Animadversions on Doctor Heylins Quinquarticular History, Part 53 – Part 54
Dr. H. Pag. 73.
3. If Arminianism be so ready a bridge for passing over to Popery, it would be very well worth the knowing, how and by what means it should come to pass, that so few of the Remonstrants in the Belgick Provinces, and none of those whom they call Arminians in the Church of England, should, in so long a time, pass over that bridge, notwithstanding all the provocations of want and scorn, which were put upon the one, and have been since multiplied upon the other.
Answ. If this be so well worth knowing, I shall be the more easily pardoned, if I take some pains for the Doctor's information.
1. It is asked, Why so few of the Belgick Remonstrants did turn Papists? For answer, I might ask, How, if the Contra-remonstrants Opinions did as much encline and dispose men to Popery as the Remonstrants, it came to pass, that not one Contra-remonstrant ever went over to Rome? But I forbear that, and shall offer two reasons which might (as I conceive) hinder the Belgick Remonstrants from turning Roman Catholicks. 1. Their Wives and Children might hinder them from passing over this Bridge: forsake these dear Relations they could not, and yet if they did not forsake them, they could promise themselves no good reception, or kind entertainment among the Pontificians. 2. The Remonstrants might therefore not turn Papists, because they were resolved to turn to a worse sort of Hereticks, viz. the Socinians. But did the Remonstrants strike in with the Socinians? Yes, that they did; as I will undertake to prove by as good evidence as can be expected in matter of fact. Till I be called to make good this undertaking, I refer my Reader to Vedelius's Arcana Armin. and Horn…beck's Apparatus ad Soc. conf.
2. It is asked, Why none of those whom they call Arminians in England, notwithstanding all provocations of want and scorn, are turned Papists? To answer this, times must be distinguished;
1. Before Bishop Laud ruled and governed, those who embraced the Opinions since called Arminian, were indeed out of the way to preferment; but who knows not that many of them turned Papists? Barret did so in Queen Elizabeth's time: And the Heads of Houses in Cambridge complain in the before mentioned Letter, that they had found by experience, that Popery came in among them at the door of Arminianism, (so I may call it by a prolepsis.)
2. When Bishop Laud ruled and disposed of all Ecclesiastical preferment, Arminians had no provocations from want or scorn, yet even then some of them turned Papists.
3. Since the breaking out of the late unhappy Civil Wars and Confusions, there hath a cup of trembling and astonishment gone round the three Nations, and Divines of all perswasions have been made to drink of it; all Ministers, by what names soever dignified, by what opinions soever distinguished, have been made the filth and off-scouring of all things: but that scorn or want hath befallen any one meerly for being a favourer of Arminianism, is more than I know, more than Dr. Heylin can prove. Sure I am, that many of those Army-men, who gloried in nothing more, than in trampling all Law and Right under foot, were Arminians; and he who was the only Divine that dared to justifie that horrid fact, the murdering of the late King, is known to all to be a great stickler for Arminianism. But it were to be wished, that no Arminians had, during the late Troubles, forsaken the Church of England, and took sanctuary in the Synagogue of Rome. I was bred up with Mr. W. H. at Katherine-Hall in Cambridge, who was looked upon by the whole Society, as a very studious, ingenious, hopeful person, and was thereupon chosen Fellow before he was Master of Arts; but by acquaintance with some, he began highly to dote on the Common Prayer-book, and would leave good Sermons at Cambridge, and walk over to Coton on purpose that the might hear the Liturgy; withal he had …ucked in Arminianism: but within the compass of two years, he fell to downright Popery, and is now, as they say, a Seminary Priest. I would not have mentioned this story, but that it is notorious, I suppose, all Cambridge over. What shall we think of the late Bishop of Glocester? was not he called and reputed an Arminian? and did he not die a Son and Member of the Church of Rome? The present Bishop of Exeter, I confess, makes an Essay to clear him from Popery, but very unhappily: whilest he goes about to prove that he did not die a Papist, he makes him not a Christian for the former part of his life. These are the words used concerning him, pag. 637, No wonder if dying and dejected, he chose rather to depart in communion with the Church of Rome, than to adhere to the Church of England, which he thought now decayed and dissolved (at least as to its visible order and polity,) if not quite destroyed: not that he owned (I hope) a communion, or conciliation with the Roman Church as Popish, but as far as it was Christian. If dying he was reconciled to the Church of Rome as Christian, then before he was at enmity with it as Christian; and if so, he was not a Christian. I hope a man may adhere to the Church of England, and yet depart in communion with the Church of Rome as Christian? In a word, there was not many years since a Book published, in which were contained the names of many of those who had lately revolted to Popery: Let Dr. Heylin read over that Catalogue, and then tell me, whether it was not a strange piece of boldness to ask so confidently, Why none of those who are called Arminians, had in all these times turned Papists?
Dr. H. Pag. 75.
Finally it is objected (but the objection rather concerneth the men than the doctrine) that the Arminians are a Faction, a turbulent and seditious Faction, so found in the United Provinces from their very first spawning. To this he answers, pag. 77, that there is nothing in the Doctrine of the Arminians (as it relates to the five Points in difference) which can dispose the Professors of it to any such practices.
Answ. I know not that any one hath in print affirmed, that the Arminian Doctrine doth naturally lead men to Faction and Sedition; but if any one have affirmed any such thing, he may prove his affirmation by an argument which cannot easily be answered, viz. Those Doctrines which do encline men to Pride, do naturally lead men to Faction and Sedition. The Arminian Doctrines do incline men to Pride; ergo. The Minor hath been before confirmed, the Major is undeniable, as being built upon plain express Scripture.
But the Doctor, contenting himself nakedly to affirm, that there is nothing in the Arminian Doctrines, which can dispose the Professors of it to seditious practices; tells us from some, that it is not so with the Doctrine of the other Party,