Animadversions on Doctor Heylins Quinquarticular History, Part 44 – Part 47
Dr. H. pag. 67, 68.
An History of the Netherlands, written by one Cross, a Fellow of no parts or iudgement; In which History it is affirmed, that there was a Synod called at Dort to suppress the Arminians; and that the said Arminians held among other Heresies, 1. That God was the Author of Sin. 2. That he created the far greater part of mankind only of purpose to damn them; with several others of that kind: Which every man of reason knows, not only to be the consequence and resuits of Calvin's Doctrine, but to be positively maintained and taught by some of his Followers.
Answ. But first, What if some ignorant Writer, abused with a false report, or not well understanding the Language of the Dutch with whom he conversed, did thus misrepresent the grounds of the Arminians condemnation, is this any other cross (to borrow one witticism from our Historian) than what hath befallen men as honest and famous as the Remonstrants? Was not our own Countrey-man Wickliff, who did write professedly against begging Friers, reported by his Adversaries to be a favourer of begging? If it could be proved, that the Contraremonstrants had set this Mr. Cross thus to traduce and calumniate the Remonstrants, it had been a soul crime in them; but that they did so, is not pretended. The whole blame therefore of this false report must be on our English Bishops, who would admit a Fellow of no Parts or Judgement into holy Orders, and license his History; and on the Author himself, who would venture to write the History of things that he understood not. But what if this Cross was of the Remonstrants own making? It hath been usual for men, upon some accounts truly guilty, and deservedly blamed, to procure themselves to be accused of some other things that they were never guilty of, that so the World finding them abused in one point, might think them innocent in all. In the late Wars, I believe some Wags have framed stories against their own Party, and sent them up to London to be Printed, with no other design than this, to make the Diurnalists and Intelligencers ridiculous, and suspected even when they related truth.
2. If this Cross is so much to be blamed for his malice, why doth Dr. Heylin imitate him, if not exceed him, in saying, that every man of reason knows that these blasphemies are the consequence and result of Calvin's Doctrine? Were all those eminent Professors and learned Preachers, who in their Sermons and Lectures and printed Treatises, have maintained, that it doth not from Calvin's Doctrine follow, that God is the Author of Sin, men of no reason? or were they so base, as to go about to maintain a thing against their knowledge? Certain I am, that they are not followers, but forsakers of Calvin, who positively maintain and teach, either that God is the Author of Sin, or that he created the far greater part of mankind only of purpose to damn them. That he again and again denied God to be the Author of Sin, no man will gainsay, that hath read either his Institutions, or his Answer to the Calumnies of a Knave, or his Discourse against the Libertines. As so creating men on purpose to damnthem, let the Reader but observe what he saith for himself, de aeterna Dei providentia, Etsi quid toti generi humano futu…um esset, Deus ab initio decrevit; haec tamen loquendi ratio, nusquam apud me occurret, Finem creationis esse aeternum interitum.
3. What if a man should say, that some at least of the Remonstrants are guilty of these Blasphemies? They make God to be the Author of Concupiscence, and Concupiscence is Sin; therefore they make God the Author of Sin. They also make God not to have decreed to any one that Grace, which alone can keep men out of Hell; therefore they make him to create mankind with an intention to damn the whole race. In the Calvinists method, some are sure to be saved: but in the way of the Arminians, no man can be saved; all being left to the liberty and indifferency of their own corrupt wills, which must necessarily ruine them at last.
I will not justifie Mr. Cross in what he relates concerning the Remonstrants; but I will say this, that I can manifestly prove, that sundry who pretend the greatest zeal against making God the Author of Sin, do themselves make him the Author of Sin, or say he may be the Author of Sin. It is not unknown that Socinians deny God's prescience of the free actions of men. Si omnia futura Deus praesciret, opor…ebit omnium causas jam ante ab ipso ordinatas esse, at que ita necessario efficeretur auctor peccatorum, are the words of the Compendium of Socinianism, confuted by Cloppenber. cap. 6. When we urge against them that of Iohn 6.64. he knew from the beginning who should betray him: What answers Volkelius? That the sin and punishment of Judas contained in them somewhat singular. Well, allow them to have in them somewhat singular; yet this Proposition, the sin of Judas was certainly foreknown, must needs be true: If it were foreknown, then it was foredetermined: If foredetermined, then God was the cause of it. I instance secondly in Episcopius, from whom I thus argue;
Christ may be the Author of Sin.
