Animadversions on Doctor Heylins Quinquarticular History, Part 4
Dr. H. Pag. 3.
The time of their breaking out affirmed to be about the year 1529. Founders of the Sect Coppinus, and Quintinus, Flemmings both: and this, Prateolus affirms for certain, to be the Progeny of Calvin, and other leading Men of the Protestant Churches; Bellarmine more remissly, Omnino probabile est.
Answer. About, is a word that will stretch, and hath saved many a lie, yet was it no more than was needful; For so uncertain is our Historian about the time of these wretched miscreants rising, that having in these words placed it at the year 1529, a very few Lines after, he placeth it at An. 1527, but his Friend Prateolus placeth it lower yet, at the year 1525: at which time Mr. Calvin was not much above sixteen years old; being born, if he who writes his Life deceive me not, the sixth of Iune, Anno 1509: and therefore it would be a most strange oversight in Prateolus, if he should affirm, that the Libertines were the Progeny of Calvin. But the truth is, Prateolus is guilty of no such oversight, though the Doctor is pleased to charge it upon him: There is no necessity in the World, that e Schola nostrae tempestatis Evangelicorum, (which are Prateolus his words,) should take in Calvin. Bellarmine doth indeed, in the place quoted by the Doctor, say, Omnino probabile est, ut Anabaptistae ex Lutheranis, sic Libertinos ex Calvinianis promanasse: But he addeth a reason, which methinks no one of his admirers should be able to read without blushing. For in the books of Calvin and his Master Zuinglius and his Disciple Beza, as also of Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr, are found most apert sentences out of which it is collected that God is the Author of all the wickednesses which are perpetrated by men. Let us form this reason into an Euthymem that the goodliness of it may appear. There are in Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza, Bucer, Martyr, most apert sentences from which it is gathered that God is the Author of sin: Therefore it is altogether probable that the Libertines did arise from the Calvinians. The Antecedent he indeed useth all his wit and malice, for many Chapters, to prove; howbeit with most pitiful success, as divers have shewn, divers are still ready to shew. But why did he not use some covering for the Consequent, the nakedness whereof is so visible? Could he think that we without more ado would believe the Libertines were the brood of the Calvinians, if the Calvinians have sentences in their writings from whence it may be inferred that God is the Author of sin. Perhaps the Libertines were risen in the world before these mens writings were extant. Perhaps they never saw these mens writings, though they were extant, when they did arise. Perhaps there were other men, no Calvinians, whose writings the Libertines were acquainted with, and sucked their loose opinions from. Why do I use the word perhaps? Most certain it is, that no writing of any Calvinian either did or could bring Libertinism into the world. But it is as certain that if the first Libertines were bookish men (as I think they were not,) there were extant many Popish Divines and Professors Books, in which were sentences more likely to draw men into Libertinism than any extant in Calvin, or any of his Disciples, or Collegues. Nay, if need were I could shew, even in Bellarmine himself, such sentences as have a greater shew of making God the Author of sin, than any used by Calvin. But if the Cardinal had a mind to lay those ugly brats of Libertinism and Anabaptism at the Protestants doors, Why did he trouble himself to father them on two differing sorts of Protestants? Why doth he say, that Anabaptists are the progeny of the Lutherans, and Libertines the brood of the Calvinians? Doth he not confess that Luther and Melancthon did at first teach the very same things, ministring to Libertinism, that the Calvinians teach? If so, Why might not the Libertines learn their lessons from them? Were not the first Anabaptists Libertines as well as Anabaptists? If they were not, they are much abused by Historians; And if they were, sure either Anabaptism is falsly fathered on the Lutherans, or else Libertinism also must call them fathers. But why should we seek any other fathers of Anabaptism than the Papists? Nothing made the Anabaptists so infamous as their pretended euthusiasms or revelations, and their despising of dignities, and rebelling against Magistrates: And who laid the foundation of enthusiasm, I shewed a young Scholar above twenty years ago, when he began to be levened with that fanaticism, and he will thank me for it, I doubt not, all the days of his life. What Schools first taught rebellion against Princes, Bishop Morton and twenty more have shewn. As for Rebaptizing of persons Baptized in