come to that which I intend I would heere first remooue a scruple which the Pelagians stumble at in those words of the Apostle To them that loue God From these words they inferre that God respecteth them that loue him But the Apostle expoundeth himselfe in the words following To them that are called according to his purpose For these are they who loue God who vnderstand that Gods loue preuented them and called them according to his purpose He that hath the knowledge of this loue of God must needes loue God againe but this loue beginneth by Gods preuenting loue as St. Iohn sayth Herein is loue not that we loued God but that he loued vs and sent his son to be a reconciliation for our sinnes There be some that begin to loue but fall away and continue not to the end Of these St. Bede in his Expositions collected out of Saint Augustine expoundeth this place thus Apostolus cum dixisset scimus quoniam diligentibus deum omnia cooperantur in bonum sciens non nullos diligere Deum in eo bono vsque in finem non permanere mox addidit his qui secundum propositum vocati sunt Hi enim in eo quod diligunt Deum permanent vsque in finem Thus much to remooue this scruple that no occasion be left to the Pelagians Now to proceed The Apostle sayth All things fall out to the best to them that are called according to Gods purpose Then Gods calling is according to his purpose If any man should say that Gods purpose were according to his calling should hee not inuert the Wordes of the Apostle and falsifie his Doctrine Then his calling is according to his purpose but his purpose may not bee sayd to be according to his calling because the calling dependeth vppon his purpose but not the purpose vppon the calling The purpose is a cause of the calling but not the calling a cause of the purpose Now if wee proceede from Vocation to Iustification wee shall vnderstand the same For as Vocation dependeth vppon Gods purpose of Predestination so doth our Iustification depend vpon Vocation and as this was to peruert the Apostles words and to falsifie his doctrine as before I sayd to say that Gods purpose was according to his calling So if a man should say as this Author sayth that Gods calling is according to faith obedience and repentance this man should in like sort peruert the Apostle his words and falsifie his doctrine For iustification faith obedience and repentance depend vpon Gods calling but his calling dependeth not vpon them they are giuen according to his calling but his calling is not according to them And therefore they are giuen for and in considetation of his calling but that Gods calling should be for and in consideration or regard of these things which Gods calling draweth with it and after it is a thing absurde not onely in the iudgements of Orthodoxe Writers but euen in the iudgement of Pelagius himselfe and of Scotus and of the most learned of that side who thought it more probable and agreeing more with reason to say that the grace of God is giuen according to merits then to deuise this strange fancy that a subsequent grace should be the cause of a precedent grace This I say is not a priuate fancy of some particuler men but such a thing as was neuer vttered by any sober or learned writer And because heresie goeth not without absurdities it may be called either the Arminian heresie or the Arminian absurdity For besides Arminians no man writeth thus I may not omit to obserue in the last place that our Authors words crosse the words of the 17. Article which hee professeth to maintaine For the article speaking of Predestination sayth They which be indued with such an excellent benefit of God be called according to Gods purpose by his spirit working in due season they thorough grace obey their calling they are iustified freely they be made the sonnes of God by adoption they be made like the image of his onely begotten sonne Iesus Christ they walke religiously in good workes and at length by Gods mercy they attaine to euerlasting felicity These words of the Article containe the true Apostolicall doctrine For the calling of God is here sayd to be according to Gods purpose and iustification obedience walking religiously in good workes these things are declared in the Article to follow the calling as effects thereof But this man the new maintainer of the articles and of the doctrines of our Church peruerteth this Apostolicall doctrine contained in the article For he sayth that the calling is according to faith obedience and repentance contrary to that which is contained in the article The article maketh faith obedience and repentance to be the effects of calling and to followe it and proueth consequently that the calling is not according to these effects or in consideration and regard of these effects but that these effects are according to the calling and in consideration and regard of the calling By this mans doctrine the calling dependeth vpon faith obedience and repentance by the doctrine contayned in the article these things depend vpon the calling Thus hath he cleane peruerted and crossed the doctrine contained in the article and yet this man is thought fit to expound the Articles and to declare the Doctrines of our Church Thus much concerning his errours touching the matter of Predestination CHAP. 5. Of perseuerance in Grace and falling away from Grace THe question as Saint Augustine proposeth it is of perseuerance of the Saints in grace As this man and the Pelagians propose it of falling away from grace or of the Apostasie of the Saints The question is the same though diuersly proposed so that if we proue the perseuerance of Saints to the ende then is that doctrine ouerthrowne that bringeth in the Apostasie of Saints If this question be moued thus Whether a man may fall away from grace The proposition by reason of the ambiguous acception and vse of this word grace may be both true and false For this is true a man may fall from grace both totally and finally And this likewise true a man cannot fall from grace neither totally nor finally They who haue a purpose to deceiue take the generality of termes and in vniuersalibus latet dolits Therefore before any true proofe can be made in any disputation the word that is ambiguous must be declared distinctly In the Scriptures and in those Writers that ground themselues vpon the Scriptures there is obserued a double acceptation and vse of this word grace I am not ignorant that many distinctions are vsed of this word and that Bellarmine confoundeth himselfe and his reader with the multitude of distinctions of this word but distinctions were inuented to cleare the poynt in question and not to confound things I rest therefore for our present purpose vpon one distinction which is playne and grounded in the Scriptures and this it
