling out between him, and Whitakers, in the Predestinarian points, the whole Calvinian Faction rose in Armes against him; Tyndal, Some, Willet, Perkins, Chatterton, and the rest of the tribe siding with Whitaker in the quarrel. But not being able altogether to suppress him by Argument, they resolve to work their Ends by power, apply them∣selves to Archbishop Whitgift, to whom they repre∣sent the danger of a growing Faction which was made against them, to the disturbance of their peace, and the disquiet which might happen by it to the Church in general. By their continuall complaints and solicitations they procure that Reverend Pre∣late to advise with such other Bishops as were next at hand, that is to say, the two Elected Bishops of London and Banger, with whose consent some Articles were drawn up and sent down to Cambridge for the appeasing of the controversies which were then on foot. These Articles being nine in number, contained the whole Calvinian Doctrine of Predestination with the concomitants thereof, received at Cambridge for a time, and again suppressed, rejected by King James, in the conference at Hampton-Court, Anno 1603. inserted by D. Ʋsher, afterwards Archbishop of Armah, in the Articles of Ireland, Anno 1615. and finally suppressed again by the Repeating of those Articles in a full Convocation, Anno 1634.

Concerning which your Adversary tells us many things which must be examined.

41. For first he tells us, that his Arminianism did not only lose him from his place but lost him the affecti∣ons of the University. But I must tell him, that his Arminianism, as he calls it, caused not the losing of his place; for I am sure he held his place till the expiring of the term, allowed by the Lady Margarets Statute, whose professor he was; Which term expired, he left it in a just disdain, of seeing himself so over-powered, and consequently exposed unto contempt and scorn, by the Arts of his Enemies. Secondly, If he lost the affection of the university, which is more then your Adversary can make proof of, unless he mean it of that part of the university onely which conspired against him, yet gained he as much love in London, as he lost in Cambridge. For dying there within few years after, it was ordered by Bishop Bancroft, that most of the Divines in the City should be present at his inter∣ment, which may be a sufficient argument that not the Bishop onely, but the most eminent Divines of London were either inclinable to his opinions, or not so much averse from them, as not to give a so∣lemn attendance at the time of his Funeral. In the next place he quarrels with Bishop Mountague of Chichester, for saying that those Articles were after∣wards forbid by Authority, and brings in M. Ful∣ler, making himself angry with the Bishop for the when and the where, thinking it strange that a Prohi∣bition should be conspired so softly that none but he a∣lone should hear it. But first the Bishop living in Cambridge at that time, might hear it amongst ma∣ny

others, though none but he were pleased to give notice of it, when it came in question. And Second∣ly, the noise thereof did spread so far, that it was heard into the Low Countries; the making of these Articles, the Queens displeasure, when she heard it, her strict command to have them speedily supprest, and the actual suppression of them, being all laid down distinctly in a Book, published by the Re∣monstrants of Holland Entituled, Necessaria Respon∣sio, and Printed at Leyden, 1618. almost seven years before the comming out of Mountague's Book.

42. And now I am fallen upon this Bishop, I can∣not but take notice of your adversarys most unequal dealing against him and you; in his discrediting that part of your Argument, which contains K. James's Judgment of him, the incouragement he gave him to proceeed in his appeal, and his command to have it Dedicated unto him; to which you might have added, for further proof of the Kings concurring in opinion with him, that he had given him his dis∣charge or quietus est from all those calumnies of his being a Papist or Arminian, which by the two In∣formers had been charged upon him. And secondly, that the appeal being recommended by that King, to D. Fr. White, then Dean of Carlisle (exceeding∣ly cried up at that time, for his zeal against Popery) was by him licensed to the Press, as containing no∣thing in the same, but what was agreeable to the pub∣lique Faith, Doctrine and Discipline, , established in the Church of England. And whereas your adver∣sary doth not think, that the King should command any Book, written by a private Subject to be Dedi∣cated to himself (which to my knowledge is a mat∣ter

not without examples) he doth not so much clash with you, as put a lye into the mouth of the Reve∣rend Prelate, from whose hand you took it. That Bishop certainly must be a man of an unheard of and unparalleld impudence, in putting such an un∣truth on the King deceased, to gain no greater fa∣vour from the King then Raigning, then what of or∣dinary course might have been presumed on.

43. For other points, which are in difference be∣tween you upon this account, I leave them wholly to your self, advertising you only of these two things; First, that when King James published his Declara∣tion against Ʋristius, in which there are so many bitter Expressions against Arminius, Bertius, and the rest of that party, he was much governed by the Counsels of Dr. James Montague, who having for∣merly been a great stickler against Barnet and Baroe, in the stirrs at Cambridge, was afterwards made Dean of the Chappel, Bishop of Bath and Wells, and at last of Winton; an excellent Master in the art of insinuations, and the Kings Ecclesiastical Favourite till the time of his death, which happen∣ed on the 19th. of July 1618. Secondly, that the Reason why King James so branded the Remon∣strants in the Declaration, That if they were not with speed rooted out, no other issue could be expected then the curse of God, in making a perpetual rent and destruction in the whole body of the state, pag. 39. was not because they were so in and of themselves, but for other Reasons, which our great Masters in the Schools of policy, called Reason of State. That King had said as much as this comes too, of the Puritans of Scotland, whom in the second Book of his Basi∣licon

