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. Dr. H. Of this sort Manes was the first by birth of Persia and Founder of the damnable Sect of the Manichees Anno 273 or thereabouts This wretch did first excogitate two Gods the one good and the other evil both of like Eternity ascribing all pious actions to the one all sins and vices to the other Which ground so laid he utterly deprived the will of man of that natural liberty of which it is by God invested and therefore that in man there was no ability of resisting sin or not submitting unto any of those wicked actions which his lusts and passion offered to him Contendebant item peccatum non esse à libero arbitrio sed à Daemone eapropter non posse per liberum arbitrium impediri as my Author hath it Answ. Who is this Author Prateolus a Pontifician who neither took great pains in examining what the Ancients delivered concerning Hereticks nor was fearful of affixing to men what they never held It had been more comely for a man of great reading as Doctor Heylin either is or seems to be to have referred us to Epiphanius or Cyril of Ierusalem or Austin from whom we should have taken the opinions of Manes with less suspicion but seeing he hath consulted his ease more than his credit and chosen rather to take things upon trust from Prateolus than to peruse those
to my Neighbour I follow my occasion c. therefore I trust God hath elected me and predestinated me to eternal Salvation not thâ—â— 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 In which words there is some thing Hypercalvinistical for the Bishop saith we must rather reason Ascendendo than Descendendo but the Calvinist saith that we must altogether reason Ascendendo in such a way as he after delineates If the Bishop were not a Calvinist I would fain know how a man could according to his principles argue Ascendendo I live in obedience to God therefore I trust God hath elected me and predestinated me to Salvation The Calvinist saith he that lives in obedience to God is predestinated to Salvation but so doth not the Anti-calvinist nor hath he any foundation to build his trust of Predestination to Salvation upon for according to him a man who lives in all good obedience to God may be damned because he may cease to live in obedience to God and hath no promise that he shall not cease But if Dr. Bancroft had not by his speech declared himself Calvinistical yet as hath been said his Chaplain's publishing his Exposition or Analysis of our Articles according to the Calvinistical frame and that with his good liking and approbation is a sufficient argument that he was such To invalidate this argument it is only said that That Analysis had been published 1585 which was eighteen years before Bancroft was Arch-Bishop Which answer adds strength to the argument for by it it appears that he took one to be his Chaplain who had eighteen years before published a Calvinistical Exposition of the Articles and suffered him after his own Consecration to republish it and to dedicate it to his own Grace which it may be presumed he would not have done if it had contained any thing contrary to his own judgement and sense Obj. But why would any one affirm that Bancroft agreed to the Lambeth-Articles whilst Bishop of London Answ. It was Mr. Fullers mistake in his Church History so to affirm Mr. Hickman whom the Doctor hath chosen for his adversary never so affirmed Yet he affirmed that he agreed to them and so it is like he did in the capacity of a Divine called in to consult On which score I also reckon that Mr. Nowel Dean of St. Pauls might agree to them because he was Dr. Whitakers Unkle and resided at London Object 2. Did not King James reject the Lambeth Articles when propounded as fit to be inserted into the Articles Answ. He did not reject them nor could he in honour reject them having never seen them before nor having them read to him at that time He was only told that the Articles were by the Arch-Bishop taking to him some Divines of special note drawn up and sent to the University for the appeasing of quarrels Whereupon his Majesty resolved that when such questions do arise among Scholars the quietest proceeding were to determine them in the University and not to stuff the Book with Conclusions Theological Here is not one word of leaving them to be canvased and disputed in the Schools though if they had been so left they might not forthwith be held in the Affirmative or Negative as best pleased the Respondent for the Respondent in our Universities can hold nothing without the allowance and approbation of the Doctor of the Chair or Vice-Chancelor or University Yea King