---

CHAPTER II.
 
The Canterburians’ avowed Arminianism.

---

Arminianism a great dangerous innovation of Religion

Arminianism how great and dangerous an innovation of the Reformed Religion it is, we may learn by the late experiences of our neighbours, when that weed began to spread among them. The States of Holland have declared in many passages of their Dordracen Synod, that they found it a more ready mean to overthrow both their Church and State, then all the engines, Policies, arms which the Pope, and Spaniard, in any bygone time had used against them.

The Church of France the other year, when Amirot, and Testard, and some few of their Divines, were but surmised to incline a little towards some small twigs of one article of Arminius, was so affrighted, that they rested not till in a general assembly at Paris, they did run together for the extinguishing of the first sparks, as it were of a common fire.

When Barrow in Cambridge began to run a little on this rock, how careful was my Lord of Canterbury and the Bishops then in the meeting at Lambeth, for the crushing of that Cockatrice in the egg; when that Serpent again in the same place began, to set up the nose in the writtes of Thomson, how careful were the Bishops then by the hand of their brother of Salisbury Doctor Abbots to cut off the head of that monster.

But what speak we of the Churches Reformed? The very Synagogue of Rome, whose conscience {9} is enlarged as the Hell to swallow down the vilest morsels of the most lewd errors that Antichrist can present, yet did they stick much at this bone, when the Jesuit Molina began to draw out these dregs of Pelagianism from the long neglected pits of some obscure Schoolmen, what clamours were raised there, not only by Alvarez and his followers but also by numbers of Prelates and some great Princes, till the credit of the Jesuits in the Court of Rome, and the wisdom of the Consistory prognosticating a new Rent in their Church, did procure from the Pope a peremptory injunction of silence to both sides, on all highest pains: hoping if the Dominicans mouths were once stopped, that the Jesuits by their familiar arts, and silent Policies, would at last work out their intended point, which indeed since that time, they have well nearby fully gained.

King James' judgment of Arminianism

But to King Charles' eye no evidence useth to be so demonstrative as that which cometh from the learned hand of his blessed Father. Would we know how gracious a Plant Arminianism and the dressers of it will prove in England, or any where else, advise with King James, who after full trial and long consultation about this emergent, with the Divines of his Court, especially the late archbishop Abbots gave out at last his Decreet in print, and that in Latin, not only for a present declaration to the States of Holland of his mind against Vorstius, and a clear Confession of his Faith in those points to the Christian World, but above all to remain a perpetual Register for his heirs and {10} successors, of his faithful advise, if after his death their Kingdoms should be ever in danger to be pestered with that wicked seed.

In that treatise, his Majesty doth first avow all them to be gross liars, who do not blush to affirm that any of the Arminian articles, even that most plausible one of the Saints apostacy are consonant with the Doctrine or articles of the Church of England. He stileth Bertius for such a slander, a very impudent and brazen-faced man. (2.) He pronounceth these Doctrines of Arminius to be heresies lately revived and damnable to the hells, from whence they come. (3.) That Bertius for the very title of his book, The Saints Apostacy, deserved burning. (4.) That Arminius and his Scholars were to be reputed pests, enemies to God, proud, schismatical, heretical, Atheists. (5.) He affirmeth that their toleration would not fail to bring upon the heads of their toleraters let be favorers, God's malediction, an evil report, slander and infamy with all the Churches abroad, and certain Schism, division and tumults at home.

Shall we then make any doubt of King Charles full contentment that we avow Arminianism to be such a dangerous innovation in our Religion as the Reformed Churches abroad, and his Father at home hath taught us to count it where ever it is found.

Notwithstanding this bitter root amongst us was setting up the head of late very boldly in all the prime places of our Kingdom; we have had since the reformation many bickerings about the Church {11} government and Ceremonies, but in matters of Doctrine never any controversy was known, till some years ago a favourable air from the mouth of Doctor Laud at Court began to blow upon these unhappy seeds of Arminius. No sooner was those south-winds sensible in our climate, but at once in S. Andrews, Edinburgh, Aberdeen, and about Glasgow that weed began to spring amaine.

