Animadversions on Doctor Heylins Quinquarticular History, Part 83
Dr. H. Part 2. pag. 47.
By which the far greater part of mankind are pre-ordained, and consequently pre-condemned to the the pit of torments, without any respect had unto their sins and incredulities. This is generally, he saith, maintained and taught in the Schools of Calvin.
Ans. If it be so, then I am sure I never was in any School of Calvin; for I never heard or read of any such Reprobation: nay, I never read of any person whatsoever, that asserted such a Reprobation. Sundry famous Schoolmen, quoted by Dr. Rivet in his fifth Disputation de Reprobatione, were of opinion, that if God had decreed even innocent creatures to eternal damnation, he had decreed nothing unworthy of himself ▪ and they seem to have but too much countenance for this bold and audacious Tenent from a passage of St. Austin's, in his 16. cap. de Praedestinatione & Gratia: But the Calvinists (as many as I have met with) say, that as God never actually damned any man but for sin, so he never decreed to damn any but for sin. All that they say is but this, that Whereas Iudas and Peter were both alike corrupted by the fall, and both alike apt by nature to abuse and reject grace, the reason why God determined effectually to cure the corruption of Peter and not of Iudas, was the meer good pleasure of his will. The Calvinists are not engaged to say, that God reprobates any man who was not worthy to be reprobated. All that their opinion obligeth them to, is but this, Not to make sin the cause of preterition or non-election, comparatively considered▪ And against such preterition there is nothing in the Prayers of our Church, nothing in Latimer, nothing in Hooper, nothing in Cranmer, nothing in the whole Tenth Chapter of the Doctor's second Part. And it is a wonder, that so ancient a Divine should trouble himself in so many pages to do execution upon a m…er Chimaera: and yet this employment was so pleasing and acceptable to him, that he falls to it again in his …leventh Chapter; In which, page 64, he makes the main Controversie in the Point of man's Conversion to move upon this hinge, Whether the influences of God's grace be so strong and powerful, that withall they are absolutely irresistible, so that it is not possible for the will of man not to consent unto the same? But they that have either read the determinations of the Synod of Dort, or Calvin's own Institutions, know, that the Controversie moves upon no such hinge: but this is the Question, Whether when converting Grace hath produced the whole effect God designed it unto, man still remains unconverted, and indifferent either to turn himself or not turn himself unto God? If converting Grace do leave a man thus indifferent, they say, that Conversion is rather to be ascribed to man than God; and that Paul made himself to differ from other Persecutors, and not God. But they never say, that God forceth or offereth violence unto the natural faculty of the will, or destroyeth any liberty that is essential to it. If any violence be offered, it is only unto corrupt lusts, and sinful inclinations; in which, I hope, I may have fair liberty to say, that the freedom of mans will doth not consist. Let but any one fairly and impartially state this Question, by drawing Propositions concerning it out of the Writings before mentioned, and he will find nothing in Hooper or Latimer contradictory. The tenth Article of King Edward's he will find perfectly to express the mind of the Calvinists. And so I might dismiss this matter, had not the Doctor thought meet page 67, as also in another Writing, to smite at us with a Dilemma, or something like a Dilemma, grounded upon the omitting of this Article in Queen Elizabeth's time. Either this Article did favour Calvinism, or it did not: If it did not, why do the Calvinists alledge it? If it did, why is it in our latter Editions of the Articles left out? We have learnt from Logick, that such Dilemma's are not to be used, which may be inverted or retorted upon those that make them; and such is the present Dilemma, apparently, notoriously such. For thus I argue, Either this Article is Anti-calvinistical, or it is not: If it be not, why doth the Doctor produce it as such? If it be, why did our Reformers in Queen Elizabeth's time (who were, as he would fain perswade us, Anticalvinistical) leave it out? He must either answer for himself, or not expect that we should answer for our selves: which yet we could easily do, did any Law of Disputation require it of us; for this might be the reason of the omission, because there was nothing in King Edward's tenth Article, but what doth naturally and lineally descend from our present seventeenth Article.