Doron, he calls the very pests of a Common∣wealth, whom no deserts can oblige, neither Oaths nor Promises bind, breathing nothing but sedition and calumny, &c. Advising his Son Prince Henry then Heir of the Kingdom, not to suffer the Principles of them to brook his Land, if he list to sit at rest; ex∣cept he would keep them for trying his patience, as Socrates did an evil wise. And yet I trow your ad∣versary will not grant, upon these expressions (though he might more warrantably do it in this case then he doth in the other) that Puritans are not to be suffered in a State or Nation, especial∣ly in such a State, which hath any mixture in it of Monarchical Government. Now the Reason of State which moved King James to so much harshness against the Remonstrants, or Arminians, call them which you will, was because they had put them∣selves under the Patronage of John Olden Barnevelt, a man of principal authority in the Common∣wealth, whom the King looked upon as the profess'd Adversary of the Prince of Orange, his dear Con∣federate and Ally, who on the other side had made himself the Patron and Protector of the Rigid Cal∣vinists. In favour of which Prince, that King did not only press the States to take heed of such infected persons, as he stiles them, which of necessiry would by little and little bring them to utter ruine, if wisely and in time they did not provide against it; but sent such of his Divines to the Synod of Dort, as he was sure would be sufficiently active in their condemna∣tion. By which means having served his own turn, secured that Prince, and quieted his neighbouring provinces from the present distemper, he became eve∣ry

day more willing then other to open his eyes un∣to the truths which were offered to him, and to look more carefully into the dangers, and ill conse∣quence of the opposite Doctrines, destructive in their own nature of Monarchial Government; a matter not unknown to any, who had acquaintance with the Court in the last times of the King. No•• makes it any thing against you that his Majesties re∣peating the Articles of the Creed two or three days before his death, should say with a kind of spright∣fulness and vivacity, that he believed them all in that sense which was given by the Church of Eng∣land, and that whatsoever he had written of this faith in his life, he was now ready to seal with his death. For first the Creed may be believed in every part and article of it according as it is expounded in the Church of England, without reflecting on the Do∣ctrine of Predestination, and the points depending thereupon. And secondly I hope your Adversary doth not think that all the bitter speeches and sharp invectives which that King made against Remon∣strants, were to be reckoned amongst those Articles of his faith which he had writ of in his life, and was resolved to seal with his death; no more then those reproachful speeches which he gives to those of the Puritan Faction, in the conference at Hampton Court, the Basilicon Doron (for which consult my answer to Mr. Baxter neer 29.) and elsewhere, passim in his Writings.

44. The greatest part of his Historical Argu∣ments being thus passed over, we will next see what he hath to say of his Late Majesties Declaration,

printed before the Articles, An. 1628. and then pro∣ceed unto the rest. He tells us of that Declara∣tion, how he had learned long since that it was never intended to be a two edged Sword, nor procured out of any charitable design to setle the Peace of the Church, but out of a Politique design to stop the mouths of the Orthodox, who were sure to be censured, if at any time they declared their minds, whilst the new upstart Arminians were suffered to preach and print their Heterodox Notions without controul. And for the proof hereof, he voucheth the Authority of the Late Lord Faulkland, as he finds it in a Speech of his delivered in the House of Commons, Anno 1640. In which he tells us of these Doctrines, that though they were not contrary to Law, yet they were contrary to custome, that for a long time were no ofter preached then recanted. Next he observes that in the Recan∣tation made by Mr. Thorne, Mr. Hodges, and Mr. Ford, it is not charged upon them, that they had preached any thing contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, according to the ancient Form of the like Recanta∣tions enjoyned by the ancient Protestants (as he calls them) but onely for their going against the Kings Declaration, which but only determined, not having commanded silence in those points. Third∣ly, that the Prelatical oppressions were so great in pressing this Declaration, and the other about law∣ful Sports, as were sufficient in themselves to make wise men mad.

45. For answer to these Arguments, if they may be called so, I must first tell you that the man and his Oratour both have been much mistaken, in say∣ing that his Majesties Declaration was no two edged

sword, or that it tyed up the one side and let loose the other; for if it wounded Mr. Thorn and his compa∣nions on the one side, it smote as sharply on the other against Dr. Rainford, whose Recantation he may find in the Book called Canterbury's Doome, out of which he hath filched a great part of his store. He is mistaken secondly in saying that this Declara∣tion determined nothing; for it determineth that no man shall put his own sence or Comment to be the mean∣ing of the Article, but should take it in the Literal and Grammatical sense, which Rule if the Calvinians would be pleased to observe we should soon come to an agreement. Thirdly, if the supposition be true, as I think it be, that the Doctrines which they call Arminianism, be not against the Law, but contrary to custome only, then is the Law on our side, and nothing but custome on theirs; and I think no man will affirm that Custome should be heard or kept when it is against Law. But fourthly, if the noble Oratour were mistaken in the supposition, I am sure he is much more mistaken in the proposition, these Doctrines being preach'd by Bishop Latimer, and Bishop Hooper, in King Edwards time, by Dr. Harsnet and Peter Baroe in Queen Elizabeths time, by Dr. Howson and Dr. Laud in King James his time, none of which ever were subjected to the infamy of a Recantation. Fiftly, if the Recanta∣tion made by Mr. Thorn and his companions impor∣ted not a retracting of their opinions (as he saith they did not) it is a strong argument of the mild∣ness of his Majesties Government, and the great Moderation shown by Bishop Laud in the use of his power, in not compelling men to say or do any