Doctor Wederburne in the new College of S. Andrews did stuff his dictates to the young Students in Divinity with these errors. This man upon the fears of our Churches censure, having fled the Country, was very tenderly embraced by his Grace at Court, and well rewarded with a fair Benefice in England for his labours; But to the end his talents should not lie hid, although a man very unmeet either for preaching or government, he was at once sent down to us, without knowledge of our Kirk, by Canterburie’s only favour to be Bishop of Dumblane, for this purpose mainly that in the Royal Chapel, whereof that Bishop is always Dean, he might in despite of all our Presbyteries weave out the web he had begun in S. Andrews. So at once there was erected a society of twenty four Royal Chaplains, who were thought fittest of the whole Clergy of the Kingdom, to be allured with hopes of favour from Court, to preach to the State, the Dean’s Arminian tenets.

In Edinburgh M. Sydserfe did partly play his part, and for the reward of his boldness, had cast in his lap in atrace the Deanrie of Edinburgh, the Bishopric of Brechan, and last of Galloway, with full hopes in a short time of an Archbishops cloak. {12}

In the North, Doctour Forbes the only Father of the most of those who fell away from the doctrine of our Church, came to good speed in his evil labours, and for his pains was honoured with the first seat in the new erected chair of our principle city.

Others about Glasgow made their preaching of the Arminian errours the pathway to their assured advancement.

In our general Assembly we found that this cockle was coming up apace in very many furrows of our field; Some of it we were forced, albeit to our great grief, to draw up & cast over the dike, which at once was received and replanted in England in too good a soil.

The King’s names stolen by Canterbury to the defence of Arminians.

We confess that it happened not much beside our expectation, that our Arminians after the censure of our Church should at Court have been to graciously received and sheltered in the sanctuary of his Grace at Lambeth; But this indeed did and doth astonish us all, that any should have been so bold as to have stolen King Charles’ name to a printed Declaration, wherein not only our general Assembly is condemned for using any censure at all against any for the crime of Arminianism; But also Arminius’ articles are all utterly slighted and pronounced to be of so obscure and intricate a nature, that both our Assembly was too pert to make any determination about them, and that many of our number were altogether unable by any teaching ever to win so much as to the understanding of the very questions:¹ Yea, those articles are avowed to be consonant, and in nothing to be opposite to the Confession of our Church, and are freely absolved of all Popery.² {13} Because indeed (for this is the only reason) some learned Papists find divers of Arminius’ points to be so absurd, that their stomachs cannot away with them, and some of the Lutheran divines agree with the Arminians in certain parcels of some of their articles: They must be strangers in these questions, who are ignorant in how many things the Dominicans and all Papists agree with Arminius, and in how many the Lutherans disagree with him. However we were and are amazed to see Canterburie so malapert, as to proclaim in the Kings’ name, beside many other strange things, the articles of Arminius, to be so far above the capacity of our general Assembly, that it deserves a Royal reproof for minting to determine any thing in them, and that they are no ways contrary to the doctrine of our Church, neither any ways Popish and that for a reason, which will exeeme from the note of Popery every errour which is so grossly absurd, that some learned Papists are forced to contradict it, or some gross Lutheran can get his throat extended to swallow it down.³

Canterburie is the author of this part of the declaration.

This boldness can not in any reason be imputed to our gracious Sovereign; For how is it possible that he upon any tolerable information, {14} should ever have suffered himself to be induced to write or speak in such a strain of these things which so lately by his learned Father was declared in print, and that in Latin to be no less than heresies, worthy of burning; yea, damnable to the very infernal pit; whence as he says, they did first come up. Neither is it like that these Sentences come from the heart of D. Balcanquell the penman of them; For he was a member of Dort Synod, and brought up in the Church of Scotland, the man is not unseen in the Popish Tenets; How is it possible that his conscience should absolve the Arminian errors of all Popery, and all contrariety to the Scottish confession.

May any be so uncharitable, as to suspect his late promotion in Durhame, hath altered so soon his mind? Sure not long since, both in England and Scotland, he did desire to be esteemed by his friends, one of those whom Canterburie did malign, and hold down for his certain and known resolutions, and reputed ability to oppose his Grace’s Arminian, and Popish innovations.

His Majesty being certainly clear of this imputation, and readily also Balcanquell, the amanuense, on whom can the fault lie but Canterburie, the directors back? For the world knows, that on his shoulders for common alone, the King doth devolve the trust of all Bookish and Ecclesiastical affairs that concerns him, that at his commandment he hath written in the King’s name that part at the least of the declination, which patronizeth the Arminians’ persons and cause, we do not conjecture, but demonstrate {15} by the constant & avowed course of his Grace’s carriage, in advancing Arminianism at all occasions, in all the King’s Dominions.

