deserued reprobation but no man could deserue mercy to be deliuered by predestination Rom. 3.23 For there is no difference for all haue sinned and are depriued of the glory of God Then in the sinfull estate of corruption all are found once a like and all depriued of the glory of God And what is this to bee depriued of the glory of God but to deserue reprobation So he sayth Rom. 11.30 God hath shut vp all in Vnbeleefe So that all that are receiued to mercy by Predestination Vocation Iustification are taken out of the corrupted state of mankinde the rest are left in their sinnes These we call men reprobate that are left in their sinnes and in the end iustly condemned for sin But why some are left in their sinnes other deliuered from their sins by Predestination Vocation Iustification of this no cause can be giuen but the will of God But sayth our Author in that Article there is neither word syllable or apex to proue c. Yes sir there is somewhat For in that Article Predestination is sayde to be The euerlasting and constant purpose of God It is sayd in the Article that They that are predestinated are called according to Gods purpose This is enough to proue all which they intend and to ouerthrow your new Doctrine that men are called in consideration of their Faith Obedience and Repentance The Article saith moreouer That they are iustified freely If freely then without consideration of any thing fore-seene in man Thus whilst in curiosity you were seeking your apices you stumbled and are falne into a dangerous pit out of which God deliuer you I will doe the best seruice I can to make you see these dangers Your common Obiection against them that teach predestination to depend only vpon Gods will is this You say They bring in a decree absolute necessary irrespectiue irresistible determined fatall necessitating These Obiections you borrowed from the Arminians they had them from the Pelagians But you say that You haue read nothing of the Arminians It seemeth that you are an excellent Scholler that can learne your lesson so perfectly without instructors If they who vse these Obiections take them from the Pelagians then you see that the Doctrine which the Pelagians oppugned is the same which you oppugne St. Augustine had much controuersie with the Pelagians Pelagius taught that Grace is giuen to men in respect of their merits St. Augustine refuseth this error of Pelagius for which he was condemned for an Heretick in three Synodes Gratia Dei datur secundum merita nostra This was the position which the Pelagians maintained and which St. Augustine refuted St. Augustin referreth the matter to Gods will and purpose onely But this Pelagius denied and sayd that grace dependeth not vpon Gods will onely He denied not the will of God but sayde that Gods will had respect to merits fore-seene In this sense he sayth Gratia Dei datur secundum merita nostra And in this sense the purpose of God was held by the Pelagians to be respectiue as respecting somewhat fore-seene in men predestinated Pelagius himselfe said it respected merits others said that it respecteth faith fore-seene others deuised the respect of workes fore-seene which is all one with Pelagius his merits fore-seene The Arminians haue added the respect of humility fore-seene Hence arise two opinions about Predestination The one the Doctrine of the Church taught by St. Augustine and Prosper by St. Hierom St. Ambrose St. Gregory St. Bernard and the rest that herein followed St. Augustine The other is the opinion of the Pelagians who oppugned this Doctrine If the question be proposed why God receiueth one to mercy and not an other why this man and not that to this question all the Orthodoxe that haue taught in the Church after St. Augustine answere that of this taking one to mercy and leauing an other no reason can be giuen but only the will of God The Pelagians and Arminians say that Gods will heerein is directed by somewhat fore-seene in men Predestinated Now that Predestination dependeth only vppon Gods will without respect to any thing fore-seene in men is as I sayd the receiued Doctrine of St. Augustin and of the Church following For before St. Augustin this thing came not in question as himselfe in many places confesseth The same is the Doctrine of the Reformed Churches And this hath hitherto been receiued the Doctrine of the Church of England I will adde also the same is the Doctrine of the Church of Rome as Bellarmine deliuereth it For he concludeth thus Restat igitur vt huius discretionis causa sit voluntas Dei quae vnum liberat quia ei placet alterum non liberat quia non placet Wherein he followeth the Doctrine of St. Augustin and the rest Of these two opinions the Author of the Appeale hath made choyce of that which Pelagius held against the Church and maintayneth it by the arguments which the Pelagians haue vsed For thus they obiected against the Doctrine of St. Augustine that he brought in a decree absolute irrespectiue irresistible determined fatall necessitating and these be our Authors Obiections It must bee confessed it is a wrong to lay to mens charge Doctrines in other tearmes then themselues do teach These tearmes are not vsed by them whom this man chargeth We do not deale so with the Papists or any other For my part I mislike these tearmes But if by this word decree there be nothing intended but the purpose of Gods election I will not wrangle for words Onely I thinke that wee may speake most warrantably in the words of the Scripture For the holy Scripture hath furnished us with words sufficient We finde it there called the will of God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the purpose of God and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Good Pleasure of God These words suffice to sober mindes to expresse this Doctrine Then he chargeth vs to teach that this decree is