Reply to a Book, Reply · Part 1
The Praeface examined.
IN examining the Praeface, I may not omit to acquaint the Reader with two ſubtile inſinuations, whereby (if he be not forewarned of them) he may eaſily and at unawares be cauſeleſly praejudiced.Two ſubtil deviſes.
The firſt is an old trick of Sophiſtry, called a fallacy of the compoſition. For, pretending to anſwer two wrightings (the one made by me, the other made and ſubſcribed by diverſe well affected members of his Church) he ſo confoundeth them with a booke publiſhed by W. B. (which in my printed proteſtation I called an injurious pamphlet) as if thoſe wrightings, and this printed booke, were one and the ſame. For, having ſpoken of that pamphlet (in reſpect of the title, publiſhers and poſt ſcript) he telleth the Reader that the firſt part of that pamphlet was made by Mr. D. and the 2. part ſubſcribed by others. Who, reading theſe paſſages, would not conclude us to be authours of the pamphlet? For which cauſe, let the judicious Reader be intreated to underſtand, that a difference muſt be made betwixt that pamphlet and thoſe wrightings. For the printed booke (wherein alſo thoſe wrightings are contayned) I called a pamphlet; not in reſpect of thoſe 2. wrightings (conſidered as written for private uſe) but in …eſpect, of the joynt printing and publiſhing of them, in forme of a booke, with ſuch a title and poſtſcript, and, in this reſpect onelyonly,foreign & foreign quia implet omnia loca it is properly called a pamphlet: becauſe, by this meane, that, which was before private (and intended ſo to be) at leaſt comparatively, became now, as it were, to fill all places, and to be made common. Whence it is evident that the ſame thing may be called a pamphlet, when it is printed, which yet is no pamphlet being only written. So then, if he undertake to anſwer the pamphlet, let him deale with the authors of it: my ſelfe have proteſted againſt it, in print, and all the Subſcribers (except W. B.) diſclaime it. But if he will anſwer the wrightings; let him deale fairely with us, and not joyne us with the authours of the pamphlet, nor abuſe the Reader by telling him of a firſt and ſecond part of the pamphlet, but profeſſe to deale with the wrighting, which he ſhall find me ready to defend, ſo farr as concerneth my part.
The ſecond is a common practiſe of ſubtile Oratours, whoſe cuſtome is to raiſe ſome ſiniſter ſuſpicion of ill purpoſes or intendments, in the oppoſite party, that ſo, whatſoever they ſhall ſay may be, either ſlighted, or ſuſpected. For this purpoſe, he laboureth to perſwade the Reader, that, partly affection to the Browniſts, partly diſaffection to Claſſes and Synods and the government of theſe Churches, and partly private diſcontents have bene the ſtrong motives, whereupon theſe wrightings were made, whether by them, or me. The untruth of which ſuggeſtions will the more appeare, if we ſingle out ſome perſons whom, by name, he thus reproacheth.
And firſt (not to ſpeake of the printed pamphlet, nor of any that had a hand in it (which both they and I diſclaime) I will cleare my owne purpoſe, in that threefold wrighting, whereof he ſpeaketh. As for my renoune and fame for learning and guifts in preaching, which he intimateth. Theſe titles, as I aſſume not,Quomodo luctantes Antagoniſtas altius attollunt, quo vehementius illidant. Cypr. epiſt. 2. lib. 2. ſo, I ſuſpect, he aſcribeth them with no other mind then wreſtlers have towards their Antagoniſts, whom they lift as high as they can, that they may give them the greater fall afterwards.
Firſt whereas he ſaith; that threefold wrighting, was partly againſt the claſſis, & partly, againſt him, the reader may ſee another politick deviſe of his to, joyne the Claſſis with him ſelfe, for his owne advantage; as if my wrighting were intended againſt them, where as I have all wayes profeſſed my reverent eſteeme of thē, as alſo I did in thoſe three wrightings mentioned by him, which were not at all intended, nor framed againſt thē, as he miſinformeth the Reader; only I doe juſtly bewayle two things. 1. their credulity, that they have ſuffered them ſelves to be abuſed ſo much, by miſinformations, and that, from thence, they have bene plunged, more then where to be wiſhed, into the guilt of partiality, by to much adhaering to one party, with to apparent neglect of the other, though, in this caſe, the more conſiderable. 2. Theyre injurious depriving the Church of theyre right in the free choyſe & injoyment of men, whom they unanimouſly deſired for theyre Paſtors, without giving them due ſatisfaction the aequity of theyre ſo doing. Which a man may ſay having reſpect to ſome particular perſons, with out condemning all, and in reference to a particular miſcariage, without condemning all uſe of Claſſes and Synods.
Secondy. Whereas he ſayth, that,Fallacia non cauſae. ut cauſae. being diſcontented that my calling amongſt them did not ſucceed, I had an hand in wrighting againſt them for not deſiring me, he uſeth another fallacy, which is, when that is put for a cauſe which is no cauſe. For, though I had cauſe to be diſcontented that my calling did not ſucceed, and that by his fault, yet that diſcontēt did not cauſe me to wright (as appeareth in that I did forbeare wrighting 6 moneths after he had hindred my ſetling there) but the clearing of mine innocēcy was the cauſe of my wrighting, whereunto I was compelled by his repoaches.Sect. 5. Anſ. 3. & 21. & Sect. 40. Anſ. 3.