I will follow the Doctor whither he leads me, when I have first admonisht my Reader, not …o prejudice himself by what so frequently occurs among our Protestant Writers, that Works done before the grace of Christ do not make men meet to receive grace. For it will be found agreeable unto Scripture, that Works done before Conversion, may leave in the Soul a material disposition, or a passive preparedness to receive grace: no preparation can be wrought by them that deserves grace, none from which grace necessarily flows; but yet such may be wrought, as from which a man may be denominated more meet, and more likely, to receive the undeserved love of God, than if he wanted it. Just as we say in Natural Philosophy, that though the rational soul do not emerge out of the organization of the matter, but is immediately inspired by God; yet an organical matter, is a more prepared subject to receive such a soul, than a matter not organized.
I promised, after I had laid down this caution, to follow the Doctor, and so I will, to his Twelfth Chapter. But in it I shall not need to stay long with him; for it is wholly spent in laying down the Doctrine of Free-will, as it was agreed upon in the Popish Convocation, Anno 1543. Wherefore though there be nothing in the Article of Free-will there delivered, but what a Calvinist (allowing him but a favourable interpretation) may subscribe to; yet the Doctrine of the Reformed Church of England, must not be measured by the decisions of that Popish Convocation.
In the Thirteenth Chapter, entituled, Concerning the certainty or uncertainty of Perseverance, (passing over the Council of Trent, which will be of no use to us to find out the Doctrine of the Church of England) Pag. 81, the Calvinists are charged to presume, not only to know all things that belong to their present justification, as assuredly as they know that Christ is in Heaven; but also to be as sure of their eternal election, and of their future glorification, as they are of this Article of their Creed, that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary. If any Calvinist …ver said so, he erred greatly, not knowing the Scriptures, or the deceitfulness of his own heart. But if never any Calvinist said so, what shall then be done to him that so presumptuously bears false witness against them? Certainly the Calvinists do not hold, that the Doctrine of Perseverance is so fundamental, or so clearly delivered in Scripture, as the Doctrine of Christ's Nativity; so far are they from holding that they themselves, or any of them, do as certainly know the goodness of their present state, or their eternal election, as they firmly believe the Article of their Saviour's being born of the Virgin Mary. They are all wont to distinguish of a certitude of the object, and a certitude of the subject; they say, 'tis certain from the Word, that he who is a sound Believer, shall continue to be a Believer, until he attain the end of his Faith: But they say, a man may be a Believer, and yet not be certain that he does believe; and if once he had a certain perswasion of his faith, he may lose that perswasion: and many of them (I am sure) say, that he must lose it as oft as he falls into any conscience-wasting sin. This is the Doctrine that agrees with our Articles, and with the judgment of our first Reformers. If any man deliver the Doctrine of Perseverance at a higher rate, the Calvinists are not concerned to defend him.