absolute Because the Pelagians and their Followers inferre an absolute decree they should declare what they meane by this word absolute If this be the meaning of the word that Gods purpose of Predestination dependeth vpon the onely will of God and not vppon any thing fore-seene in men Predestinated which God respected in Predestinating then I affirme that this is the ancient and Catholike Doctrine of the Church and the contrary is the Doctrine of the Pelagians If this Author would speake for the Pelagians against the receiued Doctrine of the Church then must he declare vnto vs what thing did mooue the will of God And by this meanes he will teach vs a thing which no man euer could speake to to know the cause of Gods will Dicat qui potest I thinke hee knoweth as little in this matter as other men And yet hee is bound to instruct vs in this Mystery For hee that sayth the will of God dependeth vppon something is bound to shewe what that thing is vpon which
which worketh through loue surely either faileth not at all or if there bee some defect it is repaired in them before the end of their life And that intercurrent iniquity which breakes in is blotted and perseuerance is reputed vnto the end vsque in finem perseuerantia deputatur But they who perseuere not but fall away from the Christian faith and from a godly conuersation surely these men are not to bee accounted in this number no not then when they liued well they are not separated from that masse of perdition by Gods praedestination not called according to his purpose but called amongst them of whom it is said multi vocati but not of them of whom it is said pauci electi And who will deny that these are elect when they beleeue and are baptized and liue godly They may be said to be elect sed à nescientibus by such as know not what they shall be not by him who knoweth that these had not perseuerance For some be called of vs the sonnes of God for temporary graces which they haue receiued but vnto God they are not such Touching those Saints that are praedestinated to the kingdome of God such an helping grace is giuen to them that perseuerance is bestowed vpon them not onely that without it they cannot but that with it they cannot but perseuere For he said not onely Without me ye can do nothing but he said also you haue not chosen me but I haue chosen you and ordayned you that you go and bring forth fruite and that your fruite remaine In these words the Lord declareth that he gaue them not onely righteousnesse but also perseuerance therein For seeing that Christ ordained them to go and bring forth fruite that their fruit should remaine quis audet dicere who dare say that peraduenture it might not remaine For the guifts and calling of God are without repentance but then vndâ—rstand that calling which they haue who are called according to his purpose These receiue such freedome by this grace that albeit so long as they liue here they fight against the concupiscences of sinnes some creepe in vpon them for which they pâ—ay daily forgiue vs our trespasses yet they do not wilfully serue that sin that is to death of which S. Iohn saith There is a sin to death I say not for it thou shouldst pray Of thiâ— sinne because it is not expresly declared many diuerse things may be thought but I say that this sinne to death is a falling away euen to death from that faith which worketh by charity Now albeit the Apostle saith of all regenerate men liuing orderly Who art thou that condemnest another mans seruant he standeth or falleth to his Lord yet presently his words following respect the praedestinated For he saith He shall be established for God is able to make him stand then assuredly be giueth perseuerance that is able to establish them that stand that they may stand most perseueringly or to restore them that fall For it is the Lord that raiseth vp the bruised Psal. 146. And therefore hee that reioyceth let him reioyce in the Lord. Hence it is that in this place of misery where the life of man is a temptation vpon earth vertue is perfected in infirmity What vertue but that he that glorieth may glory in the Lord. And for this cause the Lord would not haue his Saints to glory in their strength no not in their perseuerance in good but to glory in him which doth not onely giue them such an helpe as hee gaue to the first man without which they could not perseuere if they would but in them also hee worketh this that they shall will Therefore is both the possibility and will of perseuering giuen to them from the bounty of diuine grace Thus hath S. Augustine at full declared himselfe in this particular CHAP. 8. I Was willing to let S. Augustine bee heard the longer in that cause wherein he was most exercised against the Pelagians The same doctrine as being the publique receiued doctrine of the Church hath beene likewise taught by others S. Ambrose saith quos deus vocare dicitur perseuerant in fide hij sunt quos elegit ante mundi constitutionem He maketh pâ—rseuerance a grace that dependeth vpon Gods calling hee meaneth as himselfe expoundeth it that calling which is according to Gods purpose And hee saith againe in the same place hoc placuit deo cuius consilium retractari non potest This he proueth also from those words of the Apostle I haue fought a good fight I haue finished my course I haue kept the faith from henceforth is laid vp for mee the crowne of righteousnesse which the Lord the righteous Iudge shall giue at that day and not to me onely but to all them also that loue his appearing Then without perseuerance no man can expect glory And this grace is giuen not onely to Saint Paul and such excellent Saints as hee was but vnto all that loue the Lords appearing The same thing is taught by the Author of the booke de vocatione gentium who citeth that place Who shall confirme you to the end that you may bee blamelesse in