Christ is God: Ergo
God may be the Author of Sin.
The Major is most clearly laid down by Episcopius; and for many Pages together defended in his Answer to the acute Camero, cap. 13. Yea, and he wonders that Camero should think he had any fear, when this, so at least ill-sounding a Proposition, was delivered by him. He alledgeth that some School-men had said so before him: Which may not be denied; but yet seeing actus sunt suppositorum, he will be as hard put to it, not to make God the Author of Sin, as any Calvinist.
I instance thirdly in Mr. Th. Pierce, from whom thus I argue:
God is the Cause of every Being, whether visible or invisible:
Therefore God is the Cause of Sin.
The Antecedent is an Article of our Creed. The Consequent is proved; because Mr. Pierce again and again asserts Sin to be positive. His beloved Author Dr. Iackson ▪ in h…s eighth Book of Commentaries, hopes to bring himself off from this argumentation, by limiting the Proposition, God made all things visible and invisible, to substances; which only are the immediate and direct effects and proper objects of creation. Accidents had their beginnings as appurtenances to their subjects, by resultance only. But I answer, that I suppose he is the first that ever said, that All accidents had their beginning by resultance; and the first that so limited this maxime to substances. For though it may be granted, that both creation and generation, strictly so called, are terminated to substances; yet accidents are truly things, and must have a cause, a real cause: and doubtless the Churches did ascribe the production of all things, whether accidents or substances, unto God: and, in reason, he is as truly the cause of what is comproduced and concreated, as of what is produced and created. In page 35, this Dr. Iack. tells us, what emboldned Divines to assign unto sin only a privative being, viz. the maxime that Omne ens est bonum: but that he tells us, is meant only of a Metaphysical goodness. No Divines thought otherwise, but they were afraid to assign so much as a Metaphysical goodness to sin, which is simply evil: and such fear would have seised on Dr. Iackson also, had he but well weighed, what that is which goodness Metaphysical doth superadde to entity. But that he had never weighed; and yet talks confidently, in this whole Controversie, concerning the nature of sin, and the efficient of sin, as if his eyes had been blessed to see the things that scarce any saw before him. Book 10, pag. 3012, &c. cap. 5, 6, he goes about to make Apologies for the harsh expressions of some good Writers, and well deserving of all Reformed Churches: Yea, and for the Errors of the Dominicans, or other Schoolmen, (more faulty than, as he saith, Zuinglius or his Followers, in this point.) He wisheth that Paraeus had never entred into dispute with Becanus about this Question, Whether God be the Author of Sin? and is sorry he came off no better, for Calvin's credit, or for his own. Avers t…at Bellarmine, and Aquinas his Followers, do make God the Author of Sin, by as clear and infallible consequence, as either Zuinglius or his Followers have done. He saith the best Apology that can be made for Aquinas, or Calvin, is this, that they were homines foreign, Authors of many various Works; but of this Apologie we that follow them are not capable. That if we were called to a strict account, or examination of our Doctrine by the rules of Art, a new question would have risen in our Schools, Whether to attribut such acts and decrees unto God as we do, and yet withal to deny, that we concludently make him the Author of Sin, doth not argue as great a measure of artificial foppery or supernatural infatuation, as it would of impiety, to resolve dogmatically, in terminis terminantibus, that God is the Author of evil? But what is it that may make this Question allowed in any Academical Act? Why, it might be justly allowed, though the Answerer were furnished with no other ground besides that usually avouched distinction, between the act and obliquity of the act: especially if the distinction were applied unto the first sin of our first Parents. In that sin, the act and obliquity, are altogether as unseparably annexed, as rotundity is with a sphere; and to imagine there should be one cause of the act, and another of the obliquity of the act, would be as gross a solecism, as to assign any other cause of the rotundity of a sphere besides him that frames it. A discourse so loose, that I much wondered it could find any place in the writings of an Author so famed for learning: For every Fresh-man knows, that there is not the same relation betwixt the act and its obliquity, as there is between rotundity and a sphere; every Fresh-man knows, that there may be a sufficient ground of distinction, betwixt things that are inseparably annexed; every Divine also knows, that the Calvinists do make