The sixteenth Article of our Church is brought by the Dr. against Perseverance: The words of it are these, Not every deadly sin committed after Baptism, is the sin against the Holy Ghost, and unpardonable; wherefore the grant of repentance is not to be denied to such as do fall into sin after Baptism. After we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin; and by the grace of God we may rise again, and amend our lives: and therefore they are to be condemned, which say, they can no more sin as long as they live here; or deny place of forgiveness to such as truly repent. From which Article they may, in the judgment of our Church, be concluded to be in an error, who hold that every sin committed after Baptism, is the sin against the Holy Ghost: but so do not the Calvinists hold. They also are by this Article condemned, who say, they can no more sin as long as they live here: but what Calvinists say so? They finally are condemned, who deny place of forgiveness to such as truly repent: in which number the Calvinists cannot be placed, but some of the Remonstrants may; and it were to be wished, that some of our Arminianizing English Writers might not also be placed among them. The Article having made a [therefore] its strange that any one should draw any other conclusion from it, than what it self hath drawn: as strange that any one should write, that our Church intended by this Article to determine, that the faith by which the just man lives, may be totally lost. Let an Argument be made, The Church says, after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from the grace given, and fall into sin; therefore it saith, we may fall into such a sin as quite extinguisheth grace; or therefore it saith, that grace may be quite and for ever lost, Any one that understands himself, will deny both these Consequents; and deny them he may without danger or fear. But let us view the Doctor's thoughts about this Article. Pag. 84, he bolts out a Maxime in the Civil Law, Non esse distinguendum ubi Lex non distinguit; that no distinction must be made in the explicating and expounding any Law, which is not to be found in the Law it self. I acknowledge, that such a saying is commonly quoted from the Civilians; and as they understand it, it is very rational: But how do the Calvinists willingly oppose themselves against this maxime? Their Tenent is, Regeniti nunquam totaliter excidunt a gratia; and some of them perhaps say, Regeniti non possunt excidere a gratia totaliter. If any man will disprove them from the Article, he must out of the Article draw some conclusion that contradicts their Tenent: which if any one go about to do, he will find himself at a loss, and will be never able to put them to the cost of a distinction. Foreseeing that this maxime might not serve his turn, he tells us that, for the clear understanding of the Churches meaning, we must have recourse in this, as in other Articles, to the plain words of Bishop Hooper and Bishop Latimer. But why must we have recourse to these mens Writings, above and beyond all other mens of that age, Bishop Latimer never resuming his Bishoprick, cannot be thought to be in any capacity to sit so much as a Member of the Convocation 1552. Bishop Hooper indeed had a right to a place in the Upper House, and 'tis like took his place; but his Exposition on the Commandments, was printed four years before that Convocation sa…e. My Edition, which I use, was printed 1548, when he was a popular Preacher, and, I think, an unlicenced Preacher: Bishop he was not till 1550▪ But if this Book had been made after the conclusion of the Convocation, it could be no Rule to interpret the Articles, which were drawn up, at least in one point, quite contrary to his declared judgment. If every thing in that Book pass for the Doctrine of the Church, down fall all our Gentlemens Pigeon-houses, down falls, &c. But what need all this? Bishop Hooper hath not any thing in his Preface to his Exposition on the ten Commandments for total Apostasie, or against Perseverance. He only saith, the cause of some mens damnation is this, that after they have received the promise of the Gospel, by accustomed doing of ill, they fall unto a contempt of the Gospel. Many a man receives the promise of the Gospel, who doth not receive it into a good honest heart, and therefore was never sanctified or justified. Was not then the Doctor hard put to it, when he could find no passage in Hooper to oppose to the Doctrine of Perseverance, but only this? If Hooper speak no more plainly in his Paraphrase on the thirteenth Chapter of the Epistle to the Romans, than in his Preface to his Exposition of the Commandments, he speaks just nothing at all to the Doctor's purpose. As neither doth Mr. Tindal in his Prologue to his Exposition of the Epistle to the Romans; whose words are brought in for sundry lines, pag. 85, but tend only to prove, that if a man break the Law, he must sue for a new pardon, and have a new light against sin, hell, and desperation, ere he can come to a quiet faith again, and feel that sin is forgiven; and that the promise of mercy and forgiveness is made on this condition, that we sin no more. Some Followers of Islebius Agricola, may peradventure enter their dissent from Mr. Tindal in this matter; so may also the English Antinomians: but so need not any one who embraceth the Determinations of the Synod of Dort; for in those Determinations, if they were searched with a candle, it will never be found, that men are not bound to renew their repentance, as they renew their sin; or that they can have a quiet conscience, or sense of pardon, till they have converted themselves out of every snare of the Devil.
It had been, it seems, objected by Mr. Hickman, that Mr. Mountague himself, both in his Gagg and his Appeal, had confessed▪ that the Church had left it undecided, Whether a Saint may fall totally and finally? What hath the Doctor against this?