Animadversions on Doctor Heylins Quinquarticular History, Title page – To the reader
HISTORIA Quinq-Articularis Exarticulata; OR, ANIMADVERSIONS ON Doctor Heylin's QUINQUARTICULAR HISTORY.
IN WHICH,
1. The Aspersions cast on Foreign Reformers, are wiped off.
2. The Doctor's manifold Contradictions, are manifested.
3. The Doctrine of the Arminians in the five points, is proved, to be contrary to the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England.
By HENRY HICKMAN, B. D. The Second Edition Corrected, and Enlarged.
Si moriens mordeat, mordeatur mortuus.
foreign.
Cato Censor.
London, Printed for Robert Boulter at the Turks-head in Cornhil over against the Royal Exchange. 1674.
THE EPISTLE TO THE READER.
READER,
I Am told the following Papers are mine. And really I think they be; for I well remember, that sundry years ago, I did, hastily, either write or dictate to others to be written, a Confutation of Dr. Heylin's Historia Q…inquarticularis, that so I might remove a stone of offence which, some told me, I principally had occasioned to be laid in the way of yong students. Had I thought …o unstudied a scrible meet to be exposed to publick …iew I could then have sent it abroad, when, either I …uld have procured a Licence to imprint it, or should …ot have been esteemed an offender though I had imprinted it without a Licence. Some Friends have now adventured to put it forth, without my privity, I doubt a little unseasonably, but I am confident with a good intention: Therefore I must not be angry with them.
For my self, I must desire thee, once for all, to take notice,
1. That I only relate some mens opinions Historically, and defend them from unjust aggravations; but am not concerned to maintain them to be true or accurately expressed.
2. That I acknowledg there be some depths, in the Controversies relating to Predestination and Grace, which I am not able to fathom. Nor are these the only points in Divinity, in which I believe some things, against which I have objections that I cannot answer any otherwise than by saying, that every Divine Revelation must needs be true though seemingly contrary to something which my imperfect and corrupt reason apprehends to be true. It is commonly laid to the charge of the Socinians, that they make reason the Judg in Controversies of Faith, and so I verily think it is in some sense: but that it should be Judex normalis, the Norma or Rule according to which we are to judge, so as we are to believe nothing but what we could have demonstrated to be true or possible by meer reason, is an opinion so wicked, that I hope it is but falsly fathered on the Socinians. I believe the Hypostatical Vnion, a Trinity of persons in the Vnity of Essence: if a reason of this my Faith be asked, I will quote the Scriptures, which clearly assert those two Articles: having so done, I have resolved Faith into its first Principle, and I will continue stedfast and immoveable in my Faith though I cannot comprehend, either how three Persons subsist in one numerical nature, or how two natures can be united so as▪ make but one person, In like manner, I will believe the Doctrine of Original Sin, as it is explained in our Articles of Religion, because I find that explication of it agreeable to Scripture, though I cannot so clearly make it out to my own or another mans reason, how Original sin is propagated. I will also believe, that God hath mercy on whom he will and hardneth whom he will, bestoweth his determining Grace on whom he will and denieth it to whom he will, because this is a Scripture Doctrine, though the reconciling of Gods eternal Decrees and the efficacy of Grace with the liberty of mans will▪ surpass my knowledge. And I am the more confident, that I am not mistaken in thinking this to be a Scripture Doctrine, because, as I have shewen in the following Papers, it hath been so adjudged by the Ancient Fathers of the Church. Nor is it a small confirmation to me, that the greatest opposers of Calvinism (as they are resolved to call it) have, after the highest straining of their wits and diligence, been able to say nothing against it, but what the Pelagians and Semipelagians had before objected against S. Austin and his Disciples. I know there be many who think quite otherwise: These will say, Q…id tandem Arminio cum Pelagio, aut quid Calvino cum Augustino? Arminius learned not his opinions from Pelagius, nor did Calvin owe his notions to S. Austin. Such men I earnestly desire impartially to consider what I have hereafter produced, and if they can answer my allegations, I will thank them for undeceiving me. But this I will tell them, that he who hopes to make me his proselyte, must be,
