Animadversions on Doctor Heylins Quinquarticular History, Part 37 – Part 43
Dr. H. page 55, 56.
The British Livines, together with one of those that came from Breme, maintained the Universal Redemption of mankind by the Death of Christ: but this by no means would be granted by the rest of the Synod.
Answ. Concerning this matter of Universal Redemption, it is noted in Dr. Balcanqual's Letters, page 2, That as there was difference touching it in the Synod, so there was much difference about it in their own (i. e. the English) Colledge: The Question among them was, whether the words of Scripture, which are likewise the words of our Confession, Christus oblatus est aut mortuus, pro toto humano genere, seu pro peccatis totius mundi, be to be understood of all particular men, or only of the Elect who consist of all sorts of men? Dr. Davenant and Dr. Ward (saith the Letter,) are of Martinius of Breme's mind, that it is to be understood of all particular men: the other three take the other exposition, which is of the Writers of the Re…ormed Churches, and namely of my late Lord Bishop of Salisbury: both sides think they are right, and therefore cannot yield one unto another with a safe Conscience. Yet page 4. S. D. C. Lord Ambassador, is desired to acquaint (if he thought fit,) his Grace of Canterbury, that this matter is like to be a difference, not in the English Colledge, but in the Synod. How well this may be accorded with the former Letter, is not for me to judge. Page 8, 'tis said that some of the Provincials did use Martinius very uncivilly. He is a man very learned and honest, sound in all the five Articles, as any man in the Synod, except the second; in which when the Canons come to be made, your Lordship will hear there will be more of his Opinion besides himself. Page 25, Dr. Balcan. gives us a relation of the Iudgement of the British Divines and others, concerning the second Article. The Bremenses are affirmed, according to the number of their Persons, to have delivered three several judgements. Martinius his judgement was first read, who did stand in effect to the Tenents of the Remonstrants in the second Article, he mainly overthrew the received distinction and restriction, and did determine that Christ did truely die for all and every man; that he was made a propitiation both for the godly and the wicked; and that by his death he did impetrate reconciliation with God for them all: at the latter end he condemned many things both in the Remonstrants and in the Contraremonstrants Opinion; but more in the Contraremonstrants. Isselburgius defended both the received distinction and restriction. Crocius propounded a middle way b…tween his two Colleagues, granting (which we also in our Colledge did,) that Christ by his death did merit some supernatural things for the wicked, but nothing belonging to the remission of sin, or reconciliation with God: and so indeed, for any thing I could perceive, his judgement was directly against that of Martinius, and in effect all one with that of Isselburgius. Finally, we are told page 26, that in the second Article there was not altogether so uniform a consent, both in regard of phrases and forms of speaking and in regard of some Propositions, as were in the first; yet certainly there was very great, more than could be expected from so great a number of learned men, in so hard and controverted an Article. So that whereas Dr. Heylin counts it a reproach to the Synod, that there was so much difference about universal Redemption, Dr. Balcan. thinks it an honour there was no more. But not to leave this matter so much in the dark; If Martinius was for the Arminian equal indifferent universal Redemption of every one of mankind, I am well assured, that neither all the British Divines nor any one of them was of his mind: but indeed his Opinion and the Remonstrants Opinion, seem to be heavenly wide; as may be proved from his subscriptions to the Synodal Determinations about the Death of Christ, and mans Redemption by the Death, Acta Synodi pag. 356. for no man can think, that in those Determinations, the Opinion of the Remonstrants was not condemned. But if this be not thought proof sufficient, let the Reader be pleased to turn to Acta Synodi pag. 639, &c. where the judgement of this Martinius is fully recorded. In the very entrance he professeth to follow Ambrose, Si Christus pro omnibus mortuus est, specialiter tamen pro nobis passus est. Pag. 643, 644. he rejects seventeen Errors, the far greater part of which are the Tenents of the Remonstrants. As for Ludovicus Crocius, he hath in his Duodecas Dissertationum (provoked thereunto by the cavils of some) taken a great deal of pains to state this Question about the universality of Christ's Redemption; in the tenth dissertation, he explaineth the terms, and re…ecteth the extream Opinions; in the eleventh, he delivereth his own Opinion, in no fewer than nineteen Conclusions, in any of which, if the Remonstrants can find any lettice for their lips, much good may it do them. For my part, I wonder that Dr. Balcanqual should here write, that for any thing he could perceive, the judgement of Crocius was directly contrary to that of Martinius. The judgements of both those Learned men are recorded about the second Article, and there is not the least contrariety betwixt them. Both hold universal Redemption in the sense laid down by Dr. Davenant, in his most excellent Dissertation de morte Christi: Neither of them maintain it in any other sense. Both of them heartily agreed and subscribed to the Canons of the Synod of Dort made in the second Article, as did also our British Divines; who yet had received it in charge from King Iames, not to deny that Christ died for all and every man. Moreover, it is most manifest, that Crocius did in the Synod maintain the Universality of Christ's death, by a Letter written to him from one of his Colleagues from Brente, during the Session of the Synod Anno 1619, Feb. 25. For in that Letter, he hath thanks given him for maintaining the Universality of Christ's death; and is told, that his Opinion was approved by all to whom he had shewn it. Vide Crocii Disser. secundam de Peccato Originis, pag. 61, 62.