The Irish Church infected with Arminianism by Canterburie.

That this may appear, consider his practices, not so much among us, as in the Irish Church, where yet his hand is very nimble, to set these ungracious plants, and to nip off all the overspreading branches of any tree that may overtop them; For who else in a moment, hath advanced D. Bramble, not only to the Sea of Derrie, but to be the Kings Vicar General?

Who sent D. Chappell first to the University of Dubline, and then to his Episcopal Chair?

Who holds down the head of that Orthodox Primat, and of all who have any zeal there to the truth of God?

Who caused not only refuse the confirmation of these Antiarminian articles of Ireland, in the last Parliament, but threatened also to burn them by the hand of the hang-man? Whose invention are these privy articles, which his Creature my Lord of Derry presents to diverse who take Orders from his holy hands?

We will pass these and such other effects, which the remote rays of his Graces countenance do produce in so great a distance; Only behold! How great an increase that unhappy plant hath made there in England, where his eye is nearer to view, and his hand to water it.

The Canterburians in England teach the first and second article of Arminianism.

In the 25 year, at the very instant of King James death, D. Montagu, with D. White’s approbation, did put to the press all the articles of Arminius {16} in the same terms, with the same arguments and most injurious calumniations of the Orthodox doctrine, as Spalato and the Remonstrants had done a little before, but with this difference, that where those had dipped their pens in ink, D. Montagu doth write with vinegar & gall, in every other line, casting out the venom of his bitter Spirit, on all that cometh in his way, except they be fowls of his own feather; for oft when he speaks of Jesuits, Cardinals, Popes, he anoints his lips with the sweetest honey, and perfumes his breath with the most cordial tablets. If any do doubt of his full Arminianism, let them cast up his Appeal, and see it clearly: in the first and second Article of Election and Redemption, he avoweth his averseness from the Doctrine of Lambeth and Dort, which teacheth, that God from eternity did elect us to grace & salvation, not for any consideration of our faith, works, or any thing in us as causes, respects, or conditions, antecedent to that decree, but only of his mere mercy; And that from this Election all our faith, works, and perseverance do flow as effects. He calleth this the private fancy of the Divines of Dort, opposite to the Doctrine of the Church of England; For this assertion he slandereth the Synod of Lambeth, as teachers {17} of desperate doctrine, and would father this foul imputation, but very falsely on the Conference at Hamptoun Court.⁴

Again he avoweth positively,⁵ that faith goeth before Election, and that to all the lost race of Adam alike, God's mercy in Christ is propounded till the party’s free-will, by believing or mis-believing, make the disproportion antecedent to any divine either election, or reprobation.

Why King James styled the Arminians Atheists.

One of the reasons why King James styled Arminius disciples Atheists, was, because their first article of conditional Election did draw them by an inevitable necessity to the maintenance of Vorstian impiety; For make me once God's eternal decree posterior and dependant from faith, repentance, perseverance, and such works, which they make flow from the free-will of changeable men; that decree of God will be changeable, it will be a separable accident in him; God will be a composed substance of subject, & true accidents, no more an absolute simple essence, and so no more God. Vorstius' ingenuity in professing this composition is not misliked by the most learned of the Belgick Arminians, who use not as many of the English, to deny the clear consequences of their doctrine, if they be necessary, though never so absurd. However in this very place Montagu maintains very Vorstian Atheism, as expressly as any can do, making the divine {18} essence to be finite, his omnipresence not to be in substance, but in providence, and so making God to be no God.⁶ This, though long ago by learned Featlie, objected in print to Montagu, lies still upon him without any clearing. Certainly our Arminians in Scotland were begun both in word and writ to undertake the dispute; for all that Vorstius had printed; I speak what I know, and have felt oft to my great pains.

The Canterburians in England teach the third and fourth articles of Arminianism.

