A64635:392
Certain discourses, viz. of Babylon (Rev. 18. 4.) being the present See of Rome…
Certain discourses, viz. of Babylon (Rev. 18. 4.) being the present See of Rome (with a sermon of Bishop Beadles upon the same words) of laying on of hands (Heb. 6. 2.) to be an ordained ministry, of the old form of words in ordination, of a set form of prayer : each being the judgment of the late Arch-bishop of Armagh, and Primate of Ireland / published and enlarged by Nicholas Bernard ... : unto which is added a character of Bishop Bedel, and an answer to Mr. Pierces fifth letter concerning the late Primate.Certain discourses, viz. of Babylon (Rev. 18. 4.) being the present See of Rome (with a sermon of Bishop Bedels upon the same words) of laying on of hands (Heb. 6. 2.) to be an ordained ministry, of the old form of words in ordination, of a set form of prayer : each being the judgment of the late Arch-bishop of Armagh, and Primate of Ireland / published and enlarged by Nicholas Bernard ... : unto which is added a character of Bishop Bedel, and an answer to Mr. Pierces fifth letter concerning the late Primate.
London: printed for John Crook, 1659
Letter: Doctor Bernards Answer to Mr. Pierce's Fifth Letter containing three Certificates, prod…
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
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 Preterition, but a Predamnation for actual sins. That he held the universality of Christ's death, not only 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 testify, and that the reason why all men were not thereby saved, was because they ⟨p. 365⟩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.
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 onely 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 ⟨p. 365⟩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 irresistible, but that men did often resist and reject the same, may well stand with my Lord Primate's Judgement, and no ways 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