Iames did some years after allow the putting of these Lambeth-Articles into the Confession of the Church of Ireland Anno 1615. To this the Doctor shapes an answer pag. 101 consisting of sundry particulars First That the Irish Articles were drawn up by Dr. Usher a professed Calvinian who not only thrust in the Lambeth-Articles but also made others of his own Answ. The Articles are the better to be liked because drawn up by a hand so learned and peaceable Secondly That the King might give consent to the confirming of these Articles though he liked them not How so First Because the Irish Nation at that time were most tenaciously addicted to the errors and corruptions of the Church of Rome and therefore must be bended to the other extreme before they could be streight Secondly It was an usual practise with the King in the whole course of his government to ballance one extreme by another countenancing the Papists against the Puritans and the Puritans sometimes against the Papists Answ. I have heard much talk of the craft of King Iames but did never before hear nor do I now believe that this was any part of it for what Policy is it to bring People out of one extreme into another or what Piety is it to agree to Articles of Religion the which all the Clergy must approve meerly to keep the civil interest even But I see what the Doctors fetch is in this what ever King Iames did in the affairs of Religion that his palat relisheth not must be thought to be done to gratifie the Puritans may not the Puritans also say that what ever was done pleasing to the Doctor was done in compliance with the Papists and with whom then will the name of King Iames be precious or honourable One piece of veracity I must needs commend the Doctor for viz. his acknowledging that Dr. Reynolds owned the meaning of the sixteenth Article to be â—ound pag. 98. This I commend because Mr. Mountague found a forehead in his Appeal to aver that it was by him and the other Ministers challenged for unsound I wish I had the like occasion to commend him for veracity to the end of his Book But I have not for pag. 103 he tells us that the opposites to the Calvinians were by the grace and favour of King James invested in the chief preferments of the Church of England conferred as openly and freely upon them as those who had been bred up in the contrary perswasion This if it be understood of men that had openly declared their opinions against the Calvinian Doctrine will be found to be an untruth If any trust be to be given to our printed Catalogues of Bishops there were in that Kings Reign these Translations or Consecrations Canterbury Richard Bancroft 1604. G. Abbot 1610. Asaph Richard Parry 1604. Iohn Hanmer 1622. Bangor Lewis Balie 1616. Bath and Wells Iames Mountague 1608. Ar. Lake 1616. Bristoll Iohn Thornborough 1603. Nicholas Felton 1617. Iohn Scatchfield 1619. Robert Wright 1622. Chicester Lancelot Andrews 1605. Samuel Harsnet 1609. George Carleton 1619. Coventry George Abbot 1609. Richard Neile 1610. Iohn Overal 1614. Thomas Morton 1618. St. Davids Richard Milborne 1615. William Laud 1621. Ely Lancelot Andrews 1609. Nicholas Felton 1618. Exeter Valentine Cary 1621. Glocester Thomas Ravis 1604. Henry Parry 1607. Giles Thomson 1611. Miles Smith 1612. Hereford Francis Godwin 1617. Landaff George
Carleton 1618. Theo. Field 1619. Lincoln William Barlow 1608. Richard Neile 1613. George Mountayn 1617. Iohn Williams 1621. London Richard Vaughan 1604. Thomas Ravis 1607. George Abbot 1609. Iohn King 1611. George Mountaine 1621. Norwich Iohn Overal 1618. Samuel Harsnet 1619. Oxford Iohn Bridges 1603. Iohn Houson 1619. Roch. Willam Barlow 1605. Rechard Neile 1608. Io. Buckridge 1611. Salisbury Robert Abbot 1615. Martin Fotherby 1618. Robert Tomson 1620. Iohn Davenant 1621. Winchester Ia. Mountague 1617. Lancelot Andrews 1618. Worcester Henry Parry 1610. Iohn Thornborough 1617. York Toby Mathew 1606. Carlisle Robert Snowdon 1616. Richard Milbourne 1620. Richard Senhouse 1624. Chester George Lloyd 1604. Thomas Morton 1616. Iohn Bridgeman 1618. Durham William Iames 1606. Richard Neile 1617. How few are they among these which the Doctor layes claim to And how little or no proof doth he give us that those whom he claims had publickly owned any of his Anti-calvinian Opinions Bancroft is never affirmed to have said or written any thing concerning Predestination but what occurs in the Relation of the Hampton Court Conference and that can at most amount but to a rebuke of some carnal Protestants who did abuse the Doctrine of Predestination to their destruction Overal's Opinion in these points if it somewhat differ from Calvin's