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
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
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