1. No Railer nor Reviler. I have read that some in old times, through I know not what foolish and wicked superstition, thought Garden-Basil (that I suppose answers to Plinie's Ocimum,) would grow the sooner and better, if it were sown cum convitiis & maledictis, with reproaches and evil speaking: So, many of late seem to have been of opinion, that the Doctrine which they plant will prosper the better, if they water it with torrents of contumely against those that differ from them. Perhaps the more rank their stile is, the more it may please some Readers: but he was wise who said, As dead flies cause the Oyntment of the Apothecary to send forth a stinking savour: so doth a little folly, him that is in reputation for wisdom and honor, Eccl. 10.1. A very little of any thing that is but a kin to scurrility will make an ingenuous person disgust and nauseat the most learned book. Dr. Crakanthorp hath very s…lidly confuted Spala…sis, but the uncivil language be every where useth against the Archbishop ▪ hath sometimes turned my stomach and made me leave off reading. Dr. Abbot hath most judici…usly defended the Reformed Catholick against W…m Bishop, but when I find him calling Wright, foulmouthed dog, when, &c. I cannot but wonder where a man, that had all his days been bred up among Scholars, learn'd such language. As for Bishop Mountague, he boasts that never any had handled the Papists as he had done; and I verily believe him. His Gag is a piece for which he may well be denominated a Matchless Scoffer. Fool, Goose, Cockscomb, Ass, Horse, B…ind Buzard, Poor Woodcock, Catholick Cockscomb, &c. these are flowers that grow in Mr. Mountagues Garden, are they not very lovely & sweet? will not Popery fall to the ground after one of its Patrons hath been so bespattered with so many unseemly names? or, will not the Papists rather be confirmed in Popery, when they shall observe a dignified Minister in the Protestant Church, to use such unsavoury language without check or controul from his Superiors?
2. I expect if any one answer me, that he faithfully relate Historical matters. For let him not imagine, that I will think the worse of any party, because I … slandered. Rather, I shall judge men good, because their Adversaries durst not speak evil of them, till they had first represented them to be what every man may know they were not. Lately there was Printed an History of Presbyterians ▪ Dedicated to both Houses of Parliament, and commended in the Dedicatory, as being for the most part. Nothing but a faithful collection of matters of fact, transacted by the Ancestors of a Sect to this day more than enough warm in the bowels of these Kingdoms. Let me crave leave only to take notice how this History begins. Pag. 1, 2, At such time as it pleased God to raise up Martin Luther a Divine of Saxony, to write against the Errours and Corruptions of the Church of Rome, Vlderick Zuinglius a Canon of the Church of Zurick, endeavoured the like Reformation among the Switzers; but holding no intelligence with one another, they travelled divers ways in pursuance of it: which first produced some Animosities between themselves, not to be reconciled by a personal conference, which by the Lantgrave of Hassia was procured between them; but afterwards occasioned far more obstinate ruptures between the followers of the parties in their several stations. The Zuinglian Reformation was begun in defacing Images, decrying the established Fasts and appointed Festivals, abolishing set Forms of Worship, denying the old Catholick Doctrine of a Real Presence, and consequently all External Reverence in the participation of the blessed Sacrament: which Luther seriously laboured to preserve in the same estate in which he found them at the present. They differed also in the Doctrine of Predestination, which Luther taught according to the current of the Antient Fathers, who lived and flourished before the writings of St. Augustin: so that the Romanists had not any thing to except against in that particular, when it was canvased by the Schoolmen in the Councel of Trent. And a little after, The Lutherans have solemnly vowed rather to fall off roundly to the Church of Rome, than yield to those Predestinarian, and Sacramentary Pestilences, as they commonly called them.
