Animadversions on Doctor Heylins Quinquarticular History, Postscript
Postscript.
I Am given to understand, that I seem to some, not sufficiently to have taken notice of what the Doctor brings, to invalidate the Argument drawn from Barret's Recantation. I drew the Argument from the Heads of Houses in Cambridge enjoyning Mr. Barret to Recant what he had delivered against absolute reprobation and against perseverance, and some other Calvinian Doctrines, not only as false but also as contrary to the Articles of Religion here in England established. The Doctor doth not, cannot deny, but that such Recantation was enjoyned him. Now if the Heads of Houses in the University, who are authorized to judge of the Sermons preached among them, and to censure what they find in such Sermons disagreeable to the Doctrine of the Church, did judge Barret's Doctrine, denying absolute reprobation and perseverance of Believers, to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church, and manifestly contrary to it, and passed this judgment upon mature deliberation, I leave it to any ones consideration, whether this be not a very vehement presumption, that Calvin's Doctrine concerning absolute election and perseverance is agreeable to the Articles of our Church, and Barret's Doctrine contrary to them. If this be granted, what need I contend about by-passages relating to the Recantation, being in a place where I can have no recourse to the Records of Cambridge? Yet to make it appear that I did write nothing in this business rashly, and that the Doctor hath me at no such advantage as he pretends, I will now review all he saith, not already taken notice of. It signifies little that he saith, 1. That this process was made or procured by the Calvinian Heads, inflamed by Mr. Perkins, pag. 70, Part 3. Seeing there were then no Heads but what were Calvinistical, and no man can think that they should all be guided and acted by Mr. Perkins a poor Preacher in the Town. 2. It is to be doubted, saith he, pag. 71, whether any such Recantation consisting of so many Articles, and every Article having its abjuration or recantation subjoyned unto it, was ever enjoyned to be made? But what reason have we to doubt of this? when as the Form of Recantation is exemplified in Mr. Fuller (from whom I had it,) and also in Mr. Prynne's Antiarminianism, and was fairly printed in Qu. Elizabeth's daies, some printed Copies of it being still extant, and seeing Mr. Prynne declares that the Form of Recantation by him inserted into his Book, was a Transcript taken out of an Original Copy under Mr. Barret's own hand? Why he doubts, because though Mr. Prynne say, that the Recantation, in the same manner and form as we there find it, was exemplified and sent unto him under the Register's hand, yet he also confesseth, that no such matter could be found when the Heads of houses were required by an Order from the House of Commons to make certificate unto them of all such Recantations as were recorded in their University Register, and of this Recantation in particular. But first, Mr. Prynne only tells us, that he had been certified and informed, that this Order for Recantation could not be found among the University Records. 2. Mr. Prynne doth not pretend to have had in his hands the Form of Recantation exemplified under the Register's hand, but only the Order for Recantation. The Form of Recantation he tells us, he had another way; and perhaps the Form of Recantation was never put into the University Archives, or Register. But if the Order for the Recantation should not be found there neither, I should much wonder, and yet less wonder, because Thomas Smith, who was Register at this time, is branded for one that was very careless in Registring matters that concerned the University; as may be found in Mr. Fuller's Hist. of Camb. p. 49.
But that which the Historian most contends for, is, that the Recantation was never made by Barret. Pag. 72. It is to be denied as a thing most false, that he never published the Recantation, whatsoever it was. It is to be thought that the Printer hath mistaken his Copy, and put never, instead of ever; for if it be most false that he never published his Recantation, then it is to be affirmed as a thing most true, that he sometime published it: which is that which we believe Let us s…an the reasons of the Doctor to prove that he never read the Recantation, ibid. For 1. It is acknowledged in Mr. Prynnes own Transcript of the Acts, that though Barret did confess the Propositions wherewith he was charged, to be contained in his Sermon, yet he would never grant them to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England, and therefore was not likely to retract the same.
The Argument framed stands thus,
He that would never acknowledge his Propositions to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England was not likely to retract the same. Mr. Barret would not acknowledge his Propositions to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England: therefore, he was not likely to retract the same. The Major certainly is most absurdly false; but the Minor cannot be proved. For Mr. Prynne's Copy doth not say, that he would never acknowledge; but only that at first reading of his Charge he denyed his Propositions to be contrary to the Religion of the Church of England. Many a man at first denies what he afterwards granteth. Secondly, saith the Doctor, ibid. It is plain from Mr. Barret's Letters, the one to Dr. Goad Master of Kings, the other to Mr. Chadderton Master of Emanuel, that neither slattery, nor t…at…ings, nor the fear of losing his subsistence in the University, should ever work him to the publishing of the Recantation required of him.
The Doctor had in his Certamen Epistolare before told us of two Letters of Barret's, written one to Dr. Goad, the other to Mr. Chadderton; and now he tells us that from them it is manifest that neither flattery, &c. Yet he gives us only a Copy of the Letter to Dr. Goad, and never tells us whence he had that; nor doth the Letter to Dr. Goad in the least intimate that any flattery had been used to draw him to make the Recantation; but rather it manifests that he used flattery to perswade Dr. Goad to be his Friend, and obtain for him, that he might stay in the University, on solemn promise to keep his Opinion to himself. A very sneaking Letter it is, and shews that he was a poor low spirited man, valuing his Place more than his Conscience, and yet his Credit more than his Place. Nor doth he (if we may judge of him by the Letter pretended to be his,) appear to be a toberable Scholar. For let any one read the beginning of it, and he will scarce be able to find sense in it. My duty remembred to your Worship, &c. Sir, according to your appointment I have conferred with Mr. Overald, and Mr. Chadderton. Mr. Overald after once Conference, refused to talk any more off these points, saying it needed not. For Mr. Chadderton he is a learned man, and one whom I do much reverence, yet he hath not satisfied me in this point: for I required proof but of these two things at his hands: that una fides did specie differre ab alia; and that it was aliud donum ab alio. But for the first, whereas he should have proved it did was differre specie, he proved it did differre numero, and that but out of the Master of the Sentences; whose authority notwithstanding I do not impugne. And for the other, that it should be aliud donum, he proveth out of St. Augustin that fides daemonum is not alia a fide Christianorum, which no man ever denyed; for fides daemonum is not donum at all; so that it cometh not in question. So that I being unsatisfied of one party (meaning Mr. Chadderton) and rather confirmed of the other party, I do hold my Positions as before.