Arminianism is a chain, any one link whereof, but specially the first, will draw all the rest, yet see the other also expressed by Montagu. In the articles of grace and freewill, not only he goes clear with the Arminians, teaching that man's will hath ever a faculty to resist, and ofttimes according to the Doctrine of the Church of England, actually doth resist, reject, frustrate, and overcomes the most powerful acts of the spirit and grace of God, even those which are employed about regeneration, sanctification, justification, perseverance. Not only doth he thus far proceed,⁷ but also he avows, that all the difference which is betwixt the Church of England & Rome, in this head of freewill, to be in nothing material, & really long ago to be ended and agreed amongst the most judicious and sober of both the sides.⁸ {19}

The Canterburians in England teach also the fifth article of Arminianism.

For the fifth of perseverance, he is as gross as any other Remonstrant or Molinean Jesuit, professing, that no man in this life can have more assurance not to fall away both totally and finally from all the grace he gets, than the devils had once in heaven, and Adam once in paradise.⁹

Silence by proclamation enjoined on both sides.

Behold the Arminian engine fairly now displayed in England by the hands of Montagu and White, under the conduct of D. Laud, Bishop of S. David's, even then the President and chief of Ecclesiastical affairs, of the Duke of Buckingham's secret Counsel. At the first sight of this black banner, a number of brave Champions got to their arms; pulpits over all England rang, presses swat against the boldness of that, but small hand full then of courtizing Divines. Their crafty leader seeing the spite of opposition, and finding it meet for a little to hold in, and fold up his displayed colours, did by the Duke his Patron persuade the expediency of that policy, which the Jesuits had immediately before, for the same very design moved the Roman consistory to practice. He obtained a Proclamation, commanding silence to both sides, discharging all preaching, all printing in these controversies, astricting to the clear, plain and very grammatical sense of the articles of England in these points, without all further deductions. By this means his intentions were much promoved, openly avowers of Arminianism were by publick authority so {20} exeemed from any censure, a real Liberty was thus proclaimed over all the Land, for any who pleased to embrace Arminianism without opposition.

The Arminians in England advanced.

Hereby in two or three years the infection spread so far and broad, that the Parliament was forced in the 28. to make the increase of Arminianism their chief grievance to his Majesty; But at that time D. Laud was grown greater. He had mounted up from the Bath to London and to make a shew there in Parliament of his power, in the eye of all the complainers, he raised up Montagu to the Episcopal Chair of his own Diocesan, D. Carletoun, who had lately chastised him in print for his Arminian appeal. D. White his other chieftain, that all great spirits might be encouraged to run the ways which D. Laud pointed out to them, in despite of these Parliamentary Remonstrants, was advanced from Bishoprick to Bishoprick, till death at the step of Elie did interrupt the course of his promotion, that to Wren a third violent follower of his Arminian Tenets, way might be made for to climb up the remaining steps of the Ladder of his Honours.

Now to the end that the world may know, that my lord of Canterbury doth nothing blush at the advancement of such men, hear what a publick Testimony of huge worth and deserving, he caused his Herald Peter Heylen to proclaim to that Triumvirat, not only at his own directions, (for that moderate answer of Heylens to the Justo volumine, which his G. did promise to the World in his Star Chamber speech) but also in name of Authority; If Heylen {21} lie not, who says: He writes that book at the commandment of the state: There after the cries of Canterbury's own extraordinary praises,¹⁰ the renown of his three underleaders, is loudly sounded as of plain non-suches.¹¹

Their opposites disgraced and persecuted.

All these his Grace's favours to his followers, would have been the more tolerable if he would have permitted his orthodox opposites to have had some share in their Prince's affection, or at least have lived in peace in their own places. But behold, all that crosses his way must down, were they the greatest Bishops in the Dominions. For who else wrought the late Arch-bishop so far out of the King's grace, that he remained some years before his death well near confined to his house at Lambeth? Who hath caused to be caged up in the tower that great & learned Bishop of Lincolne? whatever else may be in the man. What fray makes that worthy Primate Usher to foretell oft to his friends his expectation, to be sent over Sea, to die a pedant teaching boys for his bread, by the persecution of this faction, whose ways he avows to many, doth tend to manifest Arminianism and Popery. This their resolution to persecute with all extremity, every one who shall mint [attempt] to print or preach anything against Arminianism, they avow it openly, not only by deeds (for why else was boor Butter cast by Canterbury in the Fleet for {22} printing of B. Davenant's letter to B. Hall against some passages of Arminianism at the Author's direction as we see it set down by Huntly in his Breviate) but even in open print, for when Burton complains to the Kirk that he was silenced by Canterbury for expounding of his ordinary text Romans 8: Whom God had predestinate those he hath called, and applying it to the present Pelagianism and Popery of the Arminians, Christopher Dow¹² approven by Canterbury's Chaplain, & P. Helen directed to speak for Canterbury himself doth not stand to affirm, that this was a cause well deserving all the sufferings he complained of.