much more differs from Dr. Heylin's Yet on the account of Overal's and some others Episcopal preserments the Historian groweth so confident as to averr that his Conditional-decree-men found King James a gracious Patron and by means of his gracious Patronage in the end surmounted all difficulties and came at last to be altogether as considerable both for power and number as the Calvinists were He that will affirm this and affirm it in Print and whilst so many are living that knew the Transactions of King Iames his Court must needs lose the credit of an impartial Historian Yet the Doctor as if he had not sufficiently disparaged himself in affirming so great an increase of Anti-calvinists in England goes on to give a reason of it just as some in Natural Philosophy undertake to give us a cause of the Swans singing before her death before they have given us any good Authority that she doth so sing But what is his reason Why Dr. H. Pag. 103. The differences betwixt the Remonstrants and Contraremonstrants in Holland and their publishing of their Books one against another by which the students in the Universities were quickned to study the points Answ. That the breaking out of the Remonstrants could not did not contribute to the increase of Arminianism in England we shall see by and by In the mean time it is no great credit to the Doctors cause that so few durst publickly appear for it till it had the incouragement of the civil Magistrate If the Primitive Christians had not published the truth before Kings became nursing Fathers to it the world had been to this day under Paganish darkness Let me offer a Dilemma Either there were some in England who thought Calvins Doctrines made God the Author of sin destroyed liberty of will opened a gap to all profaneness or there were not If there were none every one sees what will follow If any how came they to have so little zeal against so damnable blasphemies as not to adventure the loss of all preferments yea of life it self in opposing of them Dr. H. Pag. 104. But so it hapned that while matters went thus fairly forwards Conradus Vorstius suspected for a Samosetenian or Socinian Heretick c was chosen by the Curators of Leiden 1611 to succeed Arminius Answ. While things went thus fairly forward How fairly forward You told us before of the preferments of certain Bishops that had espoused your opinions several of whose preferments were bestowed on them after this election of Vorstius into the place of Arminius You also little credit your History by saying that Vorstius was but suspected of Socinianism and your friends the Remonstrants did less credit themselves in appearing so streâ—uously for a man suspected of such prodigious blasphemies if he had been only suspected But what ever secret good liking you had either for the Remonstrants or Vorstius by whom they would feign have been headed your Loyalty and Allegeance should have kept you from saying that King James used many harsh and bitter expressions against Arminius and his followers as if guilty of the same impieties with Vorstius For why might not King Iames charge the Remonstrants with Vorstius his blasphemies when as they so apertly declared that they had nothing against Vorstius nor had found any thing in his Writing which was contrary to truth or piety and that it would be most profitable to Church and Commonwealth if his calling should proceed Vid. praef ad acta Synodi But how inexcuseable a piece of is it to say as you do Chapt. 6th Numb 7 that King James was carried so to express himself against the Arminians not so much by the clear light of his own understanding as by reason of State and that it was a part of Kings craft to contribute to the suppression of the weaker party For doth not King Iames in his Declaration tell you the clean contrary Doth he not also call Arminius an enemy to God his followers Atheistical sectaries Doth he not call Bertius his Book of the Apostasie of Saints a blasphemous Book worthy of the Fire for its very Title Doth he not say that Bertius lâ—ed grosly in averring his heresie contained in his said Book was agreeable with the profession and Religion of our Church of England And will you after all this make the world believe that setting aside political considerations and a design to serve the Prince of Orange King Iames had no zeal against Arminianism What if one should say that this Book you have written is not the clear result of your Judgment but wrested from you by the importunity of your Friends who would not suffer you to be quiet till you had reproached the Calvinists and wrested the History of Church affairs to serve their ends