The Historian saith, It pleased God to raise up Martin Luther. No such good words are used concerning the Reformation endeavoured by Ulderick Zuinglius: Yet Zuinglius, though born four years after Luther, opposed the Errors and Corruptions of the Church of Rome before Luther, and was doubtless of more Modesty Humility and Learning than Luther. And if the differences betwixt him and Luther, at the Conference procured betwixt them and others by the Lantgrave of Hassia, could not be reconciled, Luther must bear the blame: who was so uncivil as to call Bucer Knave, and so wedded to his notion of Consubstantiation, that he declared he would not recede an hairs breadth from it; and yet had at the Conference, so little to say for it, that he lost the Lantgrave and his Preacher Francis Lambert, who before had imbraced his Doctrine in the point of the Sacrament. Yet dare not I say with the Dr. that Animosities betwixt Luther and Zuinglius were produced, not to be reconciled by a personal Conference which by the Lantgrave of Hassia was procured betwixt them. For first I am not sure that any personal Conference was ever procured betwixt Luther and Zuinglius at Marpurg. Indeed Oecolampadius and Luther had personal Conference in private; so also had Melancthon and Zuinglius: no Conference had Luther and Zuinglius, that I read of, unless for three days in publick: In which three days, though Luther alone spake for his party, (Melancthon, Brentius, Osiander, Agricola being foreign,) yet not only Zuinglius but Oecolampadius answered him and disputed against him. And this it is like the Dr. calls personal Con…erence; whether properly or no, is a question. But that I blame him for, is this, that he saith, that the Animosities were not to be ended by that Conference. It had been too much to say, they were not ended. Fourteen Articles were after that Conference subscribed by all the Divines of both parties. The fourteenth recites, how far they agreed about the Lords Su…per. They agreed, it was to be received, according to the institution, in both Elements: and that there was no need of the Mass, to obtain grace for living or dead: and that the Sacrament of the Altar, was a Sacrament of the true Body and Bloud of …esus Christ: and that Christians, all and every one, had most need of spiritual manducation. In like manner, that the use of the Sacram…nt as the word, was appointed that weak Consciences might be moved by the spirit to true Faith and Love. This was all they differed in, whether the true Body and Bloud of Christ were corporally in the Bread and Wine? About this they could not agree in opinion, but yet they agreed to exercise mutual charity, and to pray for one another, and to leave off writing against one another. So that the Animosities were ended. And some think, that had not the raging of that Pestilential disease called Anglicus Sudor put an end to the Conference, the very difference in opinion as to the Sacrament had been made an end of. But let us go on with the Doctor.
The Zuinglian Reformation, was begun in defacing Images, decrying the established Fasts and appointed Festivals, abolishing set Forms of Worship, denying the old Catholick Doctrine of a Real Presence, and consequently all External Reverence in the participation of the blessed Sacrament.
When the Historian saith, that the Zuinglian Reformation began in defacing Images, the Reader will be apt to think, that defacing Images was the first fruit of Zuinglius his Reformation: But if he should so think, he would be mistaken. Zuinglius his Reformation began in Preaching of the Word at Zurick: whither he came Anno 1519, leaving another place in which he had a larger stipend than he could there expect, (N. B. Both the Helvetian and German Reformer agreed in this, that neither cared for Gold or sought great Livings.) He laid the foundation also of Reformation in encouraging the study of the learned Languages, the neglect whereof brought in Popery. It was not till Zuinglius had been five or six years Preacher at Zurick, that Idols and Images were burnt in the Market place, and being then burnt by publick Authority, what was there in the fact that deserved not praise? Is it not commendable in Christian Magistrates, after they have heard it proved by their Divines▪ that Images are not to be suffered in Churches or other places of publick resort, and when none either could or would say any thing for the retaining of them, to take them away, that so they may be no farther temptations to Idolatry? As much as this was appointed to be done in our English Reformation: why it is not done in the Lutheran Churches we shall by and by hear.
It is added by the Historian, that the Zuinglian Reformation did begin in decrying the established Fasts and appointed Festivals. If the meaning of this be, that Zuinglius decryed the multitude of Fasts and Festivals, appointed to be observed by the Church of Rome, or that he condemned the necessity and meritoriousness, which the Papists ascribed to the observation of Fasts and Feasts, it is true, and tends to the commendation of Zuinglius: but that he decryed every established Fast, or appointed Festival, is a most notorious slander.
So is it also, that his Reformation began in the abolishing of set Forms of Worship: unless the meaning be, that he procured the abolition of some forms of worship, set by the Papists as Papists. And if an Historian, after he hath told us, that a man abolished set forms of Worship may be allowed to interpret himself of Popish Idolatrous forms of Worship, then may we think, he hath no mind to be understood, and, without any blame at all, neglect him.
It follows: the Zuinglian Reformation began in the denying of the old Catholick Doctrine of a Real Presence.
