Animadversions on Doctor Heylins Quinquarticular History, Part 48 – Part 52
Dr. H. Pag. 70.
First, It is objected, that this Doctrine (viz. the Doctrine of the Remonstrants) is destructive of God…s free-grace, reviving the old Pelagian Heresies so long since condemned, To which objection it is answered, that the Remonstrants speak as honourably of the grace of God as any other whatsoever; as may be proved by comparing the first branch of the fourth Article with that golden saying of S. Augustine, Sine gratia Dei praeveniente ut velimus, & subsequente ne frustra velimus, ad pietatis opera nil valemus.
Answ. So much do all true Christians abhor whatever Doctrine doth derogate from the grace of God, that the greatest opposers of grace have found it necessary to speak honourably of it. Pelagius indeed in his first attempts, never so much as mentioned the word grace; but he soon saw, his opinions so propounded would never take: therefore he began to use the word grace, but by it understood no more than Free-will, as appears by that known and commonly quoted place of S. Aug. Serm. 11. de Verb. Apost. cap. 7, Disputantes contra gratiam pro libero arbitrio secerunt auribus piis & Catholicis offensionem: coeperunt horreri, coeperunt ut certa pernicies devitari, coepit de illis dici quod contra gratiam disputarent: & invenerunt ad revelandam istam invidiam tale commentum; non, inquit, contra gratiam Dei disputo quod liberum arbitrium defendo: videte acumen sed vitreum, quasi lucet vanitate, sed frangitur veritate: that is, God gave us our Freewill, and therefore whatever we do by the strength of Freewill, is to be ascribed unto Grace. When this would not do, then he began to allow another Grace, that was commonly called Gratia legis aut doctrinae: allowing God not only to bestow on us Free-will, but also by his Law and Precepts to shew and discover unto us our duty. Aiunt ideo ista si…e ope divina non sieri, quia & hominem Deus creavit cum libero arbitrio, & dando praecepta ipse docet quemadmodum homini sit vivendum, saith S. August. de spirit. Lit. cap. 2. adding also in other places, that they acknowledged a Grace of remission vouchsafed to all such as did unfeignedly turn themselves to him. Yea, he stuck not at last to anathematize any one that should say or think, that the grace of God was not necessary, not only for every hour & moment, but also for every one of our actions. Who would think that Pelagius were not now become as Orthodox as any of the Fathers of the Councel before whom he was summoned to appear? But the wretch was as Heterodox as ever; for by grace necessary for every moment, and every act, he understands either only that it is needful that we should keep in memory that our sins are pardoned, or that we should alway have in our eye the example or Law of Christ. I list not further to prosecute the several states and steps of Pelagianism; Great art was used, as may be seen both in Vossius and Iansenius to refine the errour, that it might be the more easily swallowed down. What I have already noted shews sufficiently, that men may in words acknowledge grace, and yet in works deny it, sacrificing to their own nets, and burning incense to their own drags. Whether the Remonstrants are not to be put into this number, will appear, if we compare and put together their writings concerning converting grace. I grant that they in the third Article, and in the greatest part of the fourth, speak fairly concerning grace; but, Did they not in the Hague Conference deny the infusion of any habit or new vital principle? Did they not say, that the Spirit acted no otherwise upon the Will than by moral swasion? and that nothing was put into the will, or did properly inhere in the Will, but natural Liberty? That one clause, as for the manner of the cooperation of this Grace, it is not to be thought irresistible, doth (saith Paraeus) take away all that from grace, that was before given to it. Acta Synod. p. 311. & p. 317. If the grace which causeth conver…ion be not irresistible, but resistible, such as may be by the will of man hindred or not hindred, all that in the third or fourth Article is attributed to grace is but an empty smoak of words, and those effects they speak of cannot be ascribed to the grace of God but indifferently and remotely, to the wills of men not resisting they must be ascribed specifically and neerly. If so, then all they so magnificently write of grace, will be either a falsity, or a cheat: It will be a cheat, or a falsity to say, 1. That man hath not faith from himself, and in the strength of his Free-will; for from himself he will have the specification of the operation of grace, because by not resisting grace, he hath distinguished himself from others. 2. That he cannot of himself think, will, or do any good; for it is good, of a mans self well to specifie a resistible indifferent operation. 3. That God by his holy Spirit doth regenerate and renew us, &c. for God by his Spirit shall only resistibly, indifferently and remotely, and therefore improperly; we our selves shall specifically, immediately, and properly regenerate and renew our selves. Many other things of this nature are by this learned Professor there urged, which the Remonstrants will never be able by all their sophistry to evade.