You would think your self wronged And have not you then much more wronged King Iames under whose Government you lived in telling the world so long after his death that he put all the harsh expressions against Arminius into his Declaration to serve other mens turns rather than to advance his own as you speak Chap. 22. Numb 10. But you think you have reason to charge this hypocrisie on him for say you pag. 106 That King James condemned not the Arminian Doctrines in themselves though he had taken some displeasure against their persons appears not only by rejecting the Lambeth-Articles and his dislike to the Calvinian Doctrine of predestination in the Conference at Hampton-Court but also by instructing his Divines commissionated for the Synod of Dort not to oppose the Article of Universal Redemption which they accordingly performed You told us before Chap. 6. Numb 7th that King James sent such Divines to the assembly
at Dort as he was sure would be sufficiently active in their i. e. the Remonstrants condemnation and have you now so soon forgot your self as to say that he instructed his Divines thither commissionated not to oppose the Article of Universal redemption which accordingly they performed and make this an argument that King James condemned not the Arminian Doctrines in themselves Was that Universal redemption which you say King James instructed his Divines not to oppose and which they did not oppose an Arâ—inian Doctrine or was it not If it was nor how is King Iames his directing his Divines not to oppose it any evidence that he condemned not the Arminians opinions in themselves If it were and that our Divines did not condemn it why is the King charged with sending Divines that would be sufficiently active in condemning the Arminian opinions Again you say expresly pag. 107 that he gave command to his Divines sent to the Synod of Dort not to recâ—de from the Doctrine of the Church of England in the point of Universal Redemption by the death of Christ a point so inconsistent with that of the absolute decree of reprobation and generally of the whole Machina of predestination and the points depending thereupon as they are commonly maintained in the Schools of Calvin that fire and water cannot be at greater difference Sir I beseech you consider whether you do not contradict your self whilst you think you only contradict Calvin Universal redemption by the death of Christ overthrows the whole Machine of the Calvinian predestination and the points thereon depending Thus I argue from this They that were sent with Order to assert Universal redemption by the death of Christ were sent with order to destroy the whole Machine of Calvinian predestination Our Divines by King James were sent with Orders to assert Universal redemption by the death of Christ. Therefore Our Divines were sent with Orders to destroy the whole Machine of Calvinian predestination Again They that asserted Universal reâ—emption by the death of Christ destroyed the whole Machine of â—he Calvinian predestination Our Divines at the Synod of Dort asserted Universal Redemption by the death of Christ. Therefore Our Divines at the Synod of Dort destroyed the whole Machine of the Calvinian predestination The premises in both Syllogisms are your own Yet I suppose you disown the conclusion naturally and necessarily flowing from them Or if you do not why did you say that our King thought it a piece of King-Craft to contribute to the suppression of the weaker i. e. Remonstrant party and sent Divines that would be active in their condemnation Finally you tell us that this point of Universal Redemption was together with the rest condemned in the Synod of Dort Now nothing was in that Synod condemned but what our Divines consented to they have subscribed to all the determinations of the Synod relating to the death of Christ Therefore either the Synod did not condemn Universal redemption of our Divines did not aâ—cording to their Orders The Reader by this time sees what terrible executions the Doctor hath done on himself and more need not be said about the Synod of Dort as it relateth to our English affairs Some things done in England and misrelated by the Doctor must be rectified Pag. 105 he essays to make a Salve for the Recantation imposed on Mr. Sympson for some passages in a Sermon before the King at Royston 1616 and he would fain have us think that the King took no offence at his saying that the committing any great Sin did for the present extinguish grace and Gods Spirit for in that he went no further than Overal had done This is very untrue for Overal never said so nor could say so according to his principles