This charge must be intended of Zuinglius his denying the Real Presen…e of Christ in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper ▪ and if it be so intended, it is as false as what is most false. Zuinglius had been at Zurick five years, and reformed many things before he let any one know his mind about the Sacrament, and perhaps before he knew his own mind as to the manner of Christs presence in or with the Sacramental Elements. When he after long study discovered his mind about this matter, he never denyed a Real Presence, unless by Real Presence be understood a Corporal Presence. He expounded Hoc est Corpus meum, by a Trope: so did our Reformers in England. He thought the Bread was the …ody of Christ Representatively. And, as our King may be and is said to be really present, where there is any one who by his own Authority is appointed to represent him; so the Body of Christ may be said to be really present where there is an Element, appointed by himself to represent his Body. And if Dr. Heylin did opine that the Body which our Lord Iesus united to his Divine Nature and with which he ascended into Heaven, is any other way present in the Eucharist, he both erred and dissented from that Church in which he was bred up.
For a conclusion, the Historian tells us, that the Zuinglian Reformation began in denying all Exte… nal Reverence in the participation of the Blessed Sacrament.
Words more strange than any that we had before. For what is meant by the Blessed Sacrament? Sure the Dr. was so much a Christian, as to acknowledge at least two Blessed Sacraments. If so, which of these two would he have us to understand by the Blessed Sacrament? Baptism, or the Lords Supper? I know not why the later, should rather be called the Blessed Sacrament than the former; nor why more External Reverence is necessary in the participation of this than of that, supposing the Recipient to be adult. If a converted Jew should come to be Baptised, why is he not as well bound to kneel when he is sprinkled with water, as when he takes the Bread and Wine? As for Zuinglius, he never denied External Reverence in the Participation of the Blessed Sacrament of the Lords Supper. The mode and form in the which he first administred it, is recited in Melchior Adam, and in the Historia Sacramentaria de Coena Domini, and in it all needful Reverence was used. But, perhaps, not to make the Communicants receive the Sacred Elements on their knees, is to deny all External Reverence in the participation of the Eucharist. If so, Christ and all his Churches for some Centuries must also be affirmed to have denied all External Reverence.
By this it appears what false witness the Dr. hath born against Zuinglius. Doth he bear a truer witness concerning Luther? Of him these words are used, which Luther seriously laboured to preserve in the same estate in which he found them at the present. Words that either are senseless, or very untrue: If they have any sense, it must be this, that Luther seriously endeavoured to preserve the things before mentioned, in the same estate in which he found them in the Papacy. This sense the words do scarse afford: But if we suppose that this sense was intended, I then say, Nothing more false could have been written, Luther did not seriously endeavour to preserve any one thing before-mentioned in the condition in which he found it.
1. For Images; He was indeed angry that they were taken down, not because he desired or endeavored to have them kept up, but because he would have had the honor of pulling them down, and could not endure that Carolastadius should adventure to make any alteration in his absence. Yet Carolastadius created Luther Doctor, and made not the alteration on his own head, but with the consent and advice of Melancthon and others.
2. As to Fasts and Festivals set and constant; Luther had as little fondness for them as Zuinglius could have. Might he have ruled the rost, no Holy days had been kept but the Lords day. To be sure, he endeavoured not, after he thought of Reformation, to keep either Fasts or Festivals in the same state in which he found them: He looked not on them as parts of Worship.
3. He defended a not only Real, but also a Corporal Presence of Christ in th… Eucharist; but not, the Antient Catholick Doctrine of Real Presence, nor yet, the new Roman Catholick Doctrine of Real Presence. Finding in an eminent Schoolman, that were it not for the Authority of the Church, he should more encline to Consubstantiation than Transubstantiation, Luther bethought himself, that he had abandoned the Authority of that Church which kept Cameracensis in awe, and so boldly maintained Consubstantiation (though not to his dying day as some think.) Happy had it been for his Followers, if so absurd an opinion had never been published by him; for they counting themselves concerned to maintain, whatsoever he in his fierce oppositions to Zuinglius delivered, are fallen into the most monstrous tenent of Ubiquity: which whoever believeth, with all the necessary consequences, cannot believe one quarter of the Apostles Creed.