the day of the Lord. And those words Who shall separate vs from the loue of Christ shall tribuation or anguish c. Charitas dei saith hee qua eos diligit quos inseparabiles facit id est vsque in finem perseuerantes nam quid aliud est perseuerare quam tentatione non vinci The same is taught by Saint Gregory Qui non praedestinati sunt saith hee siue audiant doctorum verba siue non audiant vocari in dei habitaculum nequeunt And againe he saith Ab eo qui defecit venire spiritus dicitur ire ad eum qui perseveraturus est quia alios in tempore deserit alios assumit nec tamen deserit in reliquum dirigitur spiritus qui à gratia quam percipit nunquam discedit quid est ergo quâ—d dicitur à die illa et in reliquum nisi quia spiritus gratia sic recipitur vt in ea electi vsque in finem perseuerare doceantur And our venerable Bede vpon those words scimus queniam diligentibus deum omnia cooperantur in bonum saith thus Sciens nonnullos diligere deum et in eo bono vsque in finem non perseuerare mox addit his qui serundum propositum vocati sunt he enim in eo quod diligunt deum permanent vsque in finem et quid ad tempus inde deuiant reuertuntur et vsque in finem per durant quod in bono esse coeperaent Saint Bernard holdeth the same course Salus perseuerantibus promittitur praemium perseuerantibus datur Non est bonus qui bonum facit sed qui incessabiliter facit And in another place O sol iustitiae benigne Iesu Christe lucens in tua virtute reddens temet ipsum in praemium sempiternum
which they should haue thought on conceiuing things contrary to that which we haue receiued from the Scripture I may not bee silent For that were as much as in mee is to betray the Truth Yet my care shal bee to say no more heerein then I shall bee drawne necessarily to speake for the Truth and to remooue that which hath beene erroneously presumed by others For then is a man bound to maintayne the Truth when it is oppugned It troubled mee not a little I confesse that I am to deale with a Minister of the Church of England one that hath beene mine ancient Acquaintance of whom I had greater and better hopes But in Gods Cause all respects of Friendshippe and Acquaintance yea if it were of blood and kindred must giue place to the Truth Leuy sayde to his Father and to his Mother I haue not seene him neither knew hee his Brethren nor knewe his Children For they obserued thy Word and kept thy Commandement Deut. 33.9 And this is the way to do him good For I am not out of hope of reclaiming of him seeing hee hath promised that if the euidence bee cleare against him or if hee be conuicted per testes idoneos to haue erred he wil recall it The Scriptures the ancient Fathers and the Doctrine of the Church of England are testes idonei I shall deale freely and plainly For the ordering of the whole First after a briefe Introduction set downe for the better vnderstanding of the controuersie I will examine his extrauagant opinions concerning the respectiue decree of Predestination and after of falling away from Grace Last of all some particulers in his Booke This I doe not vndertake vpon any confidence that I conceiue in my selfe I know many in our Church more worthy and able then my selfe and I thanke God for them But as heeretofore I haue had experience of Gods mercy and found that the loue of the truth hath in other things enabled me to defend the Truth and helped me to know the Truth so I rest vpon the same helpe I seeke Gods Truth which will not fayle them that seeke and loue it And if any man of greater confidence in his wit and learning will enter vppon the Defence of the Appeale for I haue heard the whisperings I shall bee willing to spend the rest of mine old dayes in this for they cannot bee spent in a better seruice CHAP. 2. An Introduction for the better vnderstanding of the Controuersie following THE Church England was reformed by the helpe of our learned and Reuerend Bishops in the daies of King Edward the sixt and in the beginning of the Raigne of Queene Elizabeth They who then gaue that forme of reformation to our Church held consent in Doctrine with Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer being by authority appoynted Readers in the two Vniuersities and with other then liuing whom they iudged to bee of best learning and soundnesse in the reformed Churches And of the Ancients especially with St. Augustine And were carefull to hold this Vnity amongst themselues and with the reformed Churches For that these worthy Bishops who were in the first reformation had this respect vnto P. Martyr and M. Bucer it is apparent both because the Doctrine of our Church doth not differ from the Doctrine that these taught and because that worthy Arch-bishop Cranmer caused our Leiturgy to be Translated into Latin and craued the consent and iudgement of M. Bucer who gaue a full consent thereto as it appeareth in his workes Inter opera Anglicana And P. Martyr beeing likewise requested writeth in His epistles touching that matter his iudgement and consent of the gouernment and discipline of our Church This vniformity of Doctrine was held in our Church without disturbance as long as those worthy Bishops liued who were employed in the reformation For albeit the Puritans disquieted our Church about their conceiued Discipline yet they neuer mooued any quarrell against the Doctrine of our Church which is well to be obserued For if they had embraced any Doctrine which the Church of England denied they would assuredly haue quarrelled about that aswell as they did about the Discipline But it was then the open confession both of the Bishops and of the Puritanes that both parts embraced a mutuall consent in Doctrine onely the difference was in matter of inconformity Then hitherto there was no Puritane Doctrine knowne The first disturbers of this vniformity in doctrine were Barret and Baro in Cambridge and after