Dr. H. page 56.
The general Body of the Synod not being able to avoid the inconveniences which the Supralapsarian way brought with it, were generally intent on the Sublapsarian way: but on the other side, the Commissioners of the Churches of South-Holland thought it not necessary to determine which were considered, man faln or not faln, while he passed the Decrees of Election and Reprobation. But far more positive was Gomarus, who stood as strongly to the absolute, irrespective and irreversibls Decree (exclusive of mans sin, and our Saviours sufferings,) as he could have done for the holy Trinity, and delivered his own judgement in writing apart by it self.
Answ. Thus our Historian: But what saith Dr. Balcan. page 25, So ended the reading of the judgements of all the Colledges concerning the first Article; in which, praised be God for it, there was not the least suspition of dissention in any thing: And it is to be noted, that all of them determined homo lapsus to be the subject of Predestination, except Gomarus, whom all men know to be against it, and the South-Hollandi, who only said, they would determine nothing of it. One Doctor upbraids the Synod with Dissention, another praises God (as there was reason) for their Unity. Indeed if the difference betwixt Supra and Sublapsarians be calmly considered, it will be found to be only in Apice Logico (as Dr. Twiss speaks;) and to determine of Logical Niceties, is not work proper for a Synod of Divines met together to settle the Peace of the Churches. I believe the Divines Assembled in this present Convocation, have as considerable differences among themselves about the Doctrine of the Trinity, as this comes to; nor is it to be expected that we should all agree in minutiis Logicis aut Metaphysicis, any more than that we should be all of the same stature or complexion, as to the outward man. Mr. Hoard, so much made use of by our Quinquarticular Historian, plainly confesseth, there is no reason that the Supra and Sublapsarians should differ about circumstances, since they agree in the substance. Iunius thought the three Opinions about the object of Predestination were rather seemingly than really opposite. Piscator will not grant that they are opposite, but only different; and therefore, that all three may have place, he resolves the matter of Predestination into three Acts, The first is, the Decree of creating men to different ends; this must needs have for its object massam nondum conditam. The second Act is, the Decree of permitting Sin; and this must needs have for its object man created, but not yet corrupted. The third Act is, the Decree of Electing and Reprobating; and this must have for its object, man both created and corrupted. 'Tis besides my purpose to enquire, how much or how little is to be said against this way of reconciliation: but this I undertake to prove, that the distance betwixt the Supralapsarians and Sublapsarians is not so great, but that they both may and ought to look upon one another as Brethren, and walk in love, which is the bond of perfection and fulfilling of the Law: The more pity is it that they should so bitterly inveigh against each other, as it cannot be dissembled that sometimes, they do; but this must be imputed to that foreign, of which we shall have some degrees, as long as we live in this World. But the Doctor, as if he were perfectly free from this crime, thus throweth his stones at others.
Dr. H. pag. 56.
Nor were the differences managed with such sobriety as became the gravity of the Persons, and weight of the business; but brake out many times into such open heats and violences, as are not to be parallel'd in the like. Assemblies: the Provincial Divines banding against the Foreigners, and the Foreigners falling foul upon one another.