thing against their Conscience; a moderation which we find not amongst those of the Sect of Calvin, when any of the opposite party fell into their hands: Sixthly, whereas it might be thought, that the An∣cient Protestants (as he merrily calls them) had past many such severe censures upon those whom he stiles Arminians, he instanceth in none but in Barret and Bridges, which make too small a number for so great a bragg. Quid dignum tanto, and the rest. And finally for answer to the Prelatical oppressions, I shall referre you to my former Discourse with Mr. Baxter (num. 20, 21, 23) repeating only at the pre∣sent, that the Proceeding of the Bishops were mild and gentle compared with the unmerciful dealings of the Presbiterians; by whom more Orthodox, Learned, and Religious Ministers, were turned out of their Benefices within the space of three years, then by all the Bishops in England since the Refor∣mation.

46. But the King must not think to carry it so, the Puritan Faction being generally Calvinistical in Doctrine as well as in Discipline, prevailed so in the House of Commons, Jan. 28. 1628. that they a∣greed upon this Counterpoise or Anti-declaration following, viz. We the Commons now assembled in Parliament, do claim, profess and avow for truth the sense of the Articles of Religion, which were esta∣blished in Parliament, 13. Eliz. Which by the publick Acts of the Church of England, and the general current Exposition of the Writers of our Church have been delivered to us; and we reject the sense of the Jesuites and Arminians, and all other wherein they differ from us. Which counterpoise made in direct

opposition to the Kings Declaration, your adversary makes a product of the Civil Authority; whereas the House of Commons was so far at that time, from being looked on as the Civil Authority of the English Nation, that it was of no Authority at all, nor could make any Order to bind the Subject or declare any thing to be Law, and much less Religion, till it was first countenanced by the Lords, and fi∣nally confirmed by the Royal assent. But this he doth in correspondence to the said Protestation, in which the Articles of Lambeth, are called the pub∣lique Acts of the Church of England, though made by none but the Arch Bishop of Canterbury, two Bishops (of which onely one had actually received Consecration) one Dean, and half a dozen Doctors, and other Ministers, or thereabouts, neither im∣powered to any such thing by the rest of the Clergy, nor authorized to it by the Queen. And therefore their determinations, can no more properly be cal∣led the Acts of the Church, then if one Earl, with the eldest Sons of two or three others meeting with half a dozen Gentlemen in Westminster Hall, can be affirmed to be in a capacity of making Orders, which must be looked on by the Subject as Acts of Parliament.

47. Your Adversary begins now to draw toward the Lees, and in the Dreggs of his discourse offers some Arguments, to prove that those doctrines and opinions which he calls Arminianism were counte∣nanced to no other end but to bring in Popery. And for the proof hereof, he brings in Mr. Prinn's Re∣port to the House of Commons in the Case of Montague. An. 1626. In which it is affirmed, that

the whole frame and scope of his book was to discourage the well affected in Religion, and as much as in him lay, to reconcile them unto Popery. He gives us se∣condly a fragment of a scattered Paper, pretended to be written to the Rector of the Jesuites Colledge in Bruxels. In which the Writer lets him know that they had strongly fortified their Faction here in England, by planting the Soveraign Drug Armi∣nianism, which he hoped would purge the Protestants from their Heresie. Thirdly, he backs this paper with a clause in the Remonstrance of the House of Commons, Anno 1628, where it is said that the hearts of his Majesties Subjects were perplex'd in be∣holding the dayly growth and spreading of the faction of Arminianism, that being as his Majesty well knew (so they say at least) but a cunning way to bring in Popery. All which he flourishes over by a passage in the Lord Faucklands Speech before re∣membered, in which it is affirmed of some of the Bishops, that their work was to try how much of a Papist might be brought in without Popery, and to de∣stroy as much as they could of the Gospel without bringing themselves in danger of being destroyed by the Law, &c. To all which, being but the same words out of divers mouths, I shall return one an∣swer only, which is briefly this. Your adversary cannot be so ignorant, as not to know that the same points which are now debated between the Calvini∣ans and the Old Protestants in England, between the Remonstrants and Contra-remonstrants in the Belgick Churches, and finally, between the Rigid and Moderate Lutherans in the upper Germany, have been as fiercely agitated between the Franciscans

and Dominicans in the Church of Rome; the old English Protestants, the Remonstrants, and the mo∣derate Lutherans, agreeing in these points with the Franciscans; as the English Calvinists, the Contra-Remonstrants, and the Rigid Lutherans, do with the Dominicans: So that there is a complyance on all sides, with one of the said two parties in the Church of Rome. And therefore why a general compliance in these points with the Friers of St. Dominick (the principal Sticklers and Promoters of the Inquisition) should not be thought as ready a way to bring in Popery, as any such compliance with the Friers of St. Francis, I would fain have your Adversary tell me when he puts out next.