Canterbury & his followers contrary to the proclamation, go on still to preach their Tenets.

Could any here but expect of his Grace's wisdom and loyalty, when his solicitude appeareth to disgrace and punish without respect of persons all who in contempt, as he saith, of the King's proclamation will not desist from the publick oppugning of Arminianism, that on the other hand the preachers & printers for Arminianism according to that same proclamation should be put to some order; yet this is so far neglected, that all who are so affected, Cousins, Colines, {23} Beel in Cambridge, Potter and Jackson in Oxford, and many more prime Doctors in both Universities in the city, in the Court, and over all the Land, boldly give out their mind to all they meet with, for the advancement of the new way, yea boldness in running those paths hath been known to have been the high way in all the three Dominions these years bygone to certain promotion in many men who to the world's eyes had no other singular eminency of any good parts.

But that his Grace's tramping upon the King's Proclamation may be yet the more evident, behold how he doth daily dispense both with his own pen and those also of his friends to write and print for Arminianism what they please.

White being taxed by Burtoun for his subscription to Montague's appeal, is so far from the least retractation, that the first article of Apostacy & uncertainty of salvation, which Burton did single out of all Montague's errors, as most opposite to Christian comfort, he maintains it in his own answer to the Dialogue; but as the custom now is under the covert of some Father’s name, at great length with much bitterness, and cast out without provocation in his Treatise of the Sabbath, the first and second article.¹³ Mr. Dow and Schelfoord use the same plainness. Yea, in the 31st year that faction was so malapert, as to set out the historical narration, by one M. A. Haward, wherein all the Articles of Arminius at length, with these false and bitter calumniations of our doctrine; Which are usually chanted and rechanted by the Remonstrants, are not only set down as truths, {24} but also fathered upon the first reformers & Martyrs of England.

That book when it had been out a while, was called in, not because the Doctrines were false, not because the story was forged, as that learned Knight S. Umphrey Lyne by the ocular inspection of the original manuscript did since demonstrate, but the only reason of the calling of it back, as his Grace makes Heylen declare to us, was, the din and clamour which Burtown, then one of the Ministers of London, made against it.¹⁴

Canterbury himself is nothing afraid to lend his own hand to pull down any thing that seems cross to Arminianism. The certainty of salvation, the assurance of election, is such an eyesore, that to have it away, he stands not with his own hand to cut and mangle the very Liturgy of the Church, otherwise a sacred peace, and a noli me tangere in England in the smallest points, were they never so much by any censured of errour: Yet if any clause cross Arminianism or Popery, his Grace doth not spare without din to expurge it, did it stand in the most eminent places thereof in the very morning prayers for the King's person.

Here there was this clause fixed since the reformation, who art the Father of thine Elect and their Seed, this seemed to be a public profession, that it was not unlawful for King Charles to avow his certainty and persuasion that God was his Father, and he his adopted Child, elect to salvation. His Grace could not endure any longer such a scandalous speech to be uttered, but with his own hand scrapeth {25} it out. Being challenged for it by Burtoun, and the out-cries of the people, he confesseth the Fact; Only for excuse, bringeth three reasons, of which you may judge:¹⁵ First he saith, It was done in his predecessor's time; Doth not this make his presumption the more intolerable, that any inferiour Bishop, living at the very lug of the Arch-bishop, should mint to expurge the Liturgy. Secondly, He pretends the King's command for his doing.

Doth not this increase his guiltiness, that he and his followers are become so wicked and irrespective, as to make it an ordinary prank, to cast their own misdeeds upon the broad back of the Prince? Dare he say, that the King commanded any such thing? Did he command that expunction without any information, without any man's advise? Did any King of England ever essay to expurge the public Books of the Church, without the advice of his Clergy? Did ever King Charles medle in any Church matters of far less importance, without D. Laud's counsel?

The third excuse: That the King then had no Seed. How is this pertinent? May not a childless man say in his prayers, that God is the Father of the Elect, and of their Seed, though himself as yet have no Seed? But the true cause of his anger against this passage of the Liturgy, seemeth to have been none other than this Arminian conclusion: that all faith of election in particular, of personal adoption or salvation, is nought but presumption.