But what then did the King take exception at At nothing but the Preachers expounding the seventh to the Romans as Arminius had done or rather his Fathering the exposition on Arminius But either the Preacher did bring this exposition of Arminius to credit an Arminian notion or he did not If he did then it was the Arminianism of the exposition that gave distast If not would it not sound like tyranny in the King to injoyn a Learned man a Recantation meerly because he used such an exposition of a place of Scripture as Arminius had used Take the place of a Regenerate man Arminius his Doctrine cannot stand as the wise King well saw and therefore he sent to the two Professors of Cambridge to have their judgment in the case who sent their judgment in favour of St. Austins exposition But the Doctor observes that the Professors did not do this of their own Authority but as set on by the King pag. 106. I wonder how they could give their judgments to the King at Royston of a Sermon Preached before him until they were by his Majesty required so to do I But the Professors were not so forward as to move in it of themselves as may appear by their not answering of Tompsons Book de intercisione gratiae justificationis though the Author of it were a member of that University but leaving it to be coâ—futed by Dr. Abbot their Brother in the Chair at Oxford so great an alteration had been made in Cambridge since the first striking up of their heats against Baro and Barret O what superfoetations of Doctrines are here upon nothing or what is less than nothing First Dr. Abbot when he confuted Tompson was not Doctor of the Chair but Bishop of Salisbury and so no Brother to the Professors at Cambridge 1616. Secondly The Professors at Cambridge then were Dr. Richardson originally of Emanuel a Colledge that in those days afforded few Arminians and Dr. Iohn Davenant a very able and zealous opposer of Arminianism as all know Thirdly The Cambridge Professors might not count themselves concerned to confute Tompson because his Book was not Printed in their University nor indeed in England and because Tompson's life had confuted his Book at Cambridge He was a man of a most debauched conversation and confirmed himself in his debauchedness by his Arminianism for when men reproved him for his prophaness he would say My will is free I am a Child of the Devil to day to morrow I will make my self a Child of God this more than any Answer to the Book would confirm the Cantabridgians that he was not an enemy to perseverance as a Doctrine leading to impiety Well but Did not King James by his Directions to the University Jan. 18. 1619. require that young students in Divinity be appointed to study such Books as be most agreeable in Doctrine and discipline to the Church of England and excited to bestow their time in the Fathers and Councels School-men Histories and Controversies and not to insist too long upon Compendiums and Abbreviations making them the ground of their study in Divinity Really he did so and I heartily wish the direction had been observed for then had Arminianism been crushed
I would have observed concerning Arminius 1. That in the set Conference betwixt him and Gomarus not long before his death he declared that he had never opposed the Doctrine of the certain Perseverance of Saints and that he would not then oppose it because such testimonies might be brought for it out of the Scriptures as he was not able to answer he would therefore only propound such places as made him somewhat to scruple and doubt about that matter 2. He would not then consent to have Adolphus Venator dismissed and to take another Pastor in his place though Venator was at that time as well for the impurity of his life as his Doctrine under the just censure of the Church If the Remonstrants count it any way for their honour to fight under such a Captain or Leader let them enjoy their phantasie Had not our first Reformers been endued with more courage and resolution Religion had never made that progress among us that now it hath I 'le never think any Opinion worth embracing whose Author either doubts of it or durst not suffer for it However glad I should be if they who follow or rather out-run Arminius in the five Points would be of the same mind with him as to the Pope of Rome of whom he thus writes in an Epistle to Sebastian Egbert bearing date Septemb. 24. 