Animadversions on Doctor Heylins Quinquarticular History, Part 84
Dr. H. Part 2. Pag. 45.
That he doth so in the Gag, I easily grant; where he relateth only to the words of the Article, which speaks only of a possibility of falling, without relation to the measure or continuance of it; (Here, by the way, it is fairly confessed, that the Article speaks not of the possibility of falling totally, or finally; therefore, not against the Calvinists.) But he must needs be carried with a very strange confidence, which can report so of him in his Appeal, in which he both expresly saith, and proveth the contrary.
Answ. Doth he indeed say so? Where may such a man as I am find him saying so? Page, not 28, but 26, he saith, That there is not from the Church any tie put on him, to resolve in this much disputed Question, as these Novellers would have it; for it there be any, it is for a possibility of total falling, as we shall hear anon. Is this to say expresly, that the Church hath so determined? then farewel the study of Logick. I am sure however, that if he said it, he hath not proved it. Pag. 29, he quotes the words of the Article, After that we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart away from grace, and fall into sin; and by the grace of God we may rise again, and amend our lives. After quoting of them, as if his heart had misgiven him, he addeth, Haply you will quarrel at the sense of the Articles: but then you must remember, that the plain words sound to the meaning for which I have produced them; and that until the Church it self expound otherwise, it is as free for me to take it according to the letter, as for you to devise a figure. Which done, he goes on most untruly to tell the World, that this Article was challenged for unsound by the Ministers at the Hampton-Court Conference. Of which untruth, and sundry others relating to Dr. Overal, and the Bishop of London, he hath been told by so many, that it is a wonder any man should not be ashamed to plough with his Heifer. The Arguments out of the Liturgy, whether in the form of Baptism, or in the publick Catechism, or Rubrick before Confirmation, are quite besides the Controversie; which is by many Calvinists restrained to the grace bestowed on Adult persons, and by none understood of that Sacramental grace given to the Seed of Believers in Baptism. His Reasons from the Homilies, if they were of any force when managed by another, do lose their whole strength when they come from him; who hath told us, That he willingly admits the Homilies, as containing certain godly and wholsome Exhortations, but not as the publick dogmatical Resolutions confirmed by the Church of England: They may seem to speak somewhat too hardly, and stretch some sayings beyond the use and practice of the Church of England. But let it suffice, that he hath trampled upon our Homilies with a foot of pride. I dare not so do, honouring the memory, and reverencing the judgment of those who made them; and much more the Authority that hath enjoyed them to be read in Churches. Let Mr. Mountague and Dr. Heylin argue from the Homilies, as if they had never traduced them. Mr. Mountague argues from the title of one of the Homilies, which is, Falling away from God: as if the very title were a sufficient warrant for his opinion. Whereas no one of our Homilies is entituled, Of falling away from God, but only Of falling from God. Ridiculous it would be adds D. Heylin p. 88. to write a Sermon de non ente; to terrifie the people with the danger of that misfortune, which they were well assured they should never suffer. By which addition he makes himself more than ridiculous; for people are not by the Calvinists well assured, that they shall never suffer the misfortune of falling from God: but are told, that they fall from God, as oft as they turn away from God's Law; and that by every such turning away from God's Law, if wilful, they lose some degree of grace, and expose themselves to the wrath of God, and lose all sense of his favour: and this is sufficient to terrifie any man that is in his right wits and senses. Nor doth the Homily it self more favour them, than the title of it; Out of which neither collects more than a conditional, If they be unthankful, If they do not order their lives, &c. Now the very Rule of the Logicians is, Conditionalis nihil ponit in esse. Will Doctor Heylin quarrel against this Rule? Yes; for Mr. Yates having brought such a kind of Answer, he saith of it, that it is a sorrier shift than any before; for if such conditional Propositions conclude nothing positively, what will become of all those Propositions in the Scriptures, by which we are assured, If we repent, we shall find mercy of the Lord? Do they conclude nothing positively neither? Most miserable were the state of man, if these conditional Propositions should conclude nothing to the comfort of a troubled conscience, pag. 96. O dreadful ignorance! Can a conditional Proposition conclude nothing positively and determinately, unless it conclude, that its antecedent shall actually come to pass, or may come to pass? When Paul saith, If an Angel from Heaven preach another Gospel, let him be accursed; this conditional will conclude, that whoever preacheth another Gospel, is accursed: it will not conclude, that ever any Angel can, or shall preach another Gospel. What pity it is, that men should adventure to write Books, after they have forgot the common Elements of Logick? and what shame is it, that men should dare to bring in passages out of our Homilies, and omit a material Parenthesis that occurs in all Copies of them? as any one may see, that both Mr. Mountague and Dr. Heylin have done. I only desire, seeing the Homilies are commonly to be had, that my Readers would be pleased to compare them with the quotations of Dr. Heylin, p. 89, and remember that the thing he is to prove out of the Homilies, is, that real Saints may fall totally and finally from sanctifying grace received, and then let him be deceived if he can: provided that he will also consider, what passages Mr. Yates and Mr. Prin have collected out of the Homilies, to confirm Perseverance.
One more Authority Dr. Heylin produceth, and it filleth up, pag. 90, 91. It is the Authority of Lanceiot Ridley Archdeacon of Canterbury, out of whose Comment on the Colossians, he collects something relating to all, or most of the controverted Points; but the Collections, if all truly made, have not in them so much as a seeming contrariety to any of Mr. Calvin's Tenents. But in this very Arch-deacon's Comment on the Epistle to the Ephesians, Mr. Prin finds personal Election; and if Election, then Perseverance also. The Doctors not medling with that Commentary, his not mentioning Bartholomew Traheron Dean of Chichester and Library Keeper to King Edward, nor Thomas Beacon, nor Anthony Gilby, nor Stephen Garret, all famous in King Edward's Reign, and whose Books might easily have been procured by one that lived so near Oxford as Lacy Court, is an undeniable evidence, that he himself did not think, King Edward's Divinity and his own to be the same.
In all the third Part, our Historian is put to horrible shifts, and plays a very low game indeed. And no wonder; for he finds the opinions he contends against, delivered out of the Chairs in the University, countenanced by all Authority, Civil and Ecclesiastical: his own opinions he finds censured, recanted, never printed, but in hugger mugger, and by stealth; and yet I do not find him much changing countenance, but rather, with confidence enough, asserting himself a Son of the Church, and his Doctrine a Doctrine of the Church. His first attempt is to disgrace the Calvinists, by calling them Gospellers; For thus he phrasifieth,