He, (if he) saith, he required proof but of two things, viz. that una fides did differre specie ab alia, and that it was aliud donum ab alio. That it was; that what was? Una fides. Can any one make sense of this, Una fides est aliud donum ab alio? I must confess I cannot. But what success had he in his desire to Mr. Chadderton? Why, whereas he should have proved that una fides did differre specie ab alia, he proved it did differre numero; and that but out of the Master of the Sentences, whose authority nevertheless, he saith, he did not impugne. Really I think he did not disgrace himself in granting upon the authority of the Master of the Sentences, that una fides doth differre numero ab alia: but Mr. Chadderton did vilely disgrace himself, if he did bring the Master of the Sentences authority, to prove that una fides numero di…fert ab alia. He might even as well have brought the authority of the Master of the Sentences, to prove that Mr. Chadderton and Mr. Barret did differre numero. But why was Mr. Barret so simple, as to desire to have it proved, that Una fides doth specie differre ab alia? Could he once imagine that divine and humane faith do not specie differre? or did he not know that the faith of Miracles did specifically differ from that by which we are justified? If any man would be satisfied that even the faith which is commonly called temporary, doth specifically differ from that to which salvation is promised, he may soon be satisfied by reading the writings that passed betwixt Dr. B. and Mr. B. concerning this point. Did Mr. Chadderton satisfie any better his second desire? (which I for my part cannot understand.) Of that thus he writeth. And for the other that it should be aliud donum, he proveth out of St. Austin that fides daemonum is not alia a fide Christianorum: which no man ever denied, for fides daemonum is not donum at all, so that it cometh not in question. This is the strangest stuff I ever met with. Did Mr. Ch. prove out of St. Austin that fides daemonum is not alia a fide Christianorum, and did no man ever deny this, and is this a good reason to prove that no man denied it, because fides daemonum is not donum? Either this is nonsense or I have lost my reason and senses. In the Form of Recantation I find it enjoyned Mr. Barret to recant this saying In fide nulla est distinctio sed in credentibus. Which undoubtedly was unworthy of a Scholar; for what distinction could he mean, specifical or numerical? If specifical, then his meaning must be, Una fides non distinguitur specie ab alia, sed unus fidelis specifice distinguitur ab alio: If numerical, then his meaning must be, Una fides non differt numerice ab alia, se… unus fidelis differt numerice ab alio: which was rare stuff to put into a Sermon ad Clerum. If there be no difference in Faiths, there can be no difference in Believers as such, that's certain. I believe this muddy Letter made Dr. Heylin himself somewhat muddy: for pag. 75, he lets us know that it cannot be made apparent that either Dr. Duport the Vicechancellor, which was most concerned, or Dr. Baro the Lady Margarets Professor for Divinity there, had any hand in sentencing the Recantation. Not Dr. Baro because by concurring to this Sentence, he was to have condemned himself: (he might also have added because being no Head of an House, he could not sit among the Heads of Houses.) But, Why not Dr. Duport? For I find his Place to be supplied by Dr. Some, which shews him to be absent at that time from the University, according to the stile whereof the title of Procancellarius is given to Dr. Some in the Acts of the Court; as appears by the extracts of them in the Antiarminianism, p. 64, compared with p. 63. Did I ghess amiss in saying the Doctor was muddy when he writ this? Could Dr. Duport be most concerned to sentence the Recantation, if he were absent from the University when the Sentence was given? Doth the managing of the business by Doctor Some shew, that Dr. Duport was absent from the University at the management of it? Might he not be in the University and be sick, or or otherwise hindred from coming to the University Consistory. Finally, it seems by Mr. Prynne's Transcript that though Dr. Some did as Deputy manage some part of the Transaction, yet Dr. Duport himself managed at least the latter part of it. I had almost forgot to take notice of one thing the Doctor brings to discredit the Recantation page 73. It is the Title of it, given by Mr. Prynne page 50, Antiarm. And really, had that Title been given to it by the University, it had been sufficient to disparage the whole Recantation. But Mr. Prynne doth not affirm that Title to be made by any but himself; who being a long-winded wordy man, and as fierce against the Arminians as the Doctor can be for them could not mention Mr. Barret's errors without shewing his detestation, of them and Mr. Harsnet who held them as well as Mr. Barret. To conclude, I hope, for Mr. Barret's sake, that he never did write so silly a Letter to Dr. Goad: If he did, I cannot collect from it that he never read the Recantation enjoyned him. And I wish for Dr. Heylin's sake that he had not depredicated the invincible constancy of Mr. Barret, as he doth page 87: and that he had used his art, rather any other way, than to put a fair face on foul Opinions. And for my self, I desire thee Good Reader to believe, that as I took but little pleasure in writing against Dr. Heylin whilst he lived; so I take less to find any thing of mine printed against him since he is dead. If by what thou readest, thou be any way edified, give God the glory, and me thy prayers.
FINIS.