Animadversions on Doctor Heylins Quinquarticular History, Part 20
Page 37, 38.
Doctor H…ylin takes notice, that Though Ecclesiastical Discipline was made use of, to crush all those who durst oppose the Doctrine of Calvin, yet it was permitted to Beza to be somewhat wilder than his Master, in placing the Decree of Predestination before the Fall, which Calvin himself had more rightly placed in Massa corrupta.
Ans. And yet, p. 38. circa sinem, he tells us, that The Doctrine of the Supra…apsarians was first broached by Calvin. A contradiction so gross, that whosoever can reconcile it, must have a greater faculty than ever Aristotle himself pretended to, or thought possible. But let us, to gratifie this Author, and for once, suppose that Iohn was a Sublapsarian, and Calvin a Supralapsarian; yet it would require a greater charity than ever I could attain unto, to pardon his miscarriage, in making the Supralapsarian Doctrine no older than Mr. Calvin. Est nobis necessario fatendum, non esse nuper natam aut ignobiliorum Theologorum sententiam, quae ponit Praedestinationem priorem praevisione peccati, saith Bishop Davenant, Diss…rt. de prae. & reprob. cap. 1. pag. 115. This way went Scotus, gone to the generation of his Fathers some centuries before Calvin: yea, and Aquinas, somewhat older than Scotus. And, for a conclusion, the Bishop addeth, Heac a me in eum finem adducuntur, non quod huic sententiae adhaerescam, sed ut obiter perstringam illorum inscitiam dicam an malitiam, qui Calvinum aut Bezam lacerant maledictis, quasi primarios hujus sententiae Autores, quae inter Scholasticos & inter Pontificios ipsos non minus recepta est quam illa contraria, quae ponit hominem peccato infectum subjectum Praedestinationis. Which done, he proceeds to produce two clear passages out of Calvin, by which it appears, that he made Massam corruptam, or in Austin's phrase, Massam damnatam, the object of Predestination.
The next thing we shall take notice of in our Historian, is the account that he gives of the Supralapsarian and Sublapsarian Opinion, and the Arguments he brings against the one and the other. His account is drawn by the Pen of professed Adversaries, viz. the Remonstrants, and Tilenus. His Arguments are all of them transcribed out of that English Pamphlet, called God's Love to Mankind; composed by the joint labours and endeavours of two Men that were no Punies in these Controversies, viz. Mr. Mason and Mr. Hoard.
Where, first, I might take notice of this, as one instance of his failing, that he hath not reckoned up all the Opinions about the object of Predestination. For as some make it to be mankind not yet created, massam nondum conditam; others mankind created and corrupted: so there are who make it to be mankind created indeed, but yet not corrupted or fallen. Nor are they, who go this way, so obscure as not to deserve to be mentioned, by him that undertakes to write the History of these matters. But this I could easily pardon, did I not find him highly disingenuous, in laying down the Opinion of the Supralapsarians: Which he represents from their professed Enemies charge in the Hague-Conference. Just as if some angry Neighbour having preferred a Bill against Dr Heylin, and in that Bill charged him with more than could be proved, I should afterwards make use of this Charge as a Picture to draw Dr. Heylin by. A dispassionate Heathen would have had more candor than to Father upon any party of Men, every Brat which a provoked Adversary had laid at their door. What evidence is there, that the Opinion laid down by the Doctor, page 38, is the Opinion of the Supralapsarian Divines? Have all of them or the most famous of them either jointly or severally declared it to be their Opinion? The Writings of some Antelapsarians I have read, and have not found that they have, simply and without distinction, asserted that God ordained certain to eternal life, certain to eternal death, without any regard had to their righteousness or sin, to their obedience or disobedience: Nay, they seem to me plainly to say, that God never decreed to bestow salvation on any adult person, but as a reward of obedience, nor to inflict damnation upon any person, but as a reward of disobedience: Only they say, If Election be considered quoad actum elgientis, and Reprobation quoad actum reprobantis, then there can be no cause assigned either of Election or Reprobation, but only the will and pleasure of the Almighty. Res volita, & actus volendi, should not be confounded in a Disputation so mysterious, as this about the eternal Decrees. Whereas therefore Dr. Heylin, page 39, adds, That the Supralapsarian Doctrine, first, makes God to be the Author of Sin, as both Piscator and Macarius, (I suppose it should be Maccovius,) and many other Supralapsarians, as well as Mr. Perkins, have positively and expresly affirmed him to be; and then, concludes him for a more unmerciful Tyrant, than all that ever had been in the World, were they joyned together, I do with some confidence aver, that this is a most manifest and malicious Calumny, exceeding (I think) all the Calumnies that ever were uttered by any Arminian. Mr. Mason in his Additions to Mr. Hoard had said, That none of the Supralapsarians (Piscator only and a few more of the blunter sort excepted,) had said, directly and in terminis, that God is the cause of sin. The Doctor hath changed Mr. Mason's few into many, and names Macc…vius and Mr. Perkins, whereas Mr. Mason had only named Piscator. But this is strange, that neither Mr. Mason nor Dr. Heylin should direct us to any one place of these Authors, in which any such phrase or speech doth occur. Do they think that their Readers have leisure to turn over all the Writings of these blunter Supralapsarians? or any divining faculty to find out, who are intended by the few others, and the many others? For my part I will not think that any one Supralapsarian ever affirmed God to be the Author of Sin, unless I see the very place in which such affirmation is contained. But should I see any such thing in the Writings of Mr. Perkins, I should be under a temptation to turn Cartesian, and disbelieve my eyes; so improbable, and and almost impossible doth it seem to me, that a Person▪ of his piety and learning, should leave upon Record, a Position so sensless, absurd, impious. I shall expect that the Doctor, in some good convenient time, do gather together those expressions of Piscator, Maccovius, Perkins, in which God is expresly made the Author of Sin, and publish them to the World; or else he must give the World leave to think, that he hath too much communion with the Father of Lies. Further I say, that it doth not from any Principle of the Supralapsarian follow, either that God is the Author of Sin, or that he is a verier Tyrant than ever lived upon earth; though I shall grant, that for man to do as God doth, would be the highest cruelty. I believe, with the Supralapsarian, that God hath decreed, not to bestow converting Grace upon many whom he could easily (had he so pleased) have converted. Should any man who could convert millions not convert them, and afterwards punish them with eternal torments for not being converted, he would be more cruel than ever Nero was. But is God therefore cruel, in not giving his converting Grace to those millions who perish eternally for want of it? Not at all; because he is not under a Law to contribute all that in him lieth towards the conversion of Souls: but so would man be, if he had such a conver…ing power. Suppose we, that the Doctor had been endued with a power to work those wonderful things in Tyre and Sidon which would have made the Inhabitants repent in dust and ashes, he would have been cruel with a witness had he not caused those wonders to be wrought; but I trow so was not God, though he never did nor ever intended to work Miracle in either of those places.