49. The greatest of the storm being over, there re∣mains only a few drops which will make no man shrink in the wetting, that is to say, the permission of some books to be frequenly printed containing the Calvinian Doctrine; and the allowance of ma∣ny questions to be maintained publiquely in the Act at Oxon, contrary to the sence of those which he calls Arminians. Amongst the Books so frequently printed, he instanceth in the Practise of Piety, Per∣kins his Principles, Balls Catechism, &c. which being incogitantly licensed to the Press at their first coming out, could not be afterwards Restrained from being Reprinted (notwithstanding the many incon∣veniences which ensued upon it) till the passing of the Decree in Star-Chamber, July 1637. concern∣ing Printing; by which it was ordered (to the great grief and trouble of that Puritan faction) that no Book whatsoever should be reprinted, ex∣cept Books of the Law, till they were brought under a

review, and had a new License for reprinting of them. And though D. Crakanthorps Book against the Archbishop of Spalato was but once printed, yet being called Defens••o Ecclesiae Anglicanae; it serves your Adversaries turn as well as if it had been Printed an hundred times over. How so? because Dr. Abbot said of that Treatise, that it was the most accurate piece of Controversie which was written since the Reformation: If you are not affrighted with this Apparition, I dare turn you loose to any single Adversary made of flesh and blood. These words if spoken by D. Abbot, being spoken by his Ghost, not the Man himself. For D. Abbot dyed in March, Anno 1617. And Crakanthorps Book dedicated to King Charles (as your Author no••eth) came not out till the year 1625. which was eight years after. Nor can your Antagonist help himself by saying he means the other Abbot, Archbishop of Canterbu∣ry who lived both at and after the coming out of the Book; for he speaks positively & by name of that Dr. Abbot whom King James preferred to the See of Salisbury. At the Ridiculousnes of which passage now the the first terrible fright is over, you may make your self merrier, if you please, then Mr Ful∣ler is said to make himself with the Bishop of Chi∣chester.

49. To set out the next Argument in the fairer Colours, he tells us of some Act Questions were ap∣pointed by the Congregration to be disputed of at the Publick Acts which were maintained by the Pro∣ceeders in a Calvinistical way. And this he ••sher••th in with this Interrogation. Whether the Ʋniversity did not know the opinions of the Church of England, or

would countenance any thing which had so much as the appearance of a contrari••ty thereunto? Had this Question been particularly propounded, voted and allowed in the General Convocation of that Universi∣ty (as M. Prinne affirms they were) it might be Logically inferred (as M. Prinne concludes from those faulty premises) that the Judgement and Resolution of the whole University is comprised in them as well as of the men that gave them; For which see Anti-Armin. p. 241. But I hope your Adversary will not say the like of the Congregation (in which onely those Articles are allowed of, con∣sisting of no other then the Vice-Chancellor, the two Proctors, the Regent Masters, and some Regents ad pla••itum, few of which (the Vice-Chancellor▪ and Proctors Excepted onely) are so well studied in those Deep points of Divinty, as to be trusted with the Judgement of the University. If any be now living, as no doubt there be, who heard this Question maintained negatively by D. Lloyd, Anno 1617. viz: An Ex Doctrina Reformatorum sequa∣tur deum esse Authorem Peccati: He may perhaps be able to tell what satisfaction the Calvinians re∣ceived in it. But he must be as bold a Man as your Antagonist, who dares affirm, That the Arminian Doctors shewed themselves rather Angry then able Opponents. Howsoever you have here some Armini∣an Doctors, in the year, 1617. At what time D. Laud was so far from sitting in the Saddle, (as your Au∣thor words it) that he had scarce his foot in the stirrup, being at that time advanced no higher then the poor Deanry of Glocester.

50. And as the Bishop, so the Duke was but

Green in favour, when those Arminian Doctors shew'd themselves such unable Opponents; his first honours being granted to him but the August be∣fore, and his Authority at that time in the blossome onely: so that I must needs look upon it as an act of impudent injustice in your Antagonist to ascribe the beginning of those doctrines, which he calls Armi∣nian, to Laud and Buckingham; and a high degree of malice in him as to affirm, that the last had so much of an Herod, as would not have suffered him so long to continue with friendship with the former, if he had not had too little of a St. John Baptist. And yet not thinking he had given them a sufficient Chara∣cter, he tells us within few lines after, that their ••••••∣rishing was the decay of Church and State, that neither body could well recover but by spewing up such evil instruments. Whether with more Puritanical Passion, or unmannerly zeal, it is hard to say. Me∣thinks the fellow which dares speak so scandalously of such eminent persons, should sometimes cast his eye on those, who have suffered condign punish∣ment for such libellous language. Scandalum mag∣natum being a crime, which the most moderate times have published in most grievous manner. For my part, I must needs say to him, as Cicero once did to Marcus Antonius, Miror to quorum facta im∣mittere, earum exitus non per horrescere; that I ad∣mire he doth tremble at the Remembrance of the punishments of so many men▪ whose facts he imi∣tateth. But as Abigal sayes of the Churle her Hus∣band▪ that Nabal was his name, and Folly, was with him; so I may say, that there is somewhat in the name of your Adversary which betrayes his nature,

