The Judgment of the Extent of Christs Death, Letter 2
The first Letter of Doctor Bernards to Mr. Barlee, in Answer to some passage in Mr. Pierces Philanthropy.
Worthy Syr,
IAm much your debtor for those large expressions of your affection to the late. Arch-Bishop of Armagh, and the readinesse to cleare him from some injury done him by Mr. Thomas Pierce, in his Answer to a Book of yours. Two eminent men of each University, before I heard from you, had sent unto me for their private satisfaction. And now upon your Letter and directions I have viewed the severall passages tending that way, Chap. 1. Sect. 3. 5. Chap. 3. Sect. 17. 7. Chap. 4. Sect. 13. which in sum I finde amounts to this, viz. That the late Primate of Armagh was, though a late, yet a serious Convert: And affirmed, a little, or not long, before his death to severall persons, that he utterly rejected all those opinions of Calvin. That there were evident marks of a change in him. That a little before his death he professed an utter dislike to the whole Doctrine of Geneva, in those affairs, &c. First; it is possible Mr. Pierces enformers might mistake the Doctrine for the Discipline of Geneva, or Calvin, which by some in their Sermons hath been advanced accordingly: or if it were of the Doctrine, he hath taken a great latitude in saying, All the opinions, the whole Doctrine. And the Restriction. viz. In those affaires, is somewhat obscure, being introduced occasionally upon the speech of one or two of them. It had been better to have named the several points he means, from which howsoever, as to Calvin, or Geneva, how could he be said to revolt, when in terminis he did not professe the defence of either. It being the Doctrine of S. Augustine, which hath been confirmed by him.
And for Calvine, though I do not take upon me the defence of him neither, yet there is one Doctrine of his, and in those affaires (different from some of his own profession in Geneva) which must be exempted from Mr. Pierces Universality, and which, will not be found that the Primate rejected, viz. that massa corrupta was the object of Praedestination, as Bishop Davenant makes it appear, (in his determinations, q. 26.) where he first cleares him from the aCalvinum criminantur Jesuitae quod defendat Deum, in primo instanti ante omnem praevis…nem peccati, quosdam absolutè elegisse ad gloriam, alios destinâsse ad interitum. In secundo autem instanti, peccatum Adami eo fine ordinâsse, ut justitiam suam erga Reprobos, & misericordiam erga Electos posset exercere. (determ. q. 26.)slanders the Jesuites have raised of him in it, viz. That he should hold that God in the first Act before any fore-sight of sin, elected some to glory, and ordained others to destruction; And in the second place ordained the sinne of Adam to that end, that he might exercise justice towards the Reprobates, and mercy towards the elect; and then gives you clearly bVerissimam Calvini sententiam, hisce duabus proposicionibus contineri affirmo, &c. Caecus est qui non videt in hisce locis substerni corruptam massam praedestinationis &c. subjectum esse tum Electionis tum reprobationis, non causam, &c. Ibid.the truth of Calvines judgement in two propositions confirmed out of divers quotations in his institutions, viz. That the corrupt Masse; or man lapsed, was the object of Election and Reprobation, though not the cause: And further, proves, That what the Jesuits put upon Calvine, their own Popish Writers were the prime Authours of, viz. Scotus, Naclantus, Pighius, Catharinus, Galatinus, Alphonsus Mendoza, who aver, That the cDecretum praedestinationis non solum deereto lapsus permittendi, sed hominis Creandi priùs & antiquiùs esse, &c. Ibid.Decree of Praedestination is not onelyonly before the Decree of permitting the lapse of man, but also before the creating of him. And dHoc tantùm cupio ut indè perspiciatis, ipsos Pontificios Primarios esse hujus sententiae authores, quae negat hominem lapsum fuisse divinae Praedestinationis subjectum. Ibid.desires it might be taken notice of, That the Popish Writers were the chief Authors of that opinion, which denies … lapsed to be the subject of Divine Praedestination; which, if some of ours did consider, they would be the slower paced in the defence of that which hath occasioned this digression. Howsoever, as to Calvin's opinion, this Reverend and learned Bishop thus far supports it, that he joyns S. eIllud sole clarius testimonium est, quod ex Augustino desumptum affertur & probatur à Calvino Institut 3. c. 23. sect. 11. Ibid.Augustines suffrage with his own in it; and as it is there declared, I understand not how it is rejected By this Eminent Primate.