That this is his Grace's faith, may appear by his Chaplain's hand, at that base and false story of Ap-Evan {26} by Studly, wherein are bitter invectives against all such persuasions as puritanik delusions,¹⁶ yea, he is contented that Chounaus should print over and over again his unworthy collections, not only subscribed by his Chaplain, but dedicated to himself, wherein salvation is avowed to be a thing unknown, and whereof no man can have any further, or should wish for any more than a good hope.¹⁷ And if any desire a clearer confession, behold himself in those oposcula posthuma of Andrews, which he setteth out to the world after the man’s death, & dedicates to the King: avowing that the Church of England doth maintain no personal persuasion of predestination, which Tenet Cardinal Pirrourn had objected to them as presumption.¹⁸ White also in his answer to the Dialogue, makes man’s election a mystery, which God hath so hid in his secret counsel, that no man can in this life come to any knowledge, let be assurance of it, at great length from the 97th page to the 103, and that most plainly.

A demonstration of Canterbury’s Arminianism in the highest degree.

But to close this Chapter, passing a number of evidences, I bring but one more, which readily may be demonstrative, though all other were laid aside. By the Laws and practices of England, a Chaplain’s licensing of a book for the press is taken for his Lord the Bishop’s deed; So Helen approven by Canterbury teacheth in his Antidotum,¹⁹ and for this there is reason, for the Laws give authority of {27} Licensing to no Chaplain, but to their Lord’s alone, who are to be answerable for that which their Servant doeth in their name. Also the Chaplain at the Licensing receives the principal subscrived Copy which he delivereth to his Lord: to be laid up in his Episcopal Register.

William Bray, one of Canterbury’s Chaplains subscrived Chounai Collectiones Theologica, as consonant to the doctrine of the Church of England, & meet for the press. The Author dedicated the Treatise to my L. of Canterbury, it was printed at London 1636. In this book, the first article, which by the confession of all sides draws with it all the rest, is set down in more plain and foul terms than Molina or any Jesuit; sure I am then Arminius, Vorstius, or any their followers ever did deliver,²⁰ teaching in one These those three gross errours:

1. That men’s faith, repentance, perseverance, are the true causes of their Salvation; as misbelief, impenitency, apostacy, are of damnation: Doth Bellarmine go so far in his Doctrine of Justification and merit?

2. That those sins are no less the true causes of reprobation than of damnation.

3. That men’s faith, repentance, perseverance, are no less the true causes of their eternal Election, than mis-belief, or other sins of their temporal damnation. Let Charity suppose that his Grace in the midst of his numerous and weighty employments hath been forced to neglect the reading of a book of this nature, though dedicate to himself, albeit it is well known that his watchful eye is fixed upon nothing more than {28} Pamphlets which passes the press upon doctrines now controverted, yet his Grace being publicly upbraided, for countenancing of this Book, by D. Bastwick in the face of the Star-chamber, and being advertised of its dedication to himself, of the errours contained in it, yea of injurious against the King of the deepest stain, as these which struck at the very root of his Supremacy and that in favour of the Bishops:

When in such a place Canterbury was taxed for letting his name stand before a book that wounded the King’s Monarchick Government at the very heart, and did transfer from the Crown to the Miter, one of its fairest diamonds, which the King and his Father before him did ever love most dearly, no charity will longer permit us to believe, but his Grace would without further delay lend some two, or three spare-hours to the viewing of such a piece which did concern the King and himself so nearly. Having therefore without all doubt both seen and most narrowly sifted all the corners of that small Treatise, and yet been so far from reproving the Author, from censuring the Licenser, his Chaplain, from calling in the book, from expurging any one jot that was in it, that the Treatise the second time is put to the press at London, with the same license, the same dedication, no letter of the points in question altered; May we not conclude, with the favour of all reasonable men, that it is my Lord of Canterbury’s express mind to have his own name prefixed, and his Chaplain’s hand subjoined to the grossest errours of Arminius, and so to profess openly his contempt of the King’s proclamation, for the pretended violation {29} whereof he causeth stigmatize, mutilate, fine excessively, imprison for time of life, very virtuous Gentlemen, both Divines, Lawyers, Physicians, and of other faculties.