them Thomson Barret and Baro beganne this breach in the time of that most reuerend Prelate Archbishop Whitgift Notwithstanding that these had attempted to disturbe the Doctrine of our Church yet was the vniformity of Doctrine still maintained For when our Church was disquieted by Barret and Baro the Bishops that then were in our Church examined the new Doctrine of these men and vtterly disliked and reiected it And in the poynt of Predestination confirmed that which they vnderstood to be the Doctrine of the Church of England against Barret and Baro who oppugned that doctrine This was fully declared by both the Archbishops Whitgift of Canterbury and Hutton of Yorke with the other Bishops and learned men of both Prouinces who repressed Barret and Baro refuted their doctrine and iustified the contrary as appeareth by that Booke which both the Archbishops then compiled The same Doctrine which the Bishops then maintained was at diuerse times after approued as in the Conference at Hampton Court as will be hereafter confirmed And againe it was confirmed in Ireland in the Articles of Religion in the time of our late Soueraigne Articulo 38. The Author of the Appeale pleadeth against the Articles of Lambeth and iustifieth the Doctrine of Barret Baro and Thomson auerring the same to be the Doctrine of the Church of England This hee doth not by naming of those men whose names he knew would bring no honour to this cause but by laying downe and iustifying their doctrines and suggesting that they who maintained the doctrines contained in the Articles of Lambeth are Caluinists and Puritans So that those Reuerend Archbishops Whitgift and Hutton with the Bishops of our Church who then liued are in his iudgement to be reiected as Puritans The question is whether of these two positions we must now receiue for the doctrines of our Church that which Barret Baro and Thomson would haue brought in which doctrines were then refuted and reiected by our Church Or that Doctrine which the Bishops of our Church maintained against these men which Doctrine hath beene since vpon diuerse occasions approued If there were no more to be sayd I dare put it to the Issue before any indifferent Iudges CHAP. 3. An examination of the respectiue pretended decree of Predestination THe Author of the Appeale vndertaking to maintaine the Doctrine of the Church of England refuteth that which hitherto hath bene taken for the Doctrine of our Church and maintaineth the doctrine of the Pelagians striuing to make that
the will of God dependeth But if it bee independing and respecting nothing but it selfe why then is it not absolute And why then doth hee with the Pelagians cast this against Gods purpose of Predestination that it is absolute The next accusation is that this decree is necessary Can any man giue vs a reason why the purpose of God shold not be necessary Our Author writeth thus Pag. 10. The will of God is the necessity of things say your Maisters out of Saint Augustine misunderstood He that chargeth others with mis-understanding should declare the true vnderstanding that they that misunderstand may be informed He doth not this but we must all be supposed to misunderstand this thing in the vnderstanding wherof he wil not helpe vs. There must be some cause of the necessitie of those things that are necessary What cause can this be It must either be the will of God or some other thing The auncient Writers of the Church make it the will of God If you can find any other cause you must declare it The will of God may truely be sayd to be the necessity of things because it is the prime high and necessary cause of things If you grant not this then you must point out vnto vs some superior cause which because you cannot do you must be contented with vs to confesse that the will of God is not only necessary but the necessity of things Bradwardin that worthy Archbishop of Canterbury citeth out of Anselme his Ancient in the same See diuerse things to this purpose Anselm 1. cur homo Deus Si vis omnium quae fecit passus est seire necessitatem scito omnia ex necessitate fuisse quia ipse voluit And againe Omnis necessitas aut impossibilitas Dei subiacet voluntati illius autem voluntas nulli subditur necessitati aut impossibilitati Nihil enim est necessarium aut impossibile nisi quia ipse ita voluit And in this respect S. Augustin speaking of this powerfull will of God whereby he doth what he will suffereth euen euill things that he may turne thē vnto good saith Nisi hoc credamus periclitatur ipsum confessionis nostrae initium quia in Deum patrem omnipotentem credere confitemur Neque enim ob aliud veraciter omnipotens diceretur nisi quia quicquid vult potest nec voluntate cuiuspiam creaturae voluntatis omnipotentis impeditur effectus And againe Voluntas Dei omnium quae sunt ipsa est causa Si enim habet causam voluntas Dei est aliquid quod antecedit voluntatem Dei quod nefas est credere Vpon these grounds the ancients conclude that the wil of God is necessary that it is the cause of all necessity in things and therfore may well be sayd to be the necessity of things But why is this cast vpon vs as an error that we teach that the purpose of Gods predestination is necessary Wil this mā say that it is not necessary but cōtingent one of the two he must say If necessary then is he idle that obiecteth this against predestination If contingent then he runneth blindfold into an high blasphemy pronouncing the purpose of God to be cōtingent It may be amongst the late Arminians who neuer care what they speake or write some may be found to vtter such absurd blasphemies But these men we leaue to their owne humors which forsake vnderstanding godlinesse and piety The next accusation of this Author and the Pelagians is that this decree is irrespectiue S. Augustine as before I related affirmeth in diuerse places that Pelagius