man to be the cause, of the sinfulness of the act as well as of the act it self: all that they say is, that the first cause may af…ord that concourse to a sinful action, which is necessarily required to every action, and yet not be the cause of the sinfulness of the action. If Dr. Iackson think this impossible, he should have told us, how God could concur to the good actions of his Saints, and not be the cause of the sinful imperfection which is inseparable from every action that doth not flow from a principle that is perfect. I account he hath forsaken the Reformed Churches, who saith, that God gives any one, in this life, such a holiness as doth not fall short of the Law: That habitual holiness which falls short of the Law, must necessarily, when it is put forth, produce actions short of the Law; and so far as they fall short of the Law, they are sinful: Now I ask, is God the cause of my imperfect act of love to himself? If he be not, why do I either pray to him for it, or praise him for it? If he be the cause, then he is either the cause of that sinful obliquity necessarily cleaving to it, and making it need pardon; or else he may be the cause of the act, and not of the sinful obliquity that doth inseparably cleave to it. If Dr. Iackson affirm the latter, he contradicts his own Principle; If the former, he avoucheth that blasphemy which all good men abhor. Wherefore he might have done well to reserve the excuse of Polygraphy for himself: Calvin and Aquinas in this matter do not stand in need of it. As little need had Paraeus of his sorrow for entring into dispute with Becanus; for if ever man had the better, Paraeus had it that day. About the year 1604, Becanus at Mentz had a disputation, concerning God's being the Author of Sin; in which he expresly said, that the God of the Calvinists was the Devil: For this, among other things, Paraeus undertook him, and Ferarias and Malhusinus, and brought them to acknowledge, that whatever became of Calvin, it could not truly be said, that the Devil was the God of the Calvinists: What is victory, if this be not victory? when did innocence triumph, if not that day, which was Aug. 1, An. 1608.
For a conclusion of the fifth Chapter, the Doctor takes a leap out of Holland into the City of Sedan, and tells us, that
Dr. H. pag. 68.
It is said, that Franciscus Auratus was shamefully ejected out of that City, for no other reason, but because from Jam. 1.13, he largely declared, that God was not the Author of Sin.
Answ. This is said; but by whom? or upon what grounds? Were we promised that the Historical Narration should be collected out of the *Vide Title Page.Publick Acts and Monuments of the several Churches? and must we now be put off with a 'tis said? If I should write all that hath been said of Dr. Heylin and his Party, the World (till such calumnies were confuted) would have but little charity for them. It is said so perhaps by a Fellow of as little judgement as Mr. Cross, or by some, who had taught his tongue to utter lies. That there was such a Minister as Auratus, and that he was (being a well meaning man but no deep Scholar) inveigled by the eloquence of Daniel Tilenus Professor at Sedan, to favour and to vent the Remonstrants Opinions, I grant: but that he was forced to leave his place, only for preaching that God was not the Author of Sin, is a story fit only to be reported by those who have learned from the Jesuits calumniari fortiter. I was much concerned to know, who it was that had so much abused the Doctor, and at length I found him to be Episcopius, in his Examen of the Theses of Iacobus Capellus. In the first page of that Examen, he relates this improbable story: but neither tells where he read it, nor from whom he heard it: and we all know, that Episcopius did never so regard his conscience, but that he would sometimes defile it with a lye; for he came into the Synod with a lye, and went out of it with a lye. On which account, the Reader may be the less troubled, to find in the same page the Reverend and Religious Peter Moulin accused, as one that was feign to leave France, not for his zeal in Religion, but for pragmaticalness. Indeed I have rarely observed Episcopius, either to give a Contra-remonstrant his due praise, or not to give a Remonstrant more than his due. Vorstius, in his Answer to Camero, is a man than whom he had never met with one more modest, and more studious of a good conscience: in his Theological institutions, he counts it not sufficient to vindicate the Latine Translation of Castalio from the censures of Albericus Gentilis and Thuanus, but he must also commend the faithfulness and elegance of his French Translation; whereas Doctor Rivet, a more competent judge of the elegancy of a French Translation, assures us, that no French man can read it without indignation and laughter, so foolish and ridiculous is it in many places.