What here can be said for his Grace’s Apology, nothing cometh in my mind, except one allegation, that the point in hand crosseth not the proclamation, discharging to proceed in those questions beyond the grammatical construction and literal sense of the articles of England.

The Author indeed in his Epistle dedicatory avows to his Grace that the These alleged, and all the rest of his book doth perfectly agree with the English Articles in the very first and literal sense, whereof the proclamation speaketh.

And to this assertion the Licensers hand is relative as to the rest of the book;²¹ But of this miserable apology, which yet is the only one which I can imagine possible, this will be the necessary issue, that the gross lie, which good King James put upon the bold brow of impudent Bertius, for his affirming that one article of the Saint’s apostacy, let be other more vile Arminian Tenets, was consonant with the articles of England, must be thrown back from Bertius on the King’s face, and that in as disgraceful a way as it was first given; Montagew and White, with his Grace’s permission, did give that venerable Prince long ago the lie at home in English, affirming the perfect agreement of the Arminian Apostacy with the doctrine of England.

But this affront contents not his Grace, except this barbarous medicine, under the shelter of his Archepiscopal name be-lie his Majesty over-seas, and over {30} the whole world, where the Latin is understood.

Besides this shameful inconvenience, another dangerous evil will necessarily follow from this Apology, to wit: That the Arminian Doctrine may not only be tolerated in England, which yet, if King James may be trusted, cannot fail to draw down upon England a curse from God, shame from abroad, horrible schism at home, but also, since their grossest articles are declared in print and in Latin, under the shadow of Canterbury’s name, to be fully consonant to the very literal sense of the Articles of England, all the members of that Church may be compelled presently without more delay to embrace those doctrines; and that any man is permitted in England to believe in peace the Anti-arminian Articles, wherein Queen Elizabeth and King James did live and die, it is of mere favour and the Prince’s mercy, who readily by the Archbishop’s intercession is diverted from pressing the profession of those articles, according to the first and most literal sense, which now is clearly avowed to be after Arminius; yea, Molina his mind.

---

Footnotes:

1. Large. declar. pag. 74. "According to their weak and poor power they did determine controversies concerning predestination, universal grace, irresistibility of grace, concurrence in grace, and other such like intricate points, that some men would be loath to live so long as they could make them understand them."

2. "Some Ministers were deprived for Arminianism, a course never heard of in any place where any rule of justice was observed, that a Minister should be deprived for holding any Tenet, which is not against the doctrine of that Church wherein he liveth, and that before it be prohibited & condemned by that Church. Now there is nothing in the confession of that Church against these Tenets."

3. Pag. 303. "They could make no answer when it was told them these Tenets, could not be counted Popish, concerning which, or the chief of which as learned Papists as any in the world, the Dominicans & Jesuits did differ as much as the Protestants, and that those which do adhere to the Augustin confession, did hold that side of those Tenets, which the Arminians did hold; and yet they were very far from being Papists, being the first Protestants, and therefore it was against all sense to condemn that for Popery which was held by many Protestant Churches, and reject by many learned Papists."

4. Appeal, p. 60: "I profess my through & sincere dissent from the faction of novelizing Puritans, but in no point more than in the doctrine of desperate predestination." Ibid. p. 70: "I see no reason why any of the divines of our Church present at the Synod of Dort, should take any offence at my dissenting, who had no authority that I know of to conclude me, more than I do at them, for differing from me in their judgments, quisque abundet in suo sensu." Ibid. pag. 71: "I am sure the Church of England never so determined in her doctrine." Ibid. pag. 72, "at the conference of Hamptoun-court, before his Majesty, by D. Bancroft, that doctrine of irrespective predestination was stiled against the articles of Lambeth, then urged by the Puritans, a desperate doctrine, without reproof or taxation of any." Ibid. pag. 50, "your absolute, necessary, determined, irresistible, irrespective decree of God, to call, save, and glorify S. Peter, for instance infallibly, without any consideration had of, or regard unto his faith, obedience, repentance: I say it truly, it is the fancy of some particular men."

5. Ibid. pag. 61, 64, I shall as I can briefly set down what I conceive of this act of God's decree of predestination, setting by all execution of purpose: this far we have gone, and no word yet of predestination, for how could it be in a parity? There must be first conceived a disproportion, before there can be conceived an Election or dereliction: God had compassion of men in the mass of perdition, upon singulos generum, & genera singulorum, and out of his love, motu mero, no otherwise stretched out to them deliverance, in a Mediator the Man Jesus Christ, and drew them out that took hold of mercy, leaving them there that would not of him.