taught that the grace of God is giuen in respect of merits In this respect Pelagius and his followers held the decree respectiue as this man doth He must tell vs what Gods purpose respected and he must giue vs a reason why he was so bold as to make this a doctrine of the Church of England which was first inuented and alwayes afterward maintained by the Pelagians against the Church The next accusation is that the purpose of Predestination is irresistible This obiection is much vsed by the Arminians taken from the Pelagians This was first deuised to set forth the glorious power of Freewill If the question be moued whether Freewill may resist grace it is apparant naturally in the vnregenerate it may resist it doth daily resist according to that Act. 7 51. You haue alwayes resisted the holy Ghost But if the question be moued of them that are called according to Gods purpose whether they resist the grace of their calling in which the Apostle teacheth that there is the exceeding greatnes of Gods power and what is that but Gods omnipotent power The eyes of your vnderstanding being inlightned that you may know what the riches of the glory of his inheritance of the Saints what is the exceeding greatnes of his power to vs-ward who beleeue according to the working of his mighty power Now we beleeue by the power of his calling therefore this exceeding greatnes of his power is in his calling For the first grace that is wrought in vs is faith which is wroght according to this power of his calling If therfore the question be of them that are thus called according to his purpose and according to this great power then remouing the humor of contention the truth wil easily appeare For this power of God doth so order the will of man that the will of man cannot but be willing to receiue this grace when it is thus ordered framed and wrought vpon for the power of working is in grace grace worketh conuerteth nature and healeth it nature is wrought vpon conuerted and healed So the question is whether nature in this case doth resist the omnipotent power of God S. Augustine saith Deo volenti salvum facere hominem nullum hominis resistit arbitrium But then saith our Author it must follow that the will of God is irresistible I demaund from whence hee had this obiection to dart against Gods Predestination it is apparant that it cometh out of the same quiuer out of which he had all the rest I must intreat him to obserue this obiection more exactly and by this he may finde against whom he disputeth for the blessed Apostle layeth downe these things in order First the doctrine which this Author oppugneth secondly this mans obiection against that doctrine and lastly the answer to this obiection Ro. 9.18 c. The doctrine in this Apostolicall conclusion Therefore he hath mercy on whom he wil haue mercy and whom he wil he hardeneth The obiection in these words Then thou wilt say vnto me why doth he yet complaine who hath resisted his will The answer in these words Nay but ô man who art thou that repliest against God shal the thing formed say to him that formed it why hast thou made me thus Our Author must consider against whom he maketh this obiectiō whē he accuseth Gods purpose of predestination to
throwne into condemnation in respect of their sins For to speake somewhat to this particular If that be granted which we haue prooued before by euident Scriptures that both Predestination and Reprobation respect the corrupt masse of mankinde This I say beeing granted It followeth that Gods iustice did find a iust cause to condemne all men because all haue sinned and are depriued of the glory of God But God in his mercy receyueth some to fauour Of this we can finde no other cause but the meere and onely Will of God God in his iustice condemneth other of this beside the Wil of God wee finde a cause to be the sinne of those men that are condemned Here riseth a question whether there be an absolute decree of Reprobation If we vnderstand an absolute decree to be such as dependeth vpon the onely wil of God without respect to any other thing then I confesse I cannot vnderstand any such absolute decree in this For those things are here vnderstood absolute which depend vppon no other cause but only the wil of God Now heere besides the wil of God wee find sin to be a iust cause to condemne and to reprobate For this ground wee take with Saint Augustine that Predestination and Reprobation doe respect sinne And if besides the wil of God sinne also be a just cause of condemnation then I vnderstand not how any decree herein can be absolute But if it should be further questioned whether dereliction of some in their sinne be absolute so far as my knowledge reacheth I must yeeld that this may be called absolute because in this there is no other cause but onely the will of God For seeing that all men are once found sinners there may be a cause giuen why all men may iustly deserue condemnation The cause is apparant that is sinne but why any man should bee saued no cause appeareth but onely the will of God and his mercy to them whom hee is well pleased to deliuer from sinne Vpon these grounds St. Augustine sayth Obdurationis meritum inuenio misericordiae meritum non inuenio But some obiect thus If sinne be the cause of condemnation and reprobation then must all men be condemned and reprobate for all haue sinned Whereby they would inferre that sinne is no cause of condemnation and reprobation but onely the will of God but I deny the consequence for the true consequence should be this If sinne be the cause of condemnation and reprobation then no man can find any cause in himselfe why he should not be condemned and reprobate For I suppose that the greatest Saints that euer liued could finde no cause in themselues why they might not bee condemned and reprobate I say in themselues for if they looke out of themselues