This also will make good the other charge against the Remonstrants Doctrine, taken notice of by the Doctor page 73, viz. That it doth naturally encline a man to the sin of pride: For the removal of which he would offer something, but such a something as is next to nothing, viz. that
Dr. H. Page 74.
That Doctrine must needs more cherish humane presumption, which puffeth men up with the certainty of their election, the infallibility of assisting and persisting grace, and the impossibility of falling from the attaining of that salvation which they have promised themselves; than that which leaves these Points uncertain, which puts a man to the continual necessity of calling upon God, and working out the way unto his salvation with fear and trembling.
Answ. For who will not reply to him, that in the Contra-monstrant way there is more ground for prayer and for fear and trembling; since the Contra-remonstrants ascribe to God the working in us both to will and to do, which the Remonstrants cannot? The Remonstrants must needs, if they will not contradict themselves, affirm, that God doth, pari gradu & modo, in the like degree and measure, will and work antecedently, the conversion of those who are converted and of those who are not converted. If so, what ground for fear, sith man can convert himself when he pleaseth, and restore the lost habits when he listeth? The Apostle Paul, one of the rarest examples of humility, did sure best know, what's most likely to quel and subdue high thoughts and proud imaginations: and what weapons doth he make use of to this end? Why two such interrogations, as must needs prick the bladder, with the Contraremonstrant, but not with the Remonstrant. Let it be demanded of a Calvinist, What hast thou, that thou hast not received? He will answer, Nothing. Let it be enquired, Who made thee to differ? He will reply, The meer undeserved omnipotent grace of God. But a Grevincovius will say, He made himself to differ. But perhaps no Arminian else will say so: Yes, Mr. Playser in his Appello Evangelium hath said so; and all Remonstrants must say so, that will not fly from their principles. To manifest which, I shall only English something out of the Declaratio sententiae Remonstrant. circa Articul. cap. 3, & 4. pag. 21, If it be enquired, why this man is converted, and another not? We answer, this man is converted, because God converts him, not opposing any new contumacy; the other is not converted, because he doth oppose new contumacy. But you will enquire, why this man opposeth new contumacy, not the other? We answer, this man opposeth, because he will oppose; the other opposeth not, because he is moved by grace, ne velit opponere, to have no mind to oppose. If you enquire, whether he who opposeth not new contumacy, and by consequent is converted, hath greater grace than he that opposeth, and by consequent is not converted? We answer, that antecedent and preventing grace may be equal; but the former hath co-operating, the latter hath not. Hence it is plain, that it is man, according to the Remonstrants, who makes sufficient grace to be effectual; and by necessary consequence, man doth make himself a penitent, a believer, a regenerate person: than which Pelagius himself could not write or speak, higher or more proudly.
Dr. H. Page 72.
The Historian is pleased to mention another charge against the Remonstrants Opinions, viz. That they symbolize so much with the Church of Rome, that they serve onelyonly as a bridge for Popery to pass over into any Church into which they can obtain admission. And further tells us, that this clamor being first raised in Holland, was afterwards much cherished, and made use of by the Puritan or Calvinian party among us in England.