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
Pelagianorum si ego quicquam intelligo Scotus then teacheth that faith charity and repentance may be had ex puris naturalibus Concerning faith he saith Fide acquisita ex puris naturalibus potest homo assentiri omnibus reuelatis à Deo And a little after Hoc igitur tenendum est tanquam certum quod reuelatorum in Scripturis est nobis acquisita fides generata ex auditu actionibus nostris qua eis firmiter adhaeremus And speaking of faith infused he saith De fide infusa quomodo sit ponenda in nobis hoc non est ita certum an fit vel quomodo sit ponenda in nobis After the same manner he speaketh of charity Lib. 3. Distinct. 27. Quaest. 1. dist 28. Now seeing these be their positions it is not much materiall what words they giue when speaking of grace they intend to giue all to nature in the end The subtle Doctor saw that they who bring in the respectiue decree affirming that God in conferring of grace respecteth somewhat in man must needs yeeld that the thing respected in man must be nature nothing but nature And therefore Scotus beeing a Famous Pelagian granteth that roundly because hee perceiued that the respectiue decree cannot stand without this ground But others are or seeme to bee offended at such grosse proceedings and therefore they would temper this morter and daube it vp thus That it is not Nature but Grace that God respecteth Thus they would in words mollifie the horrour of the other opinion and yet they retayne the same absurdities The Author of the Appeale is running on with these but God knoweth which way hee is going for hee himselfe knoweth not Hee sayth God called Saint Peter in respect of his Faith Obedience and Repentance and then hee thinketh that hee hath well sayd in laying this respect not vppon nature but vppon grace as hee thinketh But hee doth not vnderstand the absurdity that this draweth after it For if God called Saint Peter in respect of his Faith Obedience and Repentance then were Saint Peters Faith Obedience and Repentance some cause why hee was called and therefore before his calling But in true Diuinity Saint Peters Faith Obedience and Repentance are the effects of his calling not the cause and come after the calling but goe not before it It may well bee sayd that God iustified him in respect of his calling and God called him in respect of Predestination and God predestinated him Secundum propositum in respect of his purpose For so Saint Augustine reasoneth that for the grace of Predestination wee haue the grace of Gods calling that is grace for grace And for the grace of his Calling wee haue the grace of Iustification that is grace for grace But the Ancients that reasoned thus alwayes obserued that the Consequent grace might be giuen for and in respect of the Precedent grace but that the Precedent grace might bee giuen for or in respect of a Subsequent grace there was neuer Orthodoxe Writer that taught so Yet the Pelagians and after them the Arminians seeming willing to auoyde the danger of that Rocke at which so many haue made Shipwracke that grace is giuen for some respects in nature to auoyde this absurdity they labour to mollifie the matter but runne still vppon the same danger They change the manner of speaking and say that a Precedent grace is giuen in respect of subsequent grace as this man sayth When hee holdeth that the grace of calling is giuen in respect of Faith and Obedience which are subsequent graces But this is nothing else but for the loue to holde with Pelagius to say something Wherein they forsake Vnderstanding Reason Diuinity and Philosophy and speake Non sence For that I call Non-sence that is against Diuinity Philosophy and Common reason as this is which maketh a subsequent grace to bee the cause of a Precedent grace to set the effect before the cause And because in this manner of speech there is nothing to satisfie the vnderstanding of a Diuine or a Philosopher it is apparant that this was deuised for none other end but onely to dazle the ignorant with Wordes without Vnderstanding But a matter of this nature will not bee carryed with empty Wordes And in so high a poynt of Diuinity to speake without expresse Scriptures is a signe that they presume too much eyther vppon their owne wit or vppon other mens weaknesse Their end is that if thus much might be obtayned that God giueth the precedent grace for or in respect of the consequent they might with more ease afterward fall into the playne tearmes of Pelagius For howsoeuer they may palliate the matter with strange VVordes not vnderstood yet the Truth is as Scotus confesseth that if Gods grace bee giuen in respect of any thing in man that can bee nothing but nature For in man before he be called there is nothing but nature And therefore the playne Doctrine of Scotus that a man may merite grace Ex puris naturalibus standeth more probable in reason then this opinion which deuiseth a subsequent grace to be the cause of a precedent grace For as this is against Diuinity so the reason of the Naturall man refuseth it The graces of God are ordered and they that would disorder them trouble the whole frame of our saluation For God hath set the order From Gods purpose proceedeth Predestination from Predestination Calling from Calling Faith and Iustification from Iustification Obedience and all fruitefull workes The first grace that wee apprehend is Calling And therefore before we are called there is nothing in vs but nature If then God respect any thing in man in respect whereof hee calleth him that can be nothing but nature and free will This the Pelagians taught plainely but some following the Pelagians are ashamed to vtter themselues so plainely They striue to handle the matter more finely but whilest they seeke finenesse they haue lost their wits Surely they haue forsaken reason and vnderstanding Now it is not possible that from nature and freewill any grace should rise because the Lord sayth That which is borne of the flesh is flesh and that which is borne of the spirit is spirit Here be two principles set one in Nature the other in Grace The principle of grace and all good motions is the Spirit the highest principle of nature and naturall motions is the Flesh Therefore no grace of the spirit can proceede from the flesh but nature and free-will is nothing but flesh Againe the order wherin the Blessed Apostle setteth downe these things the purpose of God predestination calling iustification glorification doth prooue that a precedent grace may be some cause to draw after it a subsequent grace but for a subsequent grace to be any manner of cause to draw a precedent this is impossible The blessed Apostle sayth All things fall out for the best to them that loue God to them that are called according to his purpose Before I