Ans. For proof of this we are referred to the Letters of Mr. Hales and Dr. Balcanqual; from which-it doth indeed appear, that some very unhandsom language was used by Gomarus and Lubbertus against Martinius, and by Scultetus against him and Crocius. But sure Scultetus was not Foreigners, but one Foreigner. Gomarus and Lubbertus were, though Learned men, yet constitutionally hot and cholerick, and therefore apt to break out into unseemly speeches against those who opposed them. Dr. Balcanqual saith, he could no more blame them for being angry, than he could a stone for descending to its center. I more wonder that Scultetus, a man of better temper, should so far forget himself; but he was transported through a misapprehension, that his reverend and dear Colleague was abused. I scarce account it Christian in Dr. Heylin to rake up and bring to remembrance the passionate speeches of men who have many years since given an account unto their Master, and never to mention the satisfaction they made to the men whom they had injured: For it is said, page 15, that they protested they had no hard opinion of Martinius or Crocius; but accounted them Learned, Religious, Orthodoxal, were sorry for what they had done, and would do so no more.
Page 64, we have an attempt to make another parallel betwixt the Councel of Tren… and Synod of Dort, the sum whereof is this:
Dr. H.
That the Canons and Decrees of the Councel of Trent were so drawn up, as that both Soto the Dominican, and Vega the Franciscan, did expound them all according to their own Opinion; which yet did not only differ, but also were expresly contrary: And so the Conclusions and Results of the Synod of Dort were so drawn up for giving satisfaction to the Sublapsarians, that those of the Supralapsarian faction might pretend some title to them also; in so much that there was a bitter contention betwixt Voetius and Maresius about the sense of the Synod.
Answ. A comparison that halts not on one foot, but upon every soot; concerning which it is hard to say, whether it be more spiteful or ridiculous. The Opinions of the Franciscans and Dominicans differ far more, than do the Opinions of the Supra and Sublapsarians. Nor is it so material to determine, whether truth lie on the side of the Supralapsarian or Sublapsarian, as whether the Dominican or Franciscan be in the right. The parallel (a Fanatick would say) had run better if it had been thus drawn, As both Franciscan and Dominican lay claim to the Canons of the Councel of Trent, so both Arminian and Anti-Arminian lay claim to the seventeenth Article of the Church of England. The holy Scriptures themselves are not so penned, but that men of contrary perswasions do lay claim to them; upon which score yet, none but a professed Papist or Infidel, will accuse them of insufficiency or obscurity: Particularly the Apostle makes use, Rom. 9, of the Greek word foreign, borrowed from the ancient Prophets; some say, that by it he intends the Mass corrupted; others say, the Mass uncorrupted: some circumstances are picked up out of the Text and Context that do favour both Opinions, What then? Must the divinely inspired Scriptures be condemned? God forbid. Besides, how doth it appear that the Supralapsarian Divines in or about Holland do pretend some title to the Conclusions of the Synod of Dort, or that there hath been a bitter contention betwixt Voetius and Maresius about the sense of the Synod? Voetius indeed is a Supralapsarian; In his first Volume of Select Disputations p. 55, he layeth down the several moments of the decree of Reprobation: but p. 356, 357, professeth, he easily beareth those who are of a contrary or different judgement from him; provided, they do not rashly condemn the Supralapsarian Opinion maintained by so many and great Divines; and confesseth, the Synod propounded the common opinion, concerning Election out of Mankind; but not so as to reject the ascending above the fall: with other Heterodoxies, and dangerous improprieties. If Maresius had any bitter contention with him on this score, he may do well to enquire, whether such contending be not a fruit of the flesh; and if Voetius in other Writings lay no more claim to the Synod, than he doth here, he can scarce be said to pretend any title to it.
Dr. H. page 65.
Here we have the old and several times confuted Calumny, of The Synods not giving the Remonstrants leave to speak for themselves before condemnation, renewed; and a Story concerning the Hard measure meted out to the Delegates of the Province of Utrecht, which is the only thing that deserves to have any notice taken of it.
