Animadversions on Doctor Heylins Quinquarticular History, Part 1 – Part 3
Dr. H. Lib. 1. pag. 2.
The Blasphemy which makes God to be the Author of sin, was first broach'd, in terms express, by Florinus, Blastus, and some other of the City of Rome about the year 180, encountred presently by that Godly Bishop and Martyr St. Irenaeus, who published a Discourse against them, bearing this Inscription, foreign, that God was not the Author of sin. For this he refers us to Eusebius, Hist. Eccles. Lib. 5. Cap. 14, & 19, and to no other Author.
Answ. Periculosum est in limine offendere; 'Tis ominous to stumble at the very Threshold: So hath the Doctor done. For though I can easily grant that Florinus did in terminis assert God to be the Author of sin; partly because of the Title of the Epistle written to him, which is, foreign, partly because I find him by Irenaeus, in a fragment of an Epistle to him recorded in Eusebius, lib. 5. cap. 19, charged to maintain such Dogmata, as foreign, Hereticks out of the Church durst never hold: yet is there not the least proof from Eusebius (what ever there may be from others,) that Blastus ever maintained any such blasphemy. From the Title of the Epistle written to him, which is foreign, we may guess that his opinions were such as had a tendency to Schism, rather than to any thing which is properly Heresie-Tertullian towards the end of his Book de Heresibus, writes thus of him, Blastus latenter Iudaismum vult introducere: Pascha enim dicit, non aliter custodiendum esse, nisi secundum legem Moysis, 14. mensis. Quis autem nesciat quoniam Evangelica gratia evacuatur, si ad iegem Christum redigit? Feuardentius in his Preface to some fragments of Irenaeus, saith, It may be easily collected from several Antients (whom he there names,) that Blastus gave the beginning to the Schism of the Quartodecimani. This is all, peculiar to Blastus, that I can find, though it is scarce to be doubted, but that he held some of the absurd opinions of Valentinus, whose Scholar he was. I only add, If Florinus an hearer of Polycarpe, and a Presbyter of Rome, fell into the highest & most horrid of Blasphemies, no one hath reason to be secure, but every one that standeth, had need take heed left he fall into the same fury, or by running from it, fall into some dotage as contrary to Scripture. For so I find that a Sect of men called by Austin Coluthiani, (by Isidore corruptly Cottiliani, and more corruptly by Platina Quolitiani,) from Coluthus, a Presbyter of the Church of Alexandria, did; not doubting to assert that God did not Create any sort of evil: whereas he could not be God, if he did not work all evils that are in Cities or Countries, so far as they are fruits and just rewards of mens sins. This errour saith Epiphanius foreign, &c lasted not long, but soon vanished; yet because it is so expresly mentioned by Philaster, Danaeus conceives it spread it self both into East and West: Certain I am, the Arminian, if closely followed, must either fall into this pit, or else depart from some of his beloved opinions.
Dr. H.
Ibid. What Arguments the good Father used to cry down this blasphemy, I cannot gather from any Authour; but such they were, so operative, and effectual, in stopping the current of the mischief, that either Florinus, and the rest, had no followers at all, or such as never attained to the height of their Masters impudence.
Ans. What the good Fathers Arguments were, is not so impossible to be collected out of Eusebius, as the Doctor here suggests; For though it be but a very fragment of the Epistle to or against Florinus, which is come to our hands, yet our of that fragment we may gather something, that Irenaeus thought meet to make use of; namely, that Florinus his Dogma was foreign, not agreeable to the sentiment of the Church of God that then was; that it did, foreign, lead, as many as did embrace it, into the greatest impiety: 'Tis also farther added there by Irenaeus, that he had very perfect remembrance of Polycarpe, who conversed with S. Iohn, and that he could witness, as in the presence of God, that had that blessed and Apostolical Presbyter (so he calls Polycarpe, not Bishop) heard any such thing as was by Florinus asserted, he would have stopped his ear; and cryed aloud, according to his custom, foreign, &c. Good God! unto what times hast thou kept me that I should hear such things? yea, that he would forthwith have fled out of that place, in which, either standing or sitting, he had heard any such impiety: Which considerations undoubtedly do not want their weight, at least they are as material as any brought by Dr. Heylin himself. Upon this occasion it may not be amiss to mention the Arguments by which, if not Irenaeus, yet other of the Antient Fathers have opposed this (not undeservedly called) Doctrine of Devils, that God is the Author of sin.
1. They laid some stress upon this, that sin is not positive, but privative. This Argument is largely prosecuted by Dionysius, commonly (though falsly) call'd the Areopagite: He proveth that Moral evil cannot be from God, because it is foreign: Much more of this nature may be seen in Mr. Hickmans Iustification of the Fathers and Schoolmen. And therefore if any (which God forbid) should be minded to lick up the vomit of Florinus, Mr. T.P. by maintaining the positivity of sin, hath encouraged them so to do: But the best is, his Impartial enquiry into the Nature of sin, is so managed, that one may say to him, as once Gualter Haddon did to Hieronymus Osorius, Video librum tuum constare ex ignorantia, & impudentia, quarum una cum fiat, ut nihil intelligas, altera tamen efficitur, ut omnia audeas. There's one continued fallacy runneth through all his Pages, the confounding of the materiale or substratum, and the formale of sin; he that can distinguish these (as who cannot that hath but dipped into a Systeme of M…taphysicks?) hath answered all his reasons, all his Authorities.
2. Basil and others, argue from the Nature of God, unto which Holiness and Righteousness are essential; and therefore sin so contrary to it, cannot be caused by it.
3. The Fathers much urge the reason drawn from the last Judgment, in which God is to punish all the impenitent, for their ungodliness: Is God unrighteous who taketh vengeance? God forbid, for then how shal! God Iudge the World? Rom. 3.5, 6. God could have no mind to punish that which he himself caused, nor could he justly punish man for doing that which he had made him to do; foreign, as Nyssen excellently.
But it is time that I should pass to that Age, in which the Heresie of Florinus, buried (as the Doctor thinks) for so many Centuries, was revived: Of that, thus he begins,
Dr. H. Pag. 2.
It never revived in more than thirteen hundred years after the death of Irenaeus, when it was again started by the Libertines, a late brood of Sectaries,
Answer. If the Doctor here speak of those, that did by just and necessary consequence make God the Author of sin, there were many betwixt Irenaeus and the two Tailors of Flandria, that did so; but if he would have us think, that the Libertines did foreign, in express terms, entitle God to the sins of all men, he must pardon us, if we be not too ha…ty in so thinking. For Bellarmine, who possibly read over rhe History of the Libertines with as much care as the Doctor, tells us expressly, that the Libertines do in words deny, that they make God the Author or cause of sin, de Statu peccati, lib. 2. c. 2. The truth is, their Tenent rather was, that there is no sin, than that God is the cause of sin. They would not deny but that God wrought all the Adulteries and Rapines that were; but then they affirmed that Adulteries and Rapines being wrought by God, were no sins. But under whose wings were these miscreants hatched, and when did they first infect the Christian Church?