infancy (whence Anabaptists have their name,) it is the most innocent errour of all the Anabaptists hold; and yet even this oweth its rise and progress, to Popish principles and practices: as the Papists shall be made to know if they desire it. Nor hath it been my hap, as yet, to hear of any opinion so wild and absurd of our late Sectaries, that I could not derive from some famous Schoolman. Well, the Doctor himself is not unwilling to acquit Calvin from being the Parent of these Libertines, and acknowledgeth, that Calvin was not wanting to purge himself from such an odious imputation: And I hope he hath sufficiently purged himself, if a Learned and full Confutation of their opinion be a sufficient Purgation. The truth is, Coppin and Quintin, as also Bertrand and Perseval, were all Papists. As for Antonius Pocquius (whom Dr. Heylin according to his mistaking faculty calls, page 3. Franciscus Porquius) he was undoubtedly a Romanist, and a Romanist in Orders, a Franciscan Fryer. It cannot be denied (nor is it,) that Pocquius was for some time at Geneva, and being to leave that place, he would fain have obtained Letters Testimonial and Commendatory from Calvin, as he had from Martin Bucer; but Mr. Calvin, though he then knew not the spirit of the man perfectly, did so shrewdly suspect him to be a Fanatick, that he would never be prevailed with to testifie any good thing on his behalf: Yea when this Deceiver discovered himself, he could not forbear him, but chastised him and Quintin, sharply and by name, in his discourse against the Libertines: And when the Queen of Navarre (who though not tainted with the Libertines Errors, was bewitched with the pretended Holiness of these two chief Sticklers) took her self to be wounded through their sides, this man of God wrote to her with admirable moderation, (so it was meet, considering her dignity, and the good that she had done to the Church of God,) but withal, he reprehended her imprudence for admitting such men, and by this Letter he so far prevailed, that this abominable Sect which began to flock apace into France, afterwards kept it self in Holland, and the Countries adjacent: the Epistle is to be seen among Calvins Epistles, pag. 53. To conclude, I do throughly joyn with the Doctor, in detesting all those, who either directly, or by any just consequence known to them, make the Holy God the Author or cause, of all or any sinfulness. Nor do I know any Calvinian, that will not without the least hesitation joyn with us both in this detestation. If there be any that will not, let him be cursed with the severest Anathema's: If he should publish any thing of this nature, let his Book be a Victime to Vulcan; as Master Archers was by the appointment of the two Houses, and at the desire of the late Assembly of Divines. A story of which transaction it will not be amiss here to insert, from Doctor Arrowsmiths Chain of Principles; In the year 1645. there was published in London an English Book, wherein God was expresly made the Author of his peoples sins, though not without some limitations. The Assembly of Divines, then sitting at Westminster, took offence at this, made complaint of it to both Houses of Parliament: they both censured the said book to be burnt, by the hand of the Common Hangman: and the Assembly of Divines agreed upon a Declaration, nemine contradicente, by way of detestation of that abominable and blasphemous opinion; which was also published under that Title Iuly 17. 1945, and in which we meet with these expressions among others, that The most vile and blasphemous assertion, whereby God is avowed to be the Author of sin, hath hitherto, by the general consent of Christian Teachers and Writers, both Antient and Modern, and those as well Papists as Protestants, been not disclaimed only, but even detested and abhorred: Our common adversaries, the Papists have hitherto, only calumniously charged the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches, with so odious a crime, (in the mean time confessing that we do in words deny it, as well as they themselves;) Now should this Book be tolerated, they might insult over us, and publish to the world, that in the Church of England it was openly and impudently maintained, that God is the Author of sin, than which there is not any one point, whereby they labour in their Sermons and popular Orations, to cast a greater Odium, (though most injuriously) upon the Reformed Churches: We are not for the reverence or estimation of any mans person, to entertain any such opinions, as do, in the very words of them, asperse the honour and holiness of God, and are by all the Churches of Christ rejected.
Proceed we to what the Doctor saith about those, who entertaining the same dreadful madness with Florinus, did recommend it to the world under a disguise; Of these, thus he begins; Page 3.