Answ. Concerning these Deputies, I shall first observe what Mr. Hales saith of them in his Letters, page 29, and then relate the whole story concerning them; and so leave it to any one, but Dr. Heylin, to judge, whether they were hardly dealt with? I marvel much that the Province of Utrecht, being the strength of the Remonstrants, could find no wiser men to handle their cause; for as they did very foolishly in bewraying their private instructions, so in this whole altercation they did not speak one wise word: So Mr. Hales. Matter of fact stands thus; A doubt was moved concerning the Deputies for the Remonstrants of Utrecht, Whether they were to be a part of the Synod, or in the number of the Remonstrants who were cited to appear before the Synod? The Reasons of the doubt were sundry; but the chief was, because in their credential Letters, they were charged to defend the cause of the Remonstrants: now it could not be, that they should be both Defendants and Judges in the same Cause. The answer to this was, that they were not so limited, but that in their private instructions they had leave to do otherwise if they thought good. But when the private instructions were read, all that could be found was but this, that they had commission to defend their Cause, or to labour at least for an accommodation, or toleration of it: but that they had power to pronounce decisively, that did not appear. Hereupon it was determined, that they could not be Members of the Synod in this Cause (for in any other they might,) but only as Citati. Yet notwithstanding, that they might see the equity of the Synod, it was permitted them to keep their places, on these conditions: 1. If they would quit their Defence of the Cause. 2. If they would give no Advice or Counsel, either directly or indirectly, to the Citati; and by no means meddle with them in their Cause, &c. Not liking these Conditions, they declared that they resolved to leave their place of Judges, and to adjoyn themselves to the other Remonstrants: which they did. What in all this proceeding is unjust? what unworthy of a Synod?
Dr. H.
Page 66, the Synod is charged with being too favourable to the Supralapsarians, and particularly to Maccovius, who openly maintained, that God willed sin; that he ordained sin as sin; and that by no means he would have all men to be saved; that God doth propound his Word to Reprobates for no other end, than that they might be left without excuse, &c. yet was he only dismissed with a friendly admonition.
Answ. 'Tis true, that some of these speeches, though not all, were charged on Maccovius: Nor could the Synod condemn them simply, unless they would also condemn St. Austin, who is known in his Euchir. cap. 29, to have delivered this maxime, Non aliquid sit nisi omnipotens fieri velit, vel sinendo ut fiat, vel ipse faciendo: Many Scripture-expressions of like import might be produced. But yet if Maccovius did use such expressions before persons not seen in these Controversies, he did ill, and was to be blamed; for all truths are not fit for all ears. Sufficient for the Synods vindication it is, that Maccovius was brought before the Synod upon a by-occasion; and that the business betwixt him and Lubbertus waas committed to the examination of some few Delegates, according to whose report he was dismissed.
But the Contraremonstrants are cruel and malicious; How so? Forsooth,
Dr. H. page 67.
Because when the Synod had concluded in the condemnation of the Remonstrants Doctrine, they next proceeded to the destruction of their Persons; calling upom them to subscribe to the Acts of the Synod, and setting them a peremptory day for conforming to it: And when they saw, that would not do it, by their incensed importunity they procured a Proclamation from the States General, to banish them from their native Countrey, with their Wives and Children, and so compelling them to beg their bread, even in desolate places.
Answ. A very lamentable story▪ that Remonstrants should be banished and their Wives and Children, and that they should be compelled to beg their bread, and their begging be confined to desolate places! But what were the names of these Remonstrants, who were put to all this extremity? Where is this Proclamation of the States General recorded, that such an ignorant man as I am may come to the sight of it? Certainly whatever these Remonstrants had of Free-will, they had not much Wisdom in them, or else they would never have made choice of desolate places to beg their bread in; places inhabited, and populous Cities, are the places that our English Beggars resort to. The Histories that I meet with, relate of attempts and endeavours, that were used in order to an accommodation; and the Contraremonstrants easily granted, that the simple meer Arminian, might be continued, and cherished in the bosom of the Church, provided, that he would not disturb the peace of the Church: But the Remonstrants unhappily choosing Episcopius to write their Confessio Fidei, broached and vented so many Socinian Errors, that there was no possibility, without violating all rules of discipline, of taking them into Church-fellowship. That no severity was used against the Remonstrants presently upon the concluding of the Synod, I am not able to say; It is not unlike, they might have a little of that measure meted out to them, which they had meted out unto others: But I am sure that Curcellaeus himself acknowledgeth, that Episcopius an Arminian, and somewhat more than an Arminian, was not long after he was put out of his Professors place, suffered both at Rotterdam and Amsterdam, to enjoy a preferment honourable and gainful. Might the Non-conformists, who differ only in a point of Ceremony and Discipline, have so fair quarter from their Episcopal Brethren▪ as the Remonstrants had from the Contraremonstrants, they would not sure make such loud Complaints of Trouble and Persecution, as now they do.
That the Remonstrants may be the more pitied, the Doctor acquaints us with