Dr. H. Pag. 70.
We are now come to the sixth and last Chapter of the first Part of the Quinquarticular History: in which the Doctor goes about to enquire after the causes that might move the Synodists to use such cruelty (severity, he saith, is too mild a word to express their rigor) towards all those who did maintain the five Articles.
Answ. An enquiry which supposeth that which is not to be supposed, viz. that the Remonstrants errour in the five Points, was the sole ground of all the penalties that were inflicted on them. All men, who are any way acquainted with the History of the Belgick Churches, do know that the Remonstrants were not proceeded against meerly for erring in these five Points, but also for Socinianism and Scepticism, of which to this day they have never been able to purge themselves. Indeed the Holland Remonstrants are a Sect of men, that are not fitted for communion with any Christian Churches, except we will call the Assemblies of the furious Anabaptists or the blasphemous Socinians, by the name of Christian Churches. They can have no communion with any Church, that is either idolatrous, or that maketh any opinion necessary which they judge not necessary, or that teacheth that the Magistrate may hinder and …orbid the meetings of Sectaries; by which means they exclude Papal, Calvinistical, Lutheran Churches from their communion, and so separate from all Christendom. Whatever they write about Moderation, Toleration, Syncretism, is but hypocrisie; for they cannot have communion with any Churches that will not deny the Magistrates power to repress Conventicles, and the Churches power to define Heresies and determine what is necessary to be believed. Arnoldus Poelenbergius in that little piece of his, wherein he labours to prove, that the Remonstrants cannot with a safe conscience joyn in communion with the Contra-remonstrants, layeth the necessity of separation, not on the Heterodoxy of the Contra-remonstrants in the five Points, but on their tyranny in imposing Confessions to be subscribed, and in going about to define what is necessary to be believed. Episcopius in an Epistle to Grotius, bearing date April 29, 1631, saith Quinquarticulanam litem tanti non facerem, nisi conjunctam sibi haberet eam, quae est de discretione necessariorum dogmatum a non necessariis, sive de mutua Christianorum tolerantia. Video esse qui aliter sentiant, & intra quinque articulos rigide & foreign consistendum esse arbitrantur; at eorum sententiae ego non possum accedere, Epist. Eccles. pag. 694. Among which Epistles also it may be seen how Andreas Reuchlinius doth school the incomparably learned Isaac Casaubon, because in his Epistle to Cardinal Perron, he let fall an expression commending the fact of the King and Archbishop, in burning the Book of Vorstius, de Deo & Attributis. But let us see how well the Historian can acquit the Remonstrants in the five Points.
Dr. H. Pag. 70.
Their Doctrine (saith he) is impeached in these Points of no smaller crimes, than to be destructive of God's grace, introductory of Popery, tending unto spiritual pride, and to sedition or rebellion in the Civil Government. Which Objections I shall here present, as I have done the Arguments of most importance, which were excogitated and enforced against the conclusions and determinations of the Synod in the said five Points: and that being done, I shall return such answers as are made unto them.
Answ. Here I cannot but observe, 1. That whereas he drew up the Charge of the Remonstrants against the Contra-remonstrants, and took no notice of any Answer that was or might be returned by the Contra-remonstants; yet now that the Remonstrants are to be impeached, he either finds or makes Answers for them: which is not fair in an Historian.
2. That one part of the impeachment is the creature and figment of the Doctor's own brain, viz. that of tendency to sedition or rebellion in the Civil Government, No Contra-remonstrant chargeth this on the Doctrine of the Remonstrants, as to the five Points; though sometimes they charge sedition and rebellion on the persons of the Remonstrants.
3. That all the impeachment is not exhibited. For the Remonstrants are charged to overthrow the praescience, the simplicity, the immutability of God; yea, and all piety and Christian consolation. But it is wisdom to raise no more enemies than a man thinks he shall be able to contest with. I believe, had the Doctor consulted with his Friends, they would have advised him to have mentioned no Objections at all, so miserably and unfortunately are they answered.