(and showes him to be. I will not say (as she did) a man of Belial, but) a man of scorn. For if Hick∣man in the Saxon Tongue signifie a Scorner, a man of scorn, or one that sits in the seat of the scornful (as I think it doth) this fellow, whom a charitable man cannot name with patience, hath showed himself a∣bundantly to be vere scriptor sui nominis, as the Hi∣storian once affirmed of the Emperour Pertinax. Let me beseech your pardon for these rough ex∣pressions, to which my pen hath not been accusto∣med, and which nothing but an invincible indigna∣tion could have wrested from me. And then for his part let the shame and sence thereof work so far up∣on him as to purge out of him all Envy. Hatred▪ Malice, and uncharitableness (from which good Lord deliver us) for the time to come.

51. And here I might have took my leave both of him and you, in reference to the Historical part of his tenpenny trifle which we have before us, so far forth as it concerns your selfe, and your particular ingagings. But finding some other pas∣sages in it relating to the late Archbishop, and the other Prelates which require Correction, I shall not let them pass without endeavouring to rectifie his Errata in them. And first he asks,

How was the late ArchBishop an obedient Sonne of the Church of England, who put Mr. Sherfield a Bencher of Lin∣colne▪ Inne, and Recorder of Salum, to so much cost, and a disgraceful acknowledgement of his fault, and caused him to be bound to his Good behavi∣our, for taking down a Glasswindow, in which there were made no less then seaven Pictures, God the Father in form of a little old Man clad in a

blew and red Coat, with a Pouch by his side about the bigness of a Puppet?

A question easie to be answered, and my Answer is, that the Archbishop did nothing in it but what became a true Sonne of the Church of England, and more then so, that he had not shewed himselfe a deserving Father in this Church, if he had done otherwise. For take the story as it stands apparell'd with all its circumstances, and we shall find such an encroachment on the E∣piscopal power and jurisdiction, as was not to be expiated with a gentler sentence. They had a Bi∣shop in the City, continually Resident amongst them, and one that hated the Idolatries and super∣stitions of the Church of Rome, with a perfect ha∣tred. This Reverend Father must not be consulted in the business, for fear it might be thought, that it was not to be done without him. A Parish Vestry must be called, by which M. Sherfield is inabled to take down the offensive Pictures, and put new white Glass in the place, though he be transported with a fit of unruly zeal, instead of taking it down breaks it all in pie∣ces, Here then we have an Eldership erected under the Bishops nose, a Reformation undertaken by an Act of the Vestry, in contempt of those whom God and his Majesty, and the Laws had made the sole Judges in the case. An example of too sad a conse∣quence to escape unpunished, and such as might have put the people upon such a Gog, as would have le••t but little work to the late Long Parliament. Non ibi consistent Exemplaubi ceperunt sed in tenuem recepta tramitem latissime evagandi sibi viam faciunt▪ as my Author hath it.

52. But he proceeds according to his usual way of asking Questions, and would fain know in what re∣spect

they may be accounted the obedient Sons of the Church, who study by all their learning to take off that ignominous name of Antichrist from the Pope of Rome, which had bin fastned on him by King James, Archbishop Whitgift, Bishop Andrews, and the late Lord Primate; and finally, by the whole Clergy in their Convocation, An. 1605. In the re∣cital of which Proof, I find not that the name of Antichrist was ever positively and and in terminis, as∣cribed unto the Popes of Rome by any Article, Homi∣ly, Canon, or injunction, or by any other publick Monument of the Church of England, which leave it to the Liberty of every man to conceive therein according as he is satisfied in his own mind, and con∣vinced in his▪ understanding▪ Arch-bishop Whitgift, the Primate, & Bishop Andrews conceived the Pope to be Antichrist, and did write accordingly; Arch∣bishop Laud, and Bishop Mountague were otherwise perswaded in it, and were not willing to exasperate those of the Popish Party, by such an unnecessary provocation, yet this must be accounted amongst their crimes: For aggravating whereof he telleth us▪ that the Pope was proved to be Antichrist by the Pen of King James, which is more then he can prove that said it. K. James used many Arguments for the proof thereof; but whether they proved the point or not, may be made a question▪ Assuredly the King himself is to be looked on as the fittest Judge of his own intentions & performance.

And he declared to the Prince at his going to Spain, that he writ not that discourse concludingly, but by way of Argu∣ment, to the end that the Pope and his Adherents might see there was as good Arguments to prove him Antichrist, as for the Pope to challenge any

temporal Jurisdiction over Kings and Princes.

