Certain Discourses, Letter 2
Doctor Bernards Answer to Mr. Pierce's Fifth Letter containing three Certificates, produced by him to justifie a late change of judgsment in the Primate of Ireland.
SIR,
I Owe you many thanks for the labour you have taken in your last Letter of the 28. of Ianuary, in transcribing the Certificates of those learned persons, which (supposing to have been rightly apprehended by them, without any mistake of him, yet) favourably interpreted, do not seem to me necessarily to argue what you have apprehended, and concluded of the change of judgement in the Primate, which I shall now ingenuously give you my sense of, without any desire of further dispute or contention about it.
First for Doctor Walton's, where he saith, My Lord Primate did declare his utter dislike of the doctrine of absolute reprobation; I conceive it may be understood of the Supralapsarian opinion, which makes reprobation to be antecedent to the fall of Adam, and not only as a Praeterition, but a Predamnation for actuall sins. That he held the universality of Christ's death, not onelyonly in respect of sufficiency, but also in regard of efficacy, so that all men were by that made salvable (for so much efficacy I do not deny) differs not from that which his letter published, doth testifie, and that the reason why all men were not thereby saved, was because they did not accept of salvation offered, is also granted, if it be according to his judgement rightly understood, viz. of those to whom the Gospel is preached; not of Pagans, and Infidels.
That the grace of Conversion was not irresistable, but that men did often resist and reject the same, may well stand with my Lord Primate's Judgement, and no wayes opposite to this. viz. That it is so effectual, that by the decree of his election; It is not resisted by the elect, and therefore his dissent from Geneva (as Doctor Walton certifies) is to be understood of Beza, not of Calvin; nor of the Sublapsarian (as I have intimated before) and I conceive his concurrence with Bishop Overall, which he averreth him to have professed, is to be understood as I have expressed it… for you know that Bishop Overall distinguished the Remonstrants opinion, and that which he is pleased to call the opinion of the Puritans; (which title I wish he had spared) from the doctrine of the Church of England, which joynes the universality of redemption with the speciall intention of God, effectually to save the elect. This for Doctor Walton's Certificate.
Now for Mr. Goninges, which seems (by the Preface of it) to have bin given you after your publishing the Lord Primate's change of judgment; somewhat of that may be safely granted; viz. The sincerity of God's universal call of all sinners to whom the Gospel was preached, which is the summe of what he affirmes to have heard, from him in the publick, but for that which he saith he received from him in private, viz. That God, together with his word preached, did give internal grace to all that are called by it, that they may repent if they will, yea they all can will, &c. If the Primate's words were not mistaken by him, (as they might the more possibly by the distance between the hearing, and the date of his certificate to you) I suppose this was the sense of them, viz. That by internall grace he did not understand more, then that there are some good motions offered unto the hearts of sinners, which if they did not extinguish and resist, and thereby draw upon themselves a further guilt, they should be seconded with more effectuall grace; and, that upon their disobedience, God doth justly leave them to themselves, and doth not superadde that speciall grace, whereby their Wills are changed, and their conversion wrought. As for posse non resistere, it is consistent with actuall resistance, which is taken away by speciall grace, and thus far I conceive he might hold with Bishop Overall; so much for Mr. Goninge.
For Mr. Thornedick's Testimony, I see not wherein it differeth from the Lord Primate's Letter published, and needs no further answer. So that upon the whole I do not find, even by these Certificates, so sure a ground, for your assertion of my Lord Primate's change of judgement, and his being of late a serious convert, &c. as you have supposed; The first pretend but little, the last less, and the middle not much; thus interpreted: Howsoever for my self, had I been an ear-witnesse of that which certifies the most largely, I should have had more caution then to have adventured to signifie the judgement of so eminent a person, under hand, and seale, (as you say you have it) without his knowledge, or consent, whether when he was living, or since his death, especially in that which should seem to imply a contradiction, to what he had before said and wrot.
For that Objection of the 32 Article of Ireland, that Article may very well admit of some preparative motions tending to conversion, but not the actuall grace of conversion; and may also be understood of denying an actuall tuall call of all men, which are out of the Pale of the Church, or that the works of the creation and providence do lead men, or enable them to come to Christ, as some French Divines have lately taught.
For that inconsistency implyed by you, from what I have affirmed of my Lord Primates judgement. viz. That Massa corrupta was the object of predestination, it will well consist with his judgment of universall redemption, expressed in his letter. And, the decree of reprobation, supposed to be ex intentione speciali, doth not deny a salvability of all men, but onelyonly an effectuall grace to be given to work their conversion, and may also consist with universall redemption, and possibility of salvation, because reprobation is onelyonly negatio specialis gratiae, non nudae sufficientis.