But what is the External Reverence in the use of the Lords Supper, affirmed by Lutherans and denied by Zuinglianists? Adoration is by the Lutherans condemned as well as by the Zuinglianists. So is Asservation, and Circumgestation. Luther himself somewhere, if Wendelin abuse him not, advised Christians to Receive in one Kind or Element where they could not Receive in both: but the Lutherans stifly contend for the necessity of Receiving sub utraque Specie. The differences not already taken notice of, are, 1. The Lutherans think more favourably of Stone Altars, than do the Zuinglianists. 2. The Lutherans, at least many of them, better approve of lighting Candles in the Administration, than do the Zuinglianists ▪ We in England, in many places, set Candles and Candlesticks on the Tables, but do not light the Candles. 3. The Lutherans use for one Element, a placenta orbicularis, of which it may be questioned, whether it can properly be called bread? So do not the Zuinglianists. 4. The Lutherans use no breaking of the Bread: So do the Zuinglianists. 5. The Lutherans give not that which they use for Bread into the hands of the Communicants, but put it into their mouths: So do not the Zuinglianists.
In no needful point of the External Reverence do they differ.
But perhaps in the point of Predestination, Luther and Zuinglius were at deadly strife and variance. So indeed the Historian suggests; for these are his words, Predestination Luther taught according to the current of the Antient Fathers, which lived and flourished before the writings of St. Austin. But by his favour, Luther taught Predestination as St. Austin and the Fathers that followed him taught it. Had he taught it as the Fathers before him taught it, he had in words at least complied with the wretched Pelagians. Other Predestination did Zuinglius never teach. So that Zuinglius and Luther differed not about Predestination; and the late Ubiquitarian Lutherans, make a difference where they found none.
Obj. But Have not the Lutherans solemnly vowed rather to fall off roundly to the Church of Rome, than yield to the Predestinarian and Sacramentary Pestilences? Dr. Heylin ibid.
Answ. That some Lutherans have used words of such an import, I remember is affirmed by Sir Edwin Sands: But to say, The Lutherans have solemnly vowed to turn Papists rather than imbrace Zuinglius his opinion about Predestination and the Sacrament, is an untruth of such a bulk, as most men but Dr. Heylin would have strained at. When did the Lutherans solemnly vow this? what Record is there of any place where such a vow was made? or, what gr…und had the Lutherans to enter into such a solemn vow? Till these questions can be well answered which will never be, we might, if we did not reverence the Doctor's degree, well be allowed to say Mentitur Petrus: But to give any man such language is so troublesome, that I heartily pray, I may never have to do with any who will give me any such temptation.
3. I do also expect, that he who will answer me, should have so much Logick and Metaphysicks, as to be able to understand the terms of the Questions and the state of the Questions agitated in the Book, and rightly to form Arguments pro & con. For let not any one imagin, that I will be at the trouble to teach him that in Print, which he should have learn'd of his Tutor. Once indeed I did stoop so low, as to inform Mr. Tho. Pierce, that Real and Positive were not the same, and that The absence of a form from the subject, in which it ought to hauehave been though it were never in it actually, may be called a privation, and that Death is a privation, notwithstanding Christ came to destroy it, and that The generation of one thing is the corruption of another thing, not formally but only by concomitance, and that Our English word Sin, is not a concrete, but an abstract term, and that One accident may be the subject of inhesion to another accident, though not the ultimate subject: But that employment did so little please me, and I had so little thanks for it, that I am almost resolved never to take it upon me more. Yet this I must needs say, for the excuse of my first confident Antagonist, that he is not the only man that adventured to fight, before he either kn…w how to form his weapon or to make use of it. Dr. Heylin, whom the Bishops were wont alway to send out upon the forlorn hope, had written many Books of Controversie, before he knew the nature of a conditional Syllogism: as appears from the marvellous check he gives Mr. Baxter for saying after a conditional major, But the Antecedent is true. Ergo, so is the Consequent. Such a form of arguing it seems, the Doctor had never read nor heard of: yet I believe every Freshman hath heard of it, and knows the reason of it. Another, that went for a learned man, brings an Argument that he thought unanswerable; viz. Babylon as Babylon is not a visible Church of Christ, But Babylon is Babylon as it is Babylon. Therefore Babylon is not a visible Church of Christ. Not knowing it seems, that, in such kind of Syllogisms, the Reduplicative particle ought alway to be put to the major term of the Syllogism. But of all men, commend me to the Author of the Appeal to Caesar. Some it seems offended at his Gag, had accused him for saying There ever was and will be a Church, unto whom complaints may be made. This accusation his great stomach could not disgest. But observe, good Reader, how he strains to get rid of it. Doth he, in his Appeal, go about to prove, that the Church is alwayes so visible, as that complaints may be made to her? N…: But Appeal page 134 he saith, that in the nineteenth Article of our Church Church and Visible are convertible term. A position so absurd, that no one …ho knows what convertible terms do mean, can …hoose but see tis absurdity. But page 139 he grows more bold and confident (yet not so bold as to prove the proposition for which he was challenged,) and in these words he swaggers, I will yet add more Popery to the former, and so leave you my Friends and Informers to chew the cud on it, as they did after Lectures.