vpon Christ then they finde an high and only cause the will of God in Christ in whom he hath fully reuealed his will and mercy to saue sinners For Christ was sent to saue them that were lost and to call sinners to repentance Some may happily say that these questions and quirkes might be forborne and not spoken of at all I answere I am of the same minde But when the enemies of the Truth Pelagians and Arminians are euer busie in stirring these questions these busie heads impose a necessity vppon them that loue the Truth to maintaine it and by plaine writing to walke safely and plainely euen through the middest of Maeandrian crookes and windings of the Aduersaries The Church sayth Tertullian hath a rule and this rule hath no question but such as Heresies bring in Thus we see there may be a cause of condemnation besides the onely will of God but concurring with Gods will but of saluation no cause can be giuen but the onely will of God Yet our Author here vndertaketh to find a cause besides the only wil of God though concurring with Gods will This hee doth in the instance of St. Peter For he sayth that There is neither word apex nor syllable to proue that God did call saue and glorifie St. Peter without any consideration had or regard to his faith obedience and repentance The better to vnderstand this we must cleare some things which hee hath confounded They that deale not playnely confound many things of purpose which must be distinguished that the matter may bee cleared Hee sayth that Saint Peter was not called saued and glorified without consideration or regard of his Faith Obedience and Repentance This proposition in Truth containeth three propositions in it And neither can he conclude three propositions at once neyther can any man answere to three at once Therefore wee must distinctly separate these three propositions that his confusion may appeare and that a cleare answere may be framed vnto the poynt in question Of these three propositions the first is St. Peter was not called without respect to his Faith Obedience and Repentance The second is Saint Peter was not saued without respect to his Faith Obedience and Repentance The third is Saint Peter was not glorified without respect to his Faith Obedience and Repentance These three things are not all of one kinde The two latter propositions we grant the reason is because saluation and glorification are in the nature of a reward Now the Scripture witnesseth that God will reward euery man according to his Workes And therefore Saint Peters faith obedience and repentance shall-bee rewarded with saluation and glorification And saluation and glory may bee sayd to respect these goods workes that went before But the first of these propositions is that Saint Peter was not called without respect to his faith obedience and repentance Here we close with him I must charge with Pelagianisme in that very point of this Heresie for which Pelagius was condemned for an Hereticke in the Synode of Palestina as St. Augustine often relateth In which Synode the Doctrines of Pelagius were condemned as they were also in many other Synodes Concilio Carthag 7. Concilio Meleuitano Concilio Arausica And also condemned by the decrees of the Popes that then were and the Emperors He sayth that St. Peter was not called without respect and consideration had to his faith obedience and repentance In denying this proposition he affirmeth the contradictory That St. Peter was called in consideration and respect of his faith obedience and repentance This is the same which the Church hath condemned in Pelagius For Pelagius taught no otherwise but thus Gratia Dei datur secundum merita nostra In respect or consideration of our merits This man teacheth that St. Peter was called in consideration or respect of his faith obedience and repentance This is euidently Secundum merita as Pelagius vnderstood merita For those things which Pelagius and the Ancient Fathers who wrote in his time called merita were no other then these which this man calleth faith obedience and repentance Pelagius knew no greater merits then these If St. Peter was called in consideration and respect of these things then was that grace
you grant not this you must hold that all men that are baptized are saved If our Authour had bene pleased to haue observed the iudgement of the Ancients he would not be thus troubled with novelties This one poore obiection seemeth to trouble the man Saint Augustin might easily haue satisfied him For he observeth a great difference betweene them that are regenerate and iustified onely sacramento tenus and those that are regenerate and iustified according to the purpose of Gods election Abraham receiued the sacrament of Circumcision as a seale of the righteousnes of faith The sacrament is good to them to whom it is a seale of the righteousnes of faith but it is not a seale in all that receiue the Sacrament For many receiue the signe which haue not the thing Then to proceede Ismael was circumcised and so was Isaak but Ismael was borne according to the flesh and Isaak according to the spirit Now hee was not iustified but onely sacramento tenus that was borne according to the flesh but he that was borne according to the spirit was iustifyed truely Saint Augustin saith Cum essent omnibus communia sacramenta non communis erat omnibus gratia And againe Omnibus in nomine patris filij spiritus sancti baptizatis commune est lavacrum regenerationis sed ipsa gratia cuius ipsa sunt sacramenta qua membra corporis Christi cum suo capite regenerata sunt non communis est omnibus Israel was called to be a people of God yet all that were so called were not so in truth So all that receiue Baptisme are called the Children of God regenerate iustified for to vs they must be taken for such in charity vntil they shew themselues other But the Author affirmeth that this is not left to mens charity as you sayth he doe informe the world because we are taught in the service Booke of our Church earnestly to beleeue that Christ hath favorably received these infants that are baptized that he hath imbraced them with the armes of his mercy that he hath given vnto them the blessing of everlasting life And out of that beleife and perswasion wee are to giue thankes faithfully and devoutly for it All this we receiue and make no doubt of but when wee haue sayd all wee must come to this that all this is nothing but the charity of the Church and what more can you make of it For where he vrgeth this that Children baptized are put in the state of salvation and this must be beleived I make no doubt of it but because he seemeth to haue a strange vnderstanding of it and vrgeth it as if forsooth it could not be answered I aske him this question whether we must beleeue it as an Article of faith or ex judicio charitatis this iudgment of charity he vtterly reiecteth Then he must hold that we beleeue it as an Article of faith but this is not conteined in any Article of faith it is not expressed in any Scripture And the things which a man is bound to beleeue for his salvation to speake properly he must beleeue for himselfe onely not for another man And therefore this thing which hee vrgeth that we must beleeue for other men cannot be called properly faith and beleeving for no man beleeveth for another this proveth evidently that this beleeving whereof our Communion boâ—ke speaketh is nothing else but to beleeue it ex judicio charitatis and can no further be stretched Concerning this iudgement of charity we doe not informe the world any otherwise then Saint Augustin informed the Church long since against the Pelagians The Pelagians vrged these things as you doe that they that were baptized were regenerate and iustified Saint Augustin answereth they are so for ought that wee know and vntill they themselues shew themselues to the contrary Then so long as we haue no cause to the contrary wee iudge them in charity to be such as we desire they should be did we devise this or did we first informe the world of this it hath bene of old received thus in the Church We doe but say that which the ancient Fathers haue sayd before vs and you follow that which your Fathers the Pelagians haue taught before you But here is great difference wee following the ancient Fathers follow the Church and you following the Pelagians follow the Enemies of the Church But here he citeth in the margent pag. 36. that all Antiquitie taught thus I pray you what did Antiquitie teach That yong children baptized are delivered from originall sinne We teach the same and we doubt not if they dye before they come to the practise of actuall sinnes they shall be saved But this is not so to be vnderstood that no children vnbaptised can be saved For in this poynt the auncient godly Fathers haue delivered their judgements grounded vpon faire evidences of Scripture And because this is a thing wherein some may require satisfaction the Reader will not thinke the time lost if I somewhat enlarge this point Baptisme is required as necessary to saluation so that the contempt thereof bringeth damnation but not the want of it For where a true faith is and a sincere desire of Baptisme though a man should by some inevitable meanes misse of washing by water yet the Auncients make no doubt of the saluation of such a man This is the judgement of S. Cyprian S. Augustin S. Ambrose and S. Bernard Hugo de sancto Victore lived at the same time with S. Bernard Hugo was troubled with the noveltie of a hot-spirited man who taught this assertion That since the time that it was first said by Christ Vnlesse a man be borne of water and the holy Ghost he shall not enter into the kingdome of heaven since that no man might by any meanes be saved without the actuall receiving of the visible Sacrament yea though a man should desire the same with true faith and contrition of heart being onely prevented by death that he could not obtaine that which he desired yet should this man be damned without remedy Hugo having notice of this assertion wrote to S. Bernard concealing the name of the Author of that opinion onely declaring his assertion and craved the judgement of S. Bernard in that poynt To this S. Bernard answereth The summe of his answere is this First he taketh exception against the time so precisely set by the Author of this assertion For he setteth the time to begin presently vpon the speech of those words which Christ spake in secret to Nicodemus in the night when he came to him S. Bernard sheweth that the beginning of so great a matter was not advisedly set by this new Author he therefore would haue the beginning to be after the promulgation of the Gospell by the Apostles For the old Sacraments were in force so long vntill it was openly and publiquely knowne that they were abrogated How long after penes deum est non meum
Then to proceede of these who haue received the sacrament of regeneration and are iudged by vs to be regenerate and iustified many may proceede and make a great progresse in the Church to be enlightned to taste of the heavenly gift to be made partakers of the holy Ghost that is of many graces of the holy Ghost to taste of the good word of God and of the powers of the world to come and yet they may fall away totally and finally But they that are regenerate iustified and called according to Gods purpose aske not me who these are it is enough that they are knowne to God they may fall into diverse temptations and sins which bring men vnder Gods wrath but these never fall away either totally or finally This was expressed by D. Overall in the Conference at Hampton Court By this distinction of men regenerate and iustified sacramento tenus onely and such as are so indeede according to Gods