This your Antagonist might have seen in his own Canter∣buries doom, fol. 264. Out of which Book he makes his other Argument also which proves the name of Antichrist to be ascribed unto the Pope by the Church of England because the Lords spiritual in the upper house and the whole Convocation in the Act of the subsidy, 3. Jacobi, so refined ••••▪ If so▪ If any such Definition passed in the Convocation, it is no matter what was done by the Lords Spiritual in the upper House of Parliament (for that I take to be his mean∣ing) as signifying nothing to the purpose. Where∣in Gods name, may▪ such an unstudied man as I find that definition? not in the Acts of Convocation, I am sure of that, and where there was no such point debated and agreed upon; all that occurs is to bee found onely in the preamble to the Grant of Subsi∣dies, made at a time when the Prelates and Clergy were amazed at the horror of that Divellish plot for blowing up the Parliament Houses, with the King, Prelates, Peers Judges, and the choicest Gentry of the Nation by the fury of Gun-powder. But were the man acquainted amongst Civilians, they would tell him that they have a Maxime to this Effect, that Apices juris nihil ponuns. The Titles and preambles to Laws are no definitions, and neither bind the sub∣ject in his purse or Pater-noster,

53. As for the rest of the Bishops, I find two of them charged particularly, and the rest in General. Mountague charged from▪ D. Prideaux, to be me∣rus Grammatius, and Linsel charged from M. Smart to have spoken reproachfully of the first Reformers on the Book of Homilies. But as Mountague was too great a Scholar to be put to School to D. Prideaux

in any point of Learning of what kind soever; so Lin∣sol was a Man of too much sobriety to use those rash and unadvised speeches which he stands accused of. And as for Mr. Smart, the apology of D. Cosens speaks him so sufficiently, that I may very wel save my¦self the labour of a Repetition.

More generally he tells us from a speech of the late Lord Faulkland, that some of the Bishops, and their adherents have destroyed unity under pretence of uniformity, have brought in superstition and scandal under the title of Reverence and decency, and have defiled our Churches, by adoring our Churches &c. p. 40. and not long after, p 64. That they have so industriously laboured to deduce themselves from Rome, that they have given great sus∣pition, that in Gratitude they desire to return thither, or at least to meet it half way. Some have evidently laboured to bring in an English, though not a Romish Papacy; not the out side and dress of it onely, but equally absolute a blind dependence of the People on the Clergy, and of the Clergy on themselves▪ and have opposed Papacy beyond the Sea, that they might settle one beyond the wa∣ter

But these are onely the evaporations of some discontents which that noble Orator had contracted. He had been at great charges in accommodating him∣self with necessaries, for waiting on his Majesty in his first expedition against the Scots, in hope of doing service to his King and Country, and gaining honour to himself, dismist upon the Pacifiation (as most of the English Adventurers) without thanks of honour; where, he made himself more sensible of the neglect which he conceived he suffered under, then possibly

might consist with those many favours which both Kings had shewed unto his Father. But no sooner had that noble soul dispers'd those clouds of discon∣tent which before obscured it, but he brake out a∣gain in his natural splendor, and show'd himself as zealous an advocate for the Episcopal order, as any other in that house, witness this passage in a speech of his not long before the dismissing of the Scottish Army. Anno 1641. viz.

The Ground of this Government by Episcopacy is so ancient, and so general, so uncontradicted in the first and best times that our most laborious antiquaries can find, no Nation no City, no Church, no Houses under any other, that our first Ecclesiastical Authors tell us of, that the Apostles not onely allowed but founded Bishops; so that the Tradition for some Books of Scripture, which we receive as Cunoni∣cal, is both less ancient, less General, and less un∣contradicted then that is. We have lived long happily and Gloriously under this form of Go∣vernment, it hath very well agreed with the Con∣stitutions of our Laws, with the disposition of our people: How any other will do I the less know, because I know not of any other, of which so much as any other Monarchy hath had eperience, they all having (as I conceive) at least superinten∣dents for life; and the meere word Bishop I sup∣posed, is no mans aim to destroy, nor no mans aim to defend, &c. so that if we should take away a Go∣vernment which hath as much testimony of the first Antiquity to have been founded by the Apostles, as can be brought for some parts of Scripture to have been written by them, my fear is least this may avert some of our Church from us, and rivit

some of the Roman Church to her. So he when he was come again to his former temper, and not yet entred or initiated into Court Preferments.

54. And thus at last I shall end my trouble and your own, having performed as much as I proposed to my self in answer to the Historical part of your Antagonists discourse, in which he laboureth to e∣vince that the Calvinian Doctrines by you opposed, are no other then the establisht Doctrines of the Church of England. In the managing whereof I could wish he had carried himself with more Re∣spect towards some great persons whom he ought not to have looked on but with eyes full of Duty and reverence; and that he had not given me so just cause to think that by his speaking Evil of Dignities, he may be also one of those who despise Dominion, I could have wisht also, that both M. Baxter and himself would have given me leave to have worn out the remainder of my days in peace and quiet▪ without engaging me in any of those disputes by which they have given so much trouble to themselves and others. For your part (happy man be your do••e) I see there is a way chalkt out for your Redintegration. It is but going over to your Adversary in the point of E∣lection▪ and Gods invincible working on the hearts of his chosen ones, & then he doth asture you of a spee∣dy agreement, or at the least, that you should easily bear with one another in the present Differences. Can M. Pierce remain so obstinate, as not to hearken to a Pacification, on such easie terms, as giving to his Ad∣versary the right hand of fellowship, & captivating his own judgement to the sence of Calvin, the great Di∣ctator, in the Churches of the Reformation, to whom so many▪ knees have bowed, and much tribute of o∣bedience