But whatever these points were, if this be Mr. Pierces meaning, That a little before his death he should Verbally retract what he had published in his works, I am assured (though it be hard to prove a Negative) there was no such matter: but that he was constant in them to his end. When he was last in London, continuing here about seven weeks together, I was perpetually with him, taking then the opportunity of a further speaking with him of most of the passages of his life, as of the several Books he had wrote, th… Subjects of them, the occasion of their writing, when some such points (as Mr. Pierce possibly may meane) came into discourse. And then there was not the least change in him. And it is to be presumed, in that last Act of winding up his whole life, if there had been any, he would have then mentioned it, and this was but about five weekes (which is a little, or not long) before his death. And it hath bee confirmed to me by a Minister, who was at Ryegate a fortnight before, as by some Honourable persons, who spake with him of these Subjects a few dayes before his death; so that I believe Mr. Pierce hath not been well adadvised in publishing this his Information.
And it is no new thing to have bookes, as well as opinions, laid to his charge which he knew not: It was presumed in his life, and so the lesse wonder if it be practised after his death. There is a book entitled a Method of Meditation, which was printed in his name, Anno 1651. And, though by his Commands to me, it was then publickly declared to be none of his, yet since his death (this 1657.) it is reprinted, and, notwithstanding the renewing of that Declaration by the same way wherein I found him abused, it is still sold under his name to the great dishonour of him.
The passage which Mr. Pierce is most clear in, Chap. 1. Sect. 15. Where, speaking of Universal grace and redemption, he saith, the most Learned Anti-Arminians have been fein to assert it, as well as Arminius. Among us, the late Bishop of Armagh, &c.
First, He should have done well to have named where he hath asserted it in any of his works, Next, What, or who compelled him, that he was fein to do it; and if by that speech as well as Arminius he means (according to common construction) As full, or in the same terms as Arminius; it will be the hardest proof of the three; whom he scarce ever names in his works: his aime being against Pelagius and his Disciples. Unlesse that passage in his Pelagian History may be so applyed (wrapped up under the Title of Britanniae Antiquitates, Pelagius being a Britain, which he intended to have taken out, and printed as a Treatise by it selfe) where he having given us at large the bold and rugged language, with which Julian, one of Pelagius his followers, in defence of his Doctrine, greets the most mild and meek Father S. Augustine, he addes this, Chap. 11. p. 312.) Cujus idcirco verba hic describenda putavi; ut in hoc speculo contemplaretur lector, consimiles nostrorum temporum ardeliones; Thrasoni huic adeo geminos, ut in eos, hujus spiritus quasi per Pythagoricam quandam foreign, immigrasse videatur: I know not how he can call him an Anti-Arminian, unlesse he confesse them to be Pelagians.
Secondly, In this particular concerning Universall Redemption I have cause to believe there was not any change in him from what his judgement was many yeares agone: and if he were not totally according to Calvin, must it therefore be argued, he was wholly for Arminius? Might not there be a mean wherein he might tread more safely according to the ancient Doctrine of the Church? And indeed to deal clearly with you, his judgement in this point was in a middle way different, both from yours, and Mr. Pierce, which if it might not expose him to both your pens and censures, but be a reconciliation between you, (the latter of which I see little hope of;) I might be moved the more willingly to declare it. I do the rather mention this; because, As Mr. Pierce saith, you call it the chief head of Arminianisme, So he saith, 'tis that with which other opinions in debate must stand, or fall: And Chap. 3. p. 15. excuseth his prolixity on it, because if this error be once disclaimed by the adversary, all the rest will tumble of their own accord, &c.
In a word, I am sorry to find that heat between you, which beng Ministers and Neighbours, is the more unseemly. I shall advise you in your reply to endeavour rather to heal up the breach, than make it wider; the fruits of the spirit appearing much in meeknesse and Gentlenesse, &c. and laying aside all verball animosities and personal reflections, calmely to fall upon the matter, And so I commend you and your labours to Gods blessing and direction, and rest
Your very assured Friend N. BERNARD. Grayes-Inne, March 11. 1656.