purpose and calling he might easily and fairely haue satisfied himselfe in all these obiections which he draweth out of the book of Homilies and out of our Service booke For first he hath not proved that a iustified man may fall away totally and finally neither doth that follow from any wordes by him produced And if it were proved in direct termes how easie is the answere that it is then meant of such as are regenerate and iustified sacramento tenus and no further For that such fall away it was neuer doubted in the Church as S. Augustin sheweth And therefore when hee sayth that children duely baptized are put into the estate of grace and salvation I grant they are so to vs wee must esteeme them so judicio charitatis Saint Augustin saith Omnes qui in Christo baptizantur Christum induunt but then he resolveth Induunt Christum homines aliquando vsque nd sacrameti perceptionom aliquando vsque ad vitae sanctificationem atque illud primum bonis malis potest esse commune hoc autem alterum propnium est bonorum piorum By which grounds we may vnderstand how the ancient fathers resolved of them that fell quite away from grace And wee may learne to rest in their resolution Were it not better for this Author with the Ancients to seeke out the truth and meanes to defend the truth then with the Arminians to rake vp the Pelagian dunghils for old obiections that are already answered long agoe by the ancient Fathers CHAP. 13. PAG 37. he sayth I see no reason wherefore I might not be as confident in maintaing falling away from grace as you your Divines are vpon weaker grounds in defending the contrary If confidence will make your cause good then there is no doubt of it you haue enough You know that he was confident that asked Michaiah this question When departed the spirit of God from mee to speake in thee This Authour hath thought it good as a thing becomming him not onely to imitate the confidence of the false Prophet but to answere in those very wordes of his Pag 8. Yet for all this confidence he should finde much more comfort in imitating the humility of the true Prophets then the pride and confidence of the false Prophets This humour appeareth further in comparing himselfe with their Divines What they are whom he describeth in these wordes your Divines I know not If hee meane such as haue maintained this cause against M. Thomson and such I am well assured that all the Pelagian and Arminian schooles haue not afforded such learned Divines as they were But is not this a raysing of a faction between Divines Divines in our Church and over all the reformed Churches in Christendome If his meaning be to note all Divines which hold against the Arminians in this particular hee will finde the greatest Divines in Christendome in opposition against him where his confidence will doe him as little good as it did Zedekiah But whether haue the weaker grounds our factious Author may finde in good time and vpon better advise For though he may be confident comming as he taketh to the first on-set as if his groundes had never beene shaken before yet the truth is these groundes haue beene long agoe and often examined Pelagius being confident vpon these grounds was thrust out of the Church The Arminians of late resuming the same grounds were driven out of the Netherlandes After all this he commeth on with a fresh supply but he must looke for no other successe then the same cause hath found at other times For the same God liveth which hath heretofore raysed vp the spirits of his servants to maintaine the truth against the Pelagians and will rayse vp others to stand for the same truth whensoever it is oppugned Pag 40. he saith If it be an error of Arminius which was the positiue doctrine of Lutherans and Luther before Arminius was borne why is Arminius intituled to that which is none of his but Martin Luthers In these words he seemeth to say that these late opinions of the Lutherans in Germany were the doctrines of Martin Luther himselfe Wherein he is much mistaken For these opinions were brought in by another the thing is well knowne They increased much in Germany after Martin Luthers time and in many things disagree from his doctrine they were seditiously amplified by Iohannes Iacobus Andreas who was a man of a furious and turbulent spirit and called himselfe the Pope of the Lutherans which Martin Luther himselfe never did Why Arminius should be intituled to this I know no other reason but the common course that hath intituled Heretickes to those heresies which either they haue invented or maintained and increased It may be he affâ—cted that title sure it is that he increased the heresie spread it where it was not before This is no strange thing in the world that factious men spreading strange opinioÌ„s should get titles of that sect which they maintaine For if our Author should proceed farre in this course which he hath so vnadvisedly begun he might happily purchase to himselfe a title likewise though thereby he would get no glory Page 42. he saith Surely those very points of predestination free-will finall perseverance being scholasticall speculations merely and as farre from state businesse as theory is from practise are not of themselues aptae natae to breed dangers These words containe two things First that the doctrines of predestination free-will and finall perseverance are merely scholasticall speculations But why any doctrine contained in the holy Scripture should be called a meere scholasticall speculation is a thing I conceiue not He must giue a reason that calleth it so Meere scholasticall speculations may well enough be spared without any losse or hinderance to our salvation But will he say that these doctrines of Scripture may so well be spared without any losse or hinderance to our salvation It would be an hard taske for Pelagius himselfe to proue that Another thing in