The Judgment of Babylon, Tract · Conclusion
A Poſtſcript.
Mr. Thomas Pierce hath in an Appendage to a late book of his, printed five Letters wrot unto me by him, in each of which I cannot but much acknowledge his reſpects to me. To the four firſt I gave little elſe but brief returnes of the like to him, which conſiſting chiefly, either in the aſſerting of the nearneſſe of his judgement to the Primates, or the remoteneſſe of Mr. Barlees, I did not conceive it fitting for me to interpoſe, and where there was a profeſſed full agreement, it was no good office in me to make a difference. Now for thoſe, the cauſe rendred of his not publiſhing them is good, there being nothing (as he ſaith) needfull, or of concernment, in any one of them, Only to the fifth of his, wherein three Certificates are publiſhed as teſtimonies to confirm his former aſſertion of a late change of judgment in the Primate, with other applicatory paſſages from thence, I did return him a larger anſwer in this Letter following, (excepting ſome few circumſtantiall alterations) having then no imagination that either of them ſhould have bin made publick. And I have as little mind to it now, only by the provocation of divers of my Friends who conceive the Primate ſuffers in the interpretation of many by the ſilence of it, I have been compelled upon this occaſion, to put forth this brief defence of him without any offence to Mr. Pierce. For his Appendage (wherein his reſpects to me are rather encreaſed then leſſened) I have thought fit to clear one paſſage. He ſaith I have ſpoken indiſcriminately of Univerſal Grace, and Vniverſall Redemption, and the place he quotes for it, is out of my ſecond Letter to Mr. Barlee, p. 64. in theſe words, viz. But that by an Ʋniverſall Redemption ſhould be underſtood, an Ʋniverſall Grace, &c. will not be atteſted to have heen affirmed by the Primate, &c. doth not this clearly imply a diſtinction to be made between them; I am ſure I then ſo intended it. And therefore that which he addes immediately after. viz. That there is a wide difference between them, I do fully concurre with him in it. Yet it ſeems to me, that himſelf puts them together often indiſcriminately, as in the page before this, thrice in one page, 86. and p. 88. l. 32. as in his Philanth. p. 15. and elſewhere. And if I have in any other place done it, as in the title of the Letter, I was led to it by him. In this we have no diſagreement, and I wiſh this following Letter may not occaſion any, which I am forced thus to publiſh, as followeth.
Doctor Bernards Anſwer to Mr. Pierces 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 January, 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 Waltons, 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 Chriſts 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 Primates 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 Waltons Certificate.
Now for Mr. Goninges, which ſeems (by the Preface of it) to have bin given you after your publiſhing the Lord Primates change of judgment; ſomewhat of that may be ſafely granted; viz. The ſincerity of Gods 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 Primates 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. Thornedicks Teſtimony, I ſee not wherein it differeth from the Lord Primates 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 Primates 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 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. Barlees 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 Jackson, 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 Jacksons, 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 learned 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 Jackson, 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 enngagement 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, The Judgment of Babylon (1659)