Answ. Where I take notice, 1. That he gives a false account of the rise and first beginning of this charge, that These points do▪ where they are entertained, dispose mens minds for the reception and entertainment of Popery. For before the troubles raised by Barnevelt, our Divines did suspect conditionate election, and falling away from grace, &c. to be an inlet to Popery: as is manifest from the Letter of the Heads of the University of Cambridge to their Chancellor, written upon the occasion of Baret's and Baro's preaching or reading things agreeable to the Opinions that are now called Arminian; in which Letter, bearing date March 8. 1595, 'tis affirmed, that if passage were permitted to those Errours, the whole Body of Popery would by little and little break in upon them; to the overthrow of Religion, and consequently the withdrawing of many there, and elsewhere, from true obedience to her Majesty; and therefore in the close they humbly beseech his Lordships good aid and assistance, for the suppressing in time, not only of these Errours, but even of gross Popery, like by such means, in time, easily to creep in among them, as they found by late experience it had dangerously begun.
Unto this and many other testimonies, alledged by Mr. Hickman in his foreign, the Doctor will yield no assent; but answereth three things,
Dr. H. Pag. 73.
1. Why should not a general compliance with the Friers of S. Dominick, be thought as ready a way to bring in Popery, as any such compliance with the Friers of S. Francis?
Answ. To which the Answer is easie, Because the Dominicans opinions do much tend to the exaltation of grace, and the subjection of carnal reason to Faith; so do not the Tenents of the Franciscans or Jesuits. Now where grace is exalted, and carnal reason is sub…ected, there Popery, which hath its foundation in carnal reason and pride, doth not so easily prevail or obtain. This the Pope understood well enough; which made his Bull to roar so loud against the, in this point, Orthodox Iansenians.
Dr. H. Ibid.
2. The Melancthonian, or moderate Lutherans, which make up infinitely the greatest part of the Lutheran Churches, agree in these points with the Iesuits or Franciscan Friers, and yet are still as far from relapsing to the Church of Rome, as when they made the first separation from it.
Answ. Where, 1. It is strange that one pretending to History, should represent the infinitely far greater part of the Lutheran Churches as Melancthonian, or moderate Lutherans: When as it is known, that a very great, if not the greatest part of the Lutherans, are as far from being Melancthonians, or moderate, as Dr. Heylin is from being a Presbyterian or Puritan. But it seems, if men be never so violent for Ubiquity, Consubstantiation, Images, if they be but against Predestination, they shall pass for meek and moderate, and Melancthonians.
2. It may a little be questioned, Whether the present Lutherans be as far from relapsing to the Church of Rome, as were those Lutherans who made the first separation from it? I know not how much there may be of truth in the talk that hath lately filled our ears, concerning Unions and accommodations betwixt the Lutheran and Roman Churches. It would be very strange if the Lutherans, having all this while been bred up among Images, should be as averse from Image-worship, as were the first Reformers.
3. It is as false as what is most false, that the Lutherans do agree with the Franciscans or Jesuits in these Points. Micraelius in his Heterodoxia Calviniana, disput. 5. par. 15, rejecteth both the Dominicans and Jesuits: the Dominicans, as inclining to the Stoicks; the Jesuits, as falling in with the Pelagians. Afterwards he rejects the Jesuits Scientia media, confessing that Voetius doth well and unanswerably prove against them, that there is nothing knowable but what is the object either of the knowledge of simple intelligence, or vision. Speaking also of Arminius, he will not undertake for him. Tarnovius openly rejects the Arminians, as of a contrary judgement from the Lutherans, Miscel. Sacrorum lib. 2. pag. 710, Vorstiniani, Arminiani, & similes in Belgio, quando aiunt fide nos praedestinari ad vitam aeternam, idem dicunt, non idem nobiscum sentiunt. He that would be more fully convinced of this, that the Lutherans are not Arminians, may please to consult what Durfieldus, a Divine of Rostoch, hath written against Iohannes Assuerus Amsingus; where he shall find the Arminians accused of Pelagianism, before the chief Doctors of those Universities, that follow the Augustan Confession. This I take on trust from Dr. Rivet, having not as yet had the opportunity to see the Author. But casting my eye on Gerhard's Son's Epistle Dedicatory, prefixed to his Father's Comment on Deuteronomy, I found him use no obliging language of the Arminians; for he saith, that they have ad dogmata Socinianorum admodum prurientes aures, and he calls Simon Episcopius, the Infaelex Arminianismi interpolator. But the cutting killing Answer (which he cannot mention without triumph) is still behind, and is thus worded: