FOREWORD TO THE APPENDICES The following documents have been divided into two appendices. Appendix A features a transcription of the pages written about Jacob Acontius and his Satan’s Stratagems by the Presbyterian controversial- ist Francis Cheynell, with pp. 34–39 of Chap. 4 of his work The Rise, Growth, and Danger of Socinianisme together with a plaine Discovery of a desperate Designe of Corrupting the Protestant Religion, whereby it appeares that the Religion which hath been so violently Contended for (by the Archbishop of Canterbury and his adherents) is not the true pure Protestant Religion, but an Hotchpotch of Arminianisme, Socinianisme and Popery: it is likewise made evident, that the Atheists, Anabaptists, and Sectaries so much complained of, have been raised or encouraged by the doc- trines and practises of the Arminian, Socinian and Popish Party (London, printed for Samuel Gellibrand, 1643; see British Library, E.103.14). This is followed by a transcription of pp. 439–461 of another work by Cheynell entitled The Divine Trinity of the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, or, The blessed doctrine of the three coessentiall subsistents in the eter- nall Godhead without any confusion or division of the distinct subsistences or multiplication of the most single and entire Godhead acknowledged, beleeved, adored by christians, in opposition to pagans, jewes, mahumetans, blasphemous and antichristian hereticks, who say they are christians, but are not declared and published for the edifcation and satisfaction of all such as worship the only true God, Father, Son, and Holy Spirit, all three as one and the self same God blessed for ever (London, printed by T.R. and E.M. for © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 G. Caravale, Censorship and Heresy in Revolutionary England 183 and Counter-Reformation Rome, Early Modern History: Society and Culture, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57439-4 184 FOREWORD TO THE APPENDICES Samuel Gellibrand, 1650; see British Library, 4225.a.15). These pages include (pp. 453–457) the full text of the censure report on Satan’s Stratagems that Cheynell presented to the Westminster Assembly of Divines on 8 March 1647 as Chairman of the Committee appointed to examine the work. The text has been transcribed according to essentially conservative criteria, with intervention limited to updating punctuation and use of capital letters, as well as writing abbreviated terms in full. The notes identify the people, works and historical contexts mentioned in the body of the text. Marginalia have not been transcribed in order to make the text as reader-friendly as possible. Appendix B contains a translation of the original Latin text of the censure of Satan’s Stratagems written by the Jesuit consultor Girolamo Savignano on behalf of the Congregation of the Index in the mid- seventeenth century, which is currently held at the Archives of the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith in Rome (ACDF, Indice, Protocolli HH, cc. 132r–137v). The document is not dated, but it was quite likely presented to the Congregation shortly after the consul- tor was entrusted with the assignment at a meeting on 21 April 1654 (ACDF, Indice, Diarii, V, 1650–1654, c. 25v). The annotated transcrip- tion of the original Latin text has been published in the original Italian version of this book (cf. G. Caravale, Storia di una doppia censura. Gli Stratagemmi di Satana di Giacomo Aconcio nell’Europa del Seicento, Pisa 2013, 196–221). APPENDIX A ENGLISH CENSURE 1. Cheynell, Francis, The Rise, Growth, and Danger of Socinianisme together with a plaine Discovery of a desperate Designe of Corrupting the Protestant Religion […] London, printed for Samuel Gellibrand, 1643 CHAP. IV. Whether England hath been, or still is in Danger to be far- ther infected with Socinianisme. /p. 34/Farther infected I say, for it is too evident that it hath been in some measure already infected with this pestilent heresie. I know the Archbishop of Canterbury did pretend to crush this cockatrice of socini- anisme,1 but all things being considered, it is to be feared that his canon was ordained for concealing, rather then suppressing of socinianisme; for he desired that none but his own party should be admitted to the read- ing of socinian books, it was made almost impossible for any that were not of his party, to take the degree of Batchelour of Divinity (I can say more in that point then another) or at least improbable they should have means to pay a groat a sheet for socinian books. It is well known that the Arch-Bishop did highly favour, and frequently employ men shrewdly suspected for socinianisme. Master Chillingworth,2 to speak modestly, hath been too patient, being so deeply charged by Knot for his inclining towards some socinian tenets3: no man in Saint Ieromes opin- ion ought to be patient in such a a case, and sure no innocent man would be patient. Mr. Chillingworth hath not yet answered—Christianity © The Editor(s) (if applicable) and The Author(s) 2017 G. Caravale, Censorship and Heresy in Revolutionary England 185 and Counter-Reformation Rome, Early Modern History: Society and Culture, DOI 10.1007/978-3-319-57439-4 186 APPENDIX A maintained. The protestants doe not own many of those principles which are scattered in Master Chillingworths book, and Knot could observe that he proceeded in a destructive way, just as the socinians doe. The reformed Churches abroad wonder that we could fnde no better a champion amongst all our worthies; they who travailed hither out of forrain parts blessed themselves when they saw so much froath and grounds; so much armini- anisme and vanity in Master Chillingworths admired peece: What doth it advantage the protestant cause, if the Pope be /p. 35/ deposed from his infallible chair, and Reason enthroned that socinianisme may be advanced? But I am afraid Doctor Potter may take it unkindly that I have named Master Chillingworth before him4; for his Grace employed Doctour Potter frst, and he was cryed up as a patrone of the protestant profes- sion, but he sowred his calvinisme with so much arminian leaven, and sweetned popery with some such gentle scruples of Moderate Divinity as they call it, that the jesuites laughed in their sleeves, and Knot was so pleas- ant that he could scarce refrain from laughing openly. That these two great champions doe vent arminian principles is manifest to any man that hath but peeped into their books. Now that arminianisme is a fair step to socinianisme hath been suffciently proved by Bodecherus,5 (though he hath been derided, he hath not been answered) Peltius,6 Vedelius and others,7 so that I need say no more in that point. What art and care hath been used to propagate the arminian errours in England, would require a large volume, and I had laid open all their sleights and projects (had not my bookes and notes been seised on) to the full: God may give me opportunity to say something to that point yet before I fnish my course. The Church of Scotland complains of his Grace,8 for he frst pro- tected Wederburn,9 when he fed from Scotland for fear of the Church- censures, because this Wederburn had poysoned the young students in Divinity with arminianisme in the new Colledge at Saint Andrews; his Grace made the same Wederburn bishop of Dumblane, that so he might be dean of the Kings Chappell, and vent all his arminian errours in the Royall Chappell, in despight of all the presbyteries. /p. 36/ Then his Grace chose out 24. Royall Chaplaines, such as were most likely to preach the Deanes armin- ian tenets to the State when they saw that all preferment did run that way. I will not say any thing of Master Sydserf,10 Doctor Forbes,11 &c. You may read the complaint at large in a book entitled Ladens. Αυτοχαταχρισις, or the Canterburian self-conviction.12 APPENDIX A 187 But that which did most mischiefe, was a large Declaration pro- cured by his Grace, but sent in the Kings name into Scotland, in which their general Assembly was much condemned for passing any censure upon Arminians. Besides, his Grace had two Scouts in Ireland, the Bishop of Derry,13 and Doctour Chappell14: behold three Kingdomes infected at once with this deadly disease, by the pestilent subtilty of one Arch-Bishop. But I shall make it appear that we have gone nearer to Socinianisme y et. Acontius was (as learned Peltius calls him) clandestinus socinianorum assecla; now I have wondred often what was the reason that Acontius was new printed in Oxford by Doctour Potters book-binder. Creature I might say, if I did affect the language of the times. They might as well have printed Bonfnius,15 for I fnde him joyned with Acontius, they were both sneaking socinians, they followed Socinus just as Nicodemus fol- lowed Christ,16 by stealth & in the dark. Iacobus Acontius & Bonfnius Socini clandestini asseclae. Judicious and learned Pareus not long before his death writ a letter on the frst of March, 1613. ad N. N. in which he expresseth himselfe after this manner. Arminium vestrum socini- ani in Polonia expresse ut suum nuper nominarunt, una cum quodam Bonfnio & Acontio clandestinis asseclis, quorum authoritate postu- larunt à fratribus orthodoxis fraternitatem, isti verò fortiter recusarunt. Acta ad me misit synodus lublinensis, cui nuper postridie natalis Domini respondi, &c.17 Pareus was a man of a very peaceable disposition, will- ing to compose all differences which might fairely and honestly be com- pounded, as appeares by his Irenicum,18 and therfore his judgement is to be the more valued, but you see he doth not vent his own private opinion, but declares the judgement of the /p.