As for Goteschalchus, the Primate relating the truth of the story, and his opinion, is not thereby obliged to every particular of them, and if there were any mistakes of Mr. Barlee's from thence, or that large Catechisme going under his name, doth not concern me to take notice of:
For that which you mention of Mr. Vaughans relation in the life, and death of Doctor Iackson, of the care which the Primate took, (being (as you say) a Mourner at his funerall) to have his writings very religiously preserved. First, I have viewed the place, and find some mistake in the words, which are onelyonly thus; viz. The Bishop of Armagh, (being at his funerall) much desired his papers might be carefully preserved. But secondly, I do not believe the Primate meant, or approved those works of Doctor Iacksons, wherein he professeth himself to be for the Arminian way, as he doth in the Epistle Dedicatory of those Bookes which he dedicated to the Earle of Pembrook, and which were answered by Doctor Twisse. Other works it may be, that …arned man might have of other subjects, which might be usefull to posterity, which the Primate might have a care of, but I do not believe they were any of that nature; and the rather because they must be meant of such works which were not extant at his death, and not of those which were already printed, as you seem to apply it. Besides, it doth not appear, the Primate then understood what subjects they were of; And therefore, that which you have immediately added of your own; viz. That such inestimable foreign might not be wanting to posterity, but might performe their work of bringing religion into its wits, (which the Reader might possibly mistake, in apprehending them to have been the Primates words) and your somewhat severe application to him, from thence, and what Mr. Barlee had said of Doctor Iackson, seemes to want a foundation here.
For that which you write in your Postcript concerning my saying, that the doctrine of St. Augustine was confirmed, or inclined unto by the Primate in his works, if you observe the whole discourse, it is onelyonly in relation to Pelagius and his disciples, and limited to those points in debate concerning the Primates judgement, whereof universall redemption and free will, were mentioned; not that by it I had obliged the Primate to be of Saint Augustines judgement in all points besides: And for that particular of perseverance, which you instance in, it came not into my discourse in either of my Letters to Mr. Barlee, what he or Mr. Baxter have produced of the Primates apprehension; what was Saint Augustines judgement in that point, cannot argue it was therefore his own; Indeed, Saint Augustine is variously conceived in it, in his severall Tractates, and where he hath some expressions tending to the finall falling away of some who have been regenerated and justified; he is thus salved by others, who understand him either, de justificatis Sacramento tenus, or judicio charitatis, that they were such, or of some predispositions to regeneration, in some Morall reformation; not of a spiritual real conversion, which he denies to any reprobate.
Now in this variety of senses, you should have done better then thus, to chuse the worse; for the Primates judgement, who was against the Total and final falling away of those, who were effectually called, truly regenerated and sanctified, according to the 38 Article of Ireland; And thus I have touched the principal materials in your Letter.
For that you say, some have endeavoured to gain credit to their Calvinistical opinions by their unjust usurpation of the Primates name. I could wish those hard expressions tending so much to the distaste of Calvin, might be abated; whom divers of the most eminent Writers, and learned Fathers of our Church, (whom I suppose you reverence) have had in great esteem; and usually name him with honour.
I might quote divers, as Arch-Bishop Whitgift, Bishop Bilson, Bishop Davenant, Mr. Hooker, Doctor Ward, &c. but Bishop Andrewes shall suffice, who in his determination against usury, (a case wherein he dissented from Calvin yet) thus writes of of him. Calvino (illustri viro nec unquam sine summi honoris praefatione nominando) &c. i. e. Calvin an excellent man, never to be named without a Preface of the highest honour. I wish that spirit of meeknesse and charity found in those old Bishops, were doubled upon us in these dayes, when we are as much (if not more) called unto it; The contrary may possibly be gratefull to the See of Rome, but I do not see what advantage it can be to us. For his discipline, you may take your liberty, which may well be distinguished from his doctrines. And for the Primate, though I cannot say he was of his judgement in all points, yet he had a due respect for him.
For that which you object again to me, as you did in your third Letter, viz. my acknowledgeing an engagement to Mr. Barlee for his readinesse offered, (in his first Letter unto me) to clear the Primate, &c. did not deserve a repetition, being it was in my first to him, when he was as much a stranger to me, as I was to you: only, let me say thus much of him. How far he had disagreed in his book from the Primates judgement; I shall not now enquire, but after the receipt of that tractate, wherein he read what his was; he wrot thus unto me (Decemb. 21. 1657.) viz. It is true, there be some minutiae, about which I am not satisfied, and shall be glad to have an amicable conference with you. However as to the rei summam, I do so perfectly agree with the most venerable Primate, as that I dare discharge you from all feares of ever having him exposed to my pen, and censure, &c. which I doe the rather thus punctually repeat his words, because in short you have mentioned it from me in your fourth Letter. And when I had read you both, meeting in the Primate, I thought it my part to sit down in silence.
In a word, you have with much industry viewed, and reviewed the Primates judgement in that point, which hath been published, but I wish I did not find you making that use of it, to endeavour to confirm your former assertion of a change in him, in which I am not in the least shaken in mind by what hath passed between us, but must still conceive (contrary to your expectation in the beginning of your Letter) there was a mistake wheresoever it lights, which being so gentle an expression, and which we are all subject unto, I see no cause of any offence, either to your self, or Certifiers.
I shall entreat you to let the venerable name (as you stile it) of that good man rest in peace, without any further strife of tongues or pens; and let us leave his judgment to his works, which do undoubtedly testifie of him: and for any further dispute of this subject between us, I wish this might be the last, as it is the largest; and that neither by this, nor any other, the least breach may be made between us, as to love, and friendship, which upon all occasions, shall ever ber readily manifested by
Grayes-Inne, Febr. 9. 1657. Your assured Friend and Servant, N. BERNARD.
FINIS.
End of the text · James Ussher, Certain Discourses (1659)