hath been paid both with heart and hand? Why do not you offer the same terms, to so kind an adversary, and tempt him to a Reconciliation on the like conditions; which if he be not willing to ac∣cept when offered, you may then keep your selfe at that honest distance, which hitherto hath made you unaccessible to all approaches, and kept you out of the reach of their shot, whether bolts or shafts. What fortune will befall my selfe upon this encoun∣ter, I am not able to determine; having done no∣thing to deserve the just displeasure and little hoping to obtain the favour of those men, who shall think themselves concerned in it, some men are so in love with their own opinions, that they do not onely hate to be Reformed in the Psalmists Language, but carry an evil eye towards those who have laboured in it; looking upon them with as much disdain & indigna∣tion as Hanun the King of Ammon did on Davids Messengers when he returned them to their Masters with their beards half shaven, and their Garments cut off in disgrace to their very buttocks, 2 Sam. 10. 4. But be my fortune what it will, it will, be a most infinite content unto me, that by my weak endeavors I have contributed any thing to the Glory of God, the vindication of the truth, the edification of the Church, and the satisfaction of those pious souls who heartily do pray for the peace of Jerusalem, and most effectually endeavor to promote the Work. Amongst which number there is none who can more possio∣nately desire to be entertained, then

Your most affectionate friend and Brother in Christ Jesus, Peter Heylyn.

Lacies Court in Abingdon, April 15. 1659.

A POST-SCRIPT To the former Papers.

SIR,

AFter I had dispatched the Papers foregoing to the Press, I called to mind a passage in a Let∣ter, sent from Dr. Ridley, then Bishop of London, to Mr. Hooper, Bishop of Glocester (which you shall find, amongst many others, in the Acts and Mo∣numents) in which he signifieth unto him, that though they had sometimes differed in matter of Ce∣remony, yet there had been an uniform consent be∣tween them in matter of Doctrine: So that unto the testimonies of Arch Bishop Cranmer, Bishop Lati∣mer, and Bishop Hooper in maintenance of the cause which you contend for: you may add also the con∣currence of Bishop Ridley; whose judgement in car∣rying on the Reformation, was of such Authority, that Canmer more relied on him then on any other.

I have been also further advertised of two Letters, which are to be seen of M. Barrets own hand wri∣ting, the one to D. Goad, Master of Kings Colledg▪ the other to Mr. Chatterton, Master of Emanuel Colledge in Cambridge; in which he plainly lets them know, That he would never yield to make that re∣cantation, to which for fear of losing his fellowship, and being expelled the Vniversity, endeavoured to draw him; as also that D. Cosens and D. Martin, making a diligent search into the Registers of the U∣niversity, could never find any such Recantation, to have been made by the said Barret, as is exemplifi∣ed unto us in the Anti Arminianism, & from thence taken by M. Hickman, though he do not so much as once acknowledg by whom he profiteth: & I am the more apt to believe, that Barret never made the Re∣cantation,

which is fathered on him; because it appears clearly by the Acts themselves, that though he did con∣fess the Doctrines wherewith he was charged, to have been positively and expresly delivered by him, yet he averreth as expresly, Quod contenta in iisdem Religione Ecclesiae Anglicanae omnino noti repugnant, That they contained nothing contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England.

All that I find in the said Acts, is the enjoyning of a Recantation, the drawing of it into form, and the deli∣vering of it to Barret on the 5. of May, by him to be published in S. Maries Church on the Saturday after; and all this done, when neither the Margaret Profes∣sor, was of the same judgement with Barret, nor the Vice-Chancellor himself, whom it concerned as much as any, were consulted in it: But that Barret ever made this Recantation, or that this Recantation was the same in all particulars with that which he was required to pub¦lish, depends upon the credit of a scattered Paper; those which have most insisted on it, appealing rather to pri∣vate Authors for the proof thereof, then to the authen∣tick Records of that Vniversity: So that when it is said so positively by M. Prinne, that this Recantation was made by M Barret, on the 10th of May, 1595. in the University Church of S. Marys in Cambridge, & out of him repeated by Mr. Hickman with as great a confi∣dence, they do both wrong the dead, and abuse the li∣ving. For it appeareth by a Letter sent from the heads of Cambridge, to the Lord Treasurer Burleigh, then be∣ing Chancellor of that University, that Barret had not made that Recantation on the 8 of March, which was full ten months after the said 10 of May, in which the publishing of this Recantation is affirmed of him. About a year past, say they, (amongst divers others, who here at∣tempted publickly to teach new and strange opinions in Re∣ligion) one M. Barret more boldly then the rest, did preach

divers Popish Errors in St. Marys, to the just offence of many, which he was joyned to retract, but hath refused so to do in such sort as hath been prescribed him. Out of which Letter bearing date the 8th of March, 1595. exempli∣fied by M. Prynn in the Anti-Arminianism (254) and therefore seen by M. Hickman in the course of that Book, I conclude three things. 1. That M. Prinne, and M. Hickman have ••aid a Defamation upon Barret, which they cannot justifie, as being contrary to their own knowledge in that particular. 2. That besides Bar∣ret there were diuers others who preacht the sad new and strange opinions in Religion, as the Letter calls them, though not so confidently and boldly, as Barret did; and 3. That it is not said in the Letter, that Barrets Do∣ctrines gave offence to all, or the greatest part, but that they gave offence to many; and if they gave offence but to many onely, there must be many others (and possi∣bly the greatest part) in that University, to whom they gave no offence at all.