6. Appeal, p. 49. The Stoicks among others held that paradox of old, Deum ire per omne terras tractusmaris, cœlumque profundum. They meant it substantially, and so impiously. Christians do hold it too, but disposively in his providence.

7. Appeal p. 89. S. Steven in terminis hath the very word antipiptw, you resist, nay, fall cross with the holy Ghost, not suffering him to work grace in you. If the Counsel meant it de gratia excitante, præveniente operante, I think no man will deny it de gratia aduvante subsequente, cooperante; there is without question in the natural will of a regenerate man so much carnal concupiscence, as may make him resist and rebel against the Law of the Spirit. And if a man justified may fall away from grace, which is the doctrine of the Church of England, then without question yourselves being judges, he may resist the grace of God offered.

8. Ibid. p. 95. Thus having with as great diligence as I could examined this question enter partes of free-will, I do ingenuously confess, that I can not find any such material differences between the Pontificians, at least of better temper, and our Church.

9. Antigag. p. 161. Man is not likely in the State of grace to be of an higher alloy than angels were in the state of glory, than Adam was in the state of innocency. Now if Adam in paradise, and Lucifer in heaven did fall and lose their original estate, the one totally, & the other eternally, what greater assurance hath any man in the state of proficiency, not of consummation.

10. A Moderate answer, pag. 78. You will be troubled to find Canterbury's equal in our Church, since K. Edward's reformation, whether ye look to his publick or private demeanours.

11. Ibid. pag. 84. White, Montagu, and Wren, whom you so abuse, are such, who for their endeavours for this Church's honour, fidelity in their service to the King, full abilities in learning, have had no equals in this Church, since the Reformation.

12. Chr. Dow. Answer to Burton. Mr. Burton did preach on the highest point of predestination in a controverted way with disputes and clamorous invectives against those who dissented from him in opinion, his questioning & suspending for this cause, was nothing contrary to his Majesty's declarations. Ibid. pag. 40. Be it so that the doctrine of election, effectual vocation, assurance of perseverance, are by the King's declaration suppressed, rather than the peace of the Church should be disturbed, we might truly say of that time when his Majesty's declaration was published, that men were uncapable of these doctrines, when men began to chide, and to count each other Anathema, as it was with our neighbours, it began to be with us, was it not time to enjoin both sides silence? By this means you say, there is no Minister, nor one among thousand that dare clearly preach of these most comfortable doctrines, and so soundly confute the Arminian heresy. Blessed be God that there are so few who dare, and I wish those few who dare, had shewed more obedience to his Majesty.

13. P. 82. The benefit of redemption, by the antecedent will of Christ is intended to all men living, though all men by reason of their own demerits do not actually receive the Fruit of it. Voluntæ antecedens est voluntæ primaria & beneplacitum Dei ex ejus nativa propensione existens, nullamque sumans occasionem ex nobis.

14. Moderate answer, p. 121. The Historical narration was called in also for your pleasure.

15. Star-chamber speech, p. 28. It was put out at the King's direction, in my predecessor's time when the king had no children.

16. Satan like an Angel of Light stirring up in the heart of immortified persons a spiritual pride in a high conceit of their gifts, the assurance of their Election, illumination, conversion, imaginary sense of their adoption, &c.

17. Pag. 82.

18. Stricturæ, we think it not safe for any man peremptorily to presume himself predestinate.

19. Pag. 3, Or if you be so dull as not to apprehend that, yet must the publishing of this Libel rest in conclusion on my Lord high Thesauror Bishop of London at whose house the book was licentiate, which is so high a language against authority, against the practice of this Realm, for licenciating of books against the honour of the Star-chamber, on whose decree that practice is founded, &c.

20. Pag. 18. Non vidio rationem in contrarium quare cum qua est ex Deo per unam candemque actionem bonitatis a seipso emanantem, recta ordinatio fidei in Christum resipiscentiæ, perseverantiæ, sit causa salvationis perversa quæ ex hominibus est damnationis, non in eadem unitatis ratione, electionis & reprobationis etiam causa agnoscantur.

21. Nec videantur sensum articulorum ecclesiæ Anglicano in literali & grammaticali nedum in affixe verborum sensu transgredi.