1608 Aperte profiteor me Pontificem Romanum pro membro corporis Christi non habere sed pro hoste pro perduelle pro sacrilego pro blasphemo pro tyranno violentissimo injustissimae in Ecclesiam dominationis usurpatore pro homine peccati pro filio perditionis pro exlege illo celeberrimo Well had it been for the Belgick Churches if Arminianism and Arminius had both died together but they did not Breaches as the Doctor truly notes pag. 49 grew wider and wider The Remonstrants having no hopes their cause should succeed if debated in a full and lawful Synod endeavour to shelter themselves under the wing of the Civil Magistrates whose favour that they might be the more sure to gain they ceased not upon all occasions to imbitter the Civil Powers against all the Pastors that were of a perswasion contrary to theirs speaking and Printing of them as if they were enemies to Magistracy and introduced an Ecclesiastical Power collateral and equal to the Civil an Artifice that Hereticks have alway used when they have been put to their shifts Not content thus to reproach their Brethren they further propound if there must needs be a Synod it might consist not of Persons delegated by the Churches but of certain nominated by the Magistrate Thinking that by this device they had put themselves out of all fear of Synodical censure they make an open Schism and present a Remonstrance to the States of Holland and West-Friesland in which they neither nakedly and plainly declared their own Opinions nor candidly represented the Tenents of their Adversaries Much they endeavoured that no Copy of this Remonstrance might be given out but at length a Copy was got and a Contraremonstrance made The Doctor tells us that Dr. H. Pag. 49 50. The Remonstrants gained exceedingly upon their Adversaries for the whole Controversie being reduced to these five Points the Method and Order of Predestination the Efficacy of Christ's Death the Operations of Grace both before and after Conversion and Perseverance in the same the Parties were admitted to a publick Conference at the Hague Anno 1611 in which the Remonstrants were conceived to have much the better of the day Answ. But if a man may be so bold Who were they that conceived the Remonstrants had much the better of the day The Remonstrants themselves Proprio laus sordet in ore The Contra-remonstrants They never so conceived but rather reported themselves Victors When were the Differences reduced to five Heads Not before the Hague Conference I am sure for the Deputies of the Churches charged the Followers of Arminius with Heterodoxies in more Points than the five now mentioned as appears by all the complaints exhibited against them And there fell out something which might justly give the World occasion to think that the Remonstrants were leavened with Socinianism as well as with Pelagianism For care being taken to chose one who might succeed Arminius in his Professors place the Remonstrants thought none so meet as Vorstius a man strongly suspected to be a great favourer of Socinus and who had then newly Printed a Book in the which he ascribed unto God Quantity Composition Mutability Passive Power and such other imperfections as are altogether repugnant to his perfect Essence yet at the Conference the Remonstrants professed unanimously that they had found nothing in the Writings of Vorstius contrary either to Truth or Piety At the Conference also the Contra-remonstrants urged that there were more things controverted betwixt them and the Remonstrants than were contained in the five Articles I shall make a few Annotations on the five Articles of the Remonstrants 1. That Almighty God ordained to save all those in Christ for Christ through Christ who being faln and under the command of sin by the assistance of the Holy Ghost do persâ—vere in Faith and Obedience to the very end This Article is such as no Christian would deny yet the Remonstrants do lay down such Assertions as do by most necessary consequence quite overthrow this Decree For Poppius a man of note and renown among them seems much to doubt Whether a late though never so serious Repentance do avail a man to Salvation Nay he expresly affirms in praxi Consolationis aegrotantium that he is destitute of any Promise so universal as that by it any one who dies with but a death-bed serious Repentance can be assured that he shall go to Heaven and that it is uncertain whether such late serious Penitents go with the Thief into Paradise or with those that die in their Sins to Hell Nor is this the singular opinion of Poppius I can shew the same in Episcopius not to mention some of our own here in England The Sublapsarians make the object of Reprobation man fallen into Sin the Remonstrants say that man recovered out of Sin by true Repentance may be the object of Reprobation and Damnation How easily might I if I took pleasure in recriminations tell them of ascribing Tyranny Hypocrisie Respect of Persons unto God But I only desire my Reader to consider whether the Remonstrant do not Preach another Gospel than what hath been hitherto taught in the Churches of Christ Nothing was thought more undoubted than that he who believes shall be saved The Remonstrant saith this is not necessarily true and that thousands and millions of true Believers may go to Hell How will such as these deal with an Unbeliever that is but twenty years old Will they perswade him to believe in Christ He will ask them what encouragement they can give him to believe Will they reply Salvation is promised to Believers in Christ He