I find also in the Title to this Recantation as it stands in the Anti-Arminianism (p. 56.) that M. Harsenet of Pembrook-Hall, is there affirmed to have maintained, the supposed Errors for which Barret was condemned to a Recantation: And 'tis strange that Harsnet should stand charged in the Tiltle of another mans sentence, for holding and maintaining any such points as had been raked out of the Dunghil of Popery and Pelagia∣nism, as was there affirmed; for which he either was to have been questioned in his own person, or not to have been condemned in the title to the Sentences passed on another man. Which circumstance, as it discredits the Title, so the title doth as much discredit the reality of the recantation: Adeo mendaciorum natura est, ut cohe∣rere non possint, said Lactantius truly. Besides it is to be observed, that Harsnet did not only maintain the said Opinions in the Vniversity, but preacht them also at S.

Paul's Cross, Anno 1584. not sparing any of those dious aggravations, with which the Calvinian Doctrines in those points hath been charged by others; and yet we cannot find that any offence was taken at it, or any recantation enjoyned upon it, either by the High Com∣mission, or the Bishop of London, or any other having Authority in the Church of England, as certainly there would have been, if the matter of that Sermon had been contrary to the rules of the Church, and the ap∣pointments of the same: And thereupon we may con∣clude (were there no proof else) that where Doctor Baroe had for 14. or 15. years (as is said in that Letter) maintained those Opinions in the Schooles, which M. Hickman noveliseth by the name of Arminians; and such an able man as Harsnet, had preached them with∣out any control, and the greatest Audience of the King∣dome did stand to him in it, There must be many more Barrets who concurred in the same opinions with them in that Vniversity, though their names through the en∣vy of those times are not come unto us.

And this appears more fully by that which followed on the death of D. Whitacres, who died within few days after his return from Lambeth, which the nine Articles so much talkt of: Two Candidates appeared for the Professorship after his decease, Wotton of Kings Colledge, a professed Calvinian, and one of those who wrote against Mountague's Appeal, Anno 1626. Competitor with Overal of Trinity Colledg, as far from the Calvinian Doctrine in the main plat-form of Pre∣destination, as Baroe, Harsnet, or Barret are concei∣ved to be. But when it came unto the vote of the Vni∣versity, the place was carried for Overal by the major part, which plainly shows, that though the Doctrines of Calvin were so hotly stickled for by most of the heads, yet the most part of the members of that learned body entertained them not.

And thereby we may guess at another passage, which I finde in yo•• Adversary, where he declares that Peter Baroe's Arminianism c•••• him the loss of his place, and which was worse, lest him the affect ons of the University. Where first, it may seem very strange, th•• Baroe should loose his place for Arminianism, An. 1595. when as t•••• name of Arminianism was not known in England til the year 16•••• Secondly, that he should loose the affection of the University, •••• maintaining those Doctrines, in which there was such a good com¦pliance betwixt him and Overal. And therefore thirdly, it is ver•• improbable, that Baroe should be put out of his place by those wh•• ha•• brought Overal in, after no less then twenty years experience •••• his pains and studies: In which respect it is more likely that he re¦linquished the place of his own accord, in which he found his Do¦ctine crossed by the Lambeth Articles, his peace disturbed by sever•• Informations, preferred against him by some of the Calvinians, an•• thereupon a Letter of complaint presented to the L. Treasurer Burleigh of whose affections towards him, he seemed more diffident then there was good cause for; so that the most that can be said, is no more then this, that he was willing to depart from that place in peace, in which ••e saw he could not live without disturbance; and therefore that he ra∣ther left the place, then the place left him, though possibly he might see that he could not keep it without loosing himself.

I began this Post-script with Bishop Ridley. and shall end it with a note relating to Bishop Laud: Reproached by your Antagonist, for justifying the picturing of God the Father in the form of an old man, out of that place of Daniel, where he is called the Ancient of Days; and this (saith he) I have from a Gentleman of good repute, though that Gentleman must not be named, for fear of being taken notice of for his best Benefactor; the story you may find at large in Canterburies Doom, fol. 102. 103. where that Author mentioneth the censure past upon M. Sherfield, in the Court of Star-Chamber, for defacing the Pictures in one of the windows, in S. Edmunds Church, in the City of Salisbury: What I have said in this case, as to Sherfields censure, you have seen already; I shall now add what I then hastily passed over, that is to say, that the Bishop did not justifie the picturing of God the Father in that or any Form what soever, but only touched upon the reasons which induced some Painters to that representation, which they grounded on Dan. 7. 9. where God the Father is not only called the Ancient of Days, to fignifie his Eter∣nity before all time (which was so much insisted on by the Earl of Dorset) but described after the similitude of an old man, whose gar∣ments were as white as snow, and the hair of his head like the pure wooll, as the Text informs us.

Notes

• * 6.1

  H. B. for Gek. p. 127.