The Church of Rome hath ever been visible.
The Church of Rome is, and ever was, a true Church since it was a Church.
Therefore the true Church hath been Visible.
If any after Lectures do not chew the cud, i. e. meditate, they are unclean beasts; but wo be to those who must chew the cud on such food as this. The enunciation here concluded is, The true Church hath been Visible, which I never heard any Christian deny. But let us see how this man of learning proveth it. The Premises are, The Church of Rome hath ever been Visible, This Proposition is most false and contrary to all History; The Church of Rome is, and ever was, a true Church since it was a Church, This premise is not apt to infer the conclusion: It should have been thus formed, The Church of Rome is the true Church; but then it had been Popish with a vengeance. Little need have the Puritans to pray, a Montacutii Logica liberes nos Deus.
Indeed I have observed, that many of those who are no friends to the absolute decree, have hut little friendship for Syllogisms; they count themselves put into the Pillory or Stocks as often as they are constrained to argue in form. If they may not be allowed to rhetoricate, to amplifie and exaggerate, to say horresco referens, to cry out ever and anon, foreign; then are they like Wasps without a sting, or like Soldiers disarmed. Jacobus Andreas was earnestly desired by Beza that the Conference betwixt them might be managed syllogistically; but Andreas was so far from yielding, that he swore in these or the like words, Per vitam meam nunquam sic vidi in scholis nostris disputari. Vid. Bez. in praef. ad acta Coll. I hope he wronged the Lutheran Schools, or else I must needs say, they had strange Schools, in which a man could never hear a Syllogistical Disputation. In our Schools no Disputations are allowed but what are Syllogistical, and the main work of the Moderator is, to keep the Disputants to form. And this was that which Tertullian so much commended, ad lineas & in gradum disputare: that which St. Hierom so often called for, in his Disputations against the Luciferians; Rhetoricaris, & a disputationum spinctis, ad c…mpos liberae declamationis excurris: verum define quaeso a communibus locis, & in gradum rursus ac lineas regredere; postea si placu…rit latius disseremus.
And yet the Author of Gods love to man-kind makes this one of his reasons why he suspected the Doctrine of absolute Reprobation not to be true, because the maintainers of it are so loth to have it examined. But the Author, before he died, knew, that the absolute decree did not fear tryal, but was as generally entertained, and as firmly held, after it had endured the most severe tryals, as before. Bu… if men will say, We cannot endure to haave a Doctrine examined, because we do not like that it should be mis-represented and then bespattered, by those who had rather lose a good Conscience, than a prophane Iest, if we must be accouted Cowards, because we tell Rabshakeh, that we understand Latine, and pray him not to talk to us in English in the ears of the People, and answer him not a word when he hath done reviling, we are content to be thought such Cowards. But let those who so call us think what they would do, if the Doctrine of the Trinity should be impugned; They would answer him who soberly went about to shew, that the Scriptures we produce do not prove a Trinity, or that should go about by reason to shew, that an increated infinite essence can no m…re be one and yet agree to three persons, than the humane nature can: But if any one should write such Books as Servetus did, in which above an hundred times over the Trinity i… called …iceps Cerberus, diabolicum phantasma, Geryonis monstrum, illusio Satanae; and the eternal generation is thus derided, Debent dicere quod pater habeat uxorem quandam spiritualem, vel quod solus ipse masculo-fae…neus aut Hermaphroditus simul sit pater & mater, &c. and, Si logos filius erat nat…s ex patre sine matre, dic mihi quomodo peperit cum, per ventrem, an per latus? they would think it sufficient to say, The Lord rebuke thee.