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 Books to be Sold by Robert Boulter at the Turks-head in Cornhil over against the Royal Exchange FOLIO THe Institutes of the Laws of England in four parts by Sir Edward Coke Spiritual Refinings in two parts by Anthony Burgess His 145 Sermons on Iohn 17. His Treatise of Original Sin The Merchants Map of Commerce wherein the universal manner and matter of Trade is compendiously handled the second Edition by Lewis Roberts Merchant Curia Politiae or the Apologies of several Princes Justifying to the world their most Eminent Actions by Reason and Policie A Concordance to the Holy Scriptures with the various readings both of Text and margin By S.N. Sixty five Sermons by the Right Reverend Father in God Ralph Brownrig late Lord Bishop of Exceter Published by William Martyn M.A. sometimes Preacher at the Rolls In two Volumes Quarto An Exposition with Practical Notes and Observations on the five last Chapters of the Book of Iob by Ioseph Caryl Husbandry Spiritualized or the Heavenly use of Earthly things by I. Flavel An Exposition on the first eighteen verses of the first Chapter of S. Iohn by I. Arrowsmith D. D. A Treatise of the Sabbath in four parts by Mr. Dan. Cawdry Vindiciae Legis or a Vindication of the Law and Covenants from the Errours of Papists Socinians and Antinomians by Anthony Burgess The Saints Everlasting Rest Or a Treatise of the blessed state of the Saints in their enjoyment of God in glory by Rich. Baxter His plain Scripture-proof of Infant-baptism Thesaurus medicinae practicae ex praestantissimorum tum Veterum tum Recentiorum Medicorum Observationibus Consultationibus Consiliis Episâ—olis summa diligentia collectus ordineque Alphabetico dispositus per Tho. Burnet Large Octavo Scholae Wintonieusis Phrases Latinae The Latine Phrases of Winchester School Collected by H. Robinson D. D. A Discourse of growth in Grace in sundry Sermons by Samuel Slater late of S. Katherines near the Tower The Grounds of Art teaching the perfect work and practice of Arithmetick both in whole Numbers and Fractions by R. Record A Cloud of Witnesses or the Sufferers Mirrour made up of the Swan-like Songs and other choice passages of several Martyrs and Confessors to the end of the 16th Century in their Treatises Speeches and Prayers by T. M. M. A. A Treatise of the Divine promises in five Books by Edw. Leigh Esquire The unreasonableness of Infidelity in four parts by R. Baxter His method for getting and keeping spiritual peace and comfort His safe Religion against Popery The Blessedness of the Righteous opened and further recommended from the consideration of the Vanity of this mortal life by I. Howe M. A. Quakerism no Christianity clearly and abundantly proved out of the Writings of their chief Leaders with a Key for the understanding their sense of their many usurped and unintelligible words by Iohn Faldo HΣIOΔOÎ¥ AΣKPAIOÎ¥ TA EÎ¥PIΣKOMENA Hesiodi ASCRAEI QVAE extant Cum notis Cornelii Scrivelii A Treatise of the Bulk and Selvedge of the World wherein the Greatness Littleness and Lastingness of Bodies are freely handled with an Answer to Tentamina De Deo By N. Fairfax M. D. Small Octavo and Duodecimâ— A Saint indeed Or the great work of a Christian opened and pressed from Prov. 4.23 by I. Flavel Annotations on the Book of Ecclesiastes by a Reverend Divine Artificial Arithmetick in Decimals shewing the Original Ground and Foundation thereof By R. Iagar Euphrates or the Waters of the East being a short Discourse of that secret Fountain whose Water flows from Fire and carries in it the Beams of the Sun and Moon The Greatness of the Mystery of Godliness together with Hypocrisie discovered in its Nature and Workings By Cuthbert Sydenham Ieda Theologiae tam Contemplativae quam Activae ad Formam S. Scripturae delineata Opera Theophili Galei These Papers were written about 1663. Dissert de prae reprob p. 118. Epist. ad Nicol. Papum Epist. ad Iacob praepositum Brem * Vide Title Page Vide Fox in Richard II.