To conclude, If any one who is a Scholar and will write like a Scholar, will be at the pains to shew me, that Arminianism in the five points is not contrary to the Doctrine of St. Austin (the hammer of Pelagianism,) nor yet contrary to the Doctrine of our Church, I shall either speedily reply or acknowledge my self his Prisoner. Put if any one shall publish a Book against me, stuffed only with impotent railings or malicious calumnies, I shall punish him, as I have done two or three already, by not buying, not reading his Book.
It will perhaps be said, that the Papists, against whom we should unite our forces, will be too too much gratified by one Protestant's writing against another.
Answ. I doubt not, but the Factors for the Papacy, do with much delight tell their Disciples, how those that are not in Communion with them are divided among themselves: But they should do well to make up their own breaches before they upbraid us wit… ours. He, that being scandalised at the diversity of opinions among the Reformed, shall betake himself to the Romanists, will leap out of the frying-pan into the fire. The Papists only agree in that, in which they dare not publish how much they differ: and they then let a Popes decision put an end to their disputes, when they can neither say, that the Pope was misinformed, or that he was not in Cathed…a, or know not how by some distinction to evade the determination; that is, they then let the Popes reconcile them, when they have no mind to be any longer at variance. They will not deny, but that there is as much difference between their Dominicans and Franciscans ▪ their Jansenists and Molinists, as there is betwixt Calvinists and Arminians: and yet they say, that their Church is one, and not ours. How is this to be unridled? One A. D. about the beginning of King James his Reign, put forth a Pamphlet which he called a Treatise of Faith; near the later end of which he lets us understand, that the Roman Church is alwayes one and uniform in Faith, never varying or holding any dogmatical point contrary to that which in former times it did hold. The learned men thereof, though sometimes differing in opinion, in matters not defined by the Church, yet, in matters of Faith, all conspire in one. And no marvel, because they have a most convenient means to keep unity in profession of Faith; sith they do acknowledge one chief Pastor appointed over them (viz. the Successor of St. Peter,) to whose definitive censure, in matters concerning Religion, they wholly submit themselves. The Gentlemans meaning if I can fathom it is, that the Romanists are resolved to think their Church is at unity within it self. For though the members thereof have 10000 differences among themselves, yet those differences are not in matters of Faith, because they are resolved▪ as soon as the Church shall decide them, never to differ more. Well, one would think that Protestants also might be at unity; because they profess they will yield to Scripture determination whatever it be. Nay, that the Gentleman will n…t grant; because, as he had told us a little before, divers men expound the Scriptures diversly. As if the decisions of their Church were not expounded diversly by divers, and were not as apt to be diversly expounded as the Scriptures. And, as if they were as much at an end after they had found out the meaning of a decision made by the Pope, as we are when we have found out the meaning of the Scripture. Convince a Protestant, that any one place of Scripture must needs be so understood as to assert Consubstantiation, he becomes a Syno…siast forthwith: But when you have convinced a Papist, that a decision of the Pope must needs be so interpreted as to cross his opinion, yet he will not lay down his opinion; but will say, perhaps, that the Pope did decide not as Pope but only as a Learned man, or that it may be questioned whether he be a Pope, or whether he be infallible out of a Councel, or whether he was rightly informed of matter of fact? Suppose a Jansenist should thus argue, The Pope did not intend to condemn the Doctrine of Augustine: therefore, He did not intend to condemn the Doctrine of Jansenius. A Molinist would be loth to deny the Antecedent; and yet if he deny the Consequent, then hath the Jansenist field-room enough, and is as far from being proselyted as if nothing had been determined against Jansenism. In the mean time it were heartily to be wished, that Protestant Ministers would v…ry sparingly in their Preaching touch upon those p…ints wherein they differ am…ng themselves. The day is yet to come that ever I preached Sermon about Election or Reprobation, and I look upon it as a great affliction that I have been by the daring provocations of others put upon it to write about them. I could easily have born it that Dr. Heylin should trample upon my self; but could not so well endure it, that for my sake the honour of some of our best Reformed Writers should be laid in the dust. If Zuinglius, Calvin, Beza may still be read without prejudice and quoted in the Pulpit with due respect, If I can but perswade young Scholars that those who composed our Articles did understand them, and would not enjoyn men to recant such tenents as were agreeable to them; then have I obtained what I principally aimed at. And so, good Reader, I commend thee to the love of God, and to the hatred of Popery and Superstition and every opinion that hath a natural tendency thereunto.