Thirdly, Whereas he ſayth, that comming nearer to the Browniſts in this queſtion about Baptiſme, then to us, it is therefore the leſſe marvayle &c. I anſwer. 1. Himſelfe, in diverſe places of his booke, freeth me from any ſuch affection to the Browniſts, as might cauſe me to wright againſt him, in favour of them. Therefore herein he contradicteth himſelfe. 2. Nearenes to, or diſtance from the Browniſts is but a falſe rule whereby to trye trueth or errour. If the Browniſts be nearer to the trueth, in this matter, then this Anſwerer why ſhould not I come nearer to them then to him? Is it not ſafe to come nearer to the Browniſts in holding a truth, then to the Libertines, in a danberous errour? Will he ſay, the Browniſts hold no trueth? or, that we may not lawfully hold the trueth with them, that it may appeare we differ from them? or, that no man can wright in defenſe of any trueth which they hold, without ſiding againſt him? 3. It would be knowne whom he meaneth by [us] when he ſayth, nearer to the Browniſts then to us? 1. If he meane the Elders of his Church; his owne words will contradict himſelfe. For of them he ſayth; theſe three have diverſe times profeſſed themſelves to be of the ſame opinion with Mr. D. touching the Baptiſme of infants. Sect. 23. Anſ. 5.1. p. 63.If he meane the ſubſcribers, which, with the Elders, are the beſt part of his Church; their complaint againſt him, for this difference, ſheweth how farr they differ from him herein. 3. If he meane the Claſſis; the wrighting of the five Dutch Preachers, which, he ſayth, was by all the Miniſters of the Claſſis, Sect. 19.with one conſent, afterwards approved and confirmed, will witnes againſt him. For there they thus expreſſe themſelves. We doe greatly approve of his good Zeale and care of having ſome precedent private examination of the parents and ſuretyes of theſe Children in the Chriſtian religion. Sect. 12.And a litle after. We doe ſo judge that this fore ſaid examination be ordayned, ſo farr as may ſtand with the aedification of the Engliſh Church. Thus farr they agree wholy with me; how ſoever in the words following (being abuſed by cauſeles jealouſies and ſuſpitions ſuggeſted by the Anſwerer,) they concluded, according to his mind.
Fourthly when he ſayth, that; I had an hand in wrighting complaints againſt him. I anſwer, 1. If he meane my two firſt wrightings to the Claſſis: they were a breife narration (by way of account) of paſſages betweene us, that the Claſſis might rightly underſtand thoſe paſſages, about which they had bene miſinformed. 2. If he calleth that my third wrighting ſhewne to one or two of the members, about the time of my departure from Amſterdam, a complaint, he miſcalleth it. For it was only a juſt and neceſſary defenſe of my innocency againſt miſreports.
The ſame imputation of Browniſme he layeth upon thoſe members of his owne Church, which ſubcribed the complaints; but how unjuſtly the Reader may eaſily apprehend.Sect. 31. p. 87. For thoſe of them (who were ſuch before) have, in theire joyning with his Church, left theire ſeparation, as he ſayth, and diverſe of them, he knoweth, were never of them, nor doe hold with them, in the point of Seperation as it is urged and practiſed by them; Therefore, I hope, the wiſe-hearted Reader will not ſuffer himſelfe to be prejudiced againſt them, or me, or what we ſhall wright, or have written, by ſuch vayne pretences, whereof they are able and ready to aquitt themſelves in print, as may appeare, in due time,
Whereas, upō occaſion of the title of the pamphlet generally diſliked by the complainants, he ſayth, As is the one, ſo is the other. If the complaints be juſt, thē is the title juſt, if the title be a vile title, thē is the booke alſo vile; I anſwer. 1. He continueth ſtill to jumble the pamphlet & the complaints together, that the Reader may be deceived, in thinking boath to be one, which is a fallacy, as we have formerly ſhewen. 2. it will not follow, that, if the complaints be juſt, the title of the pamphlet is juſt. For the very pamphlet (conſidered as it hath bene expreſſed) is an unjuſt thing, when the complaints might juſtly be exhibited, as they were.
Beſides, they, that condemne the title of the pamphlet, doe condemne the whole title page, which they condemne for the miſapplication of Scriptures to this caſe, and too much harſhnes of language. Becauſe they hope, and ſo doe I, that theſe actions, whereof they complaine, doe proceede, but from errour of judgement, or from ſome curable diſtemper of affections, in the Anſwerer. And then the complaint will be juſt, though the title be found unjuſt: elſe the whole title page of the pamphlet will be more juſtifyed, by many, then we wiſh it ſhould, conſidering his eminency in the Church.
Whereas he ſayth, I find no juſt ground that theſe oppoſites bring for their complaints, nor any due proofe of their many reproofes. Jf it pleaſe the Reader to examine. Sect: 4.5.6. and Sect. 23.24.25.26.27.28.29.30.31. with thoſe intercurrent Sections, concerning me, (by comparing the anſwer and reply with their complaints) it will appeare that he hath not ſo much cauſe of comforting him ſelfe againſt their allegations, as, from my heart, I wiſh he may have. That which he addeth concerning the ſingle uncompounded policy, whereof Mr. Iacob ſpeaketh, ſhall be examined in its due place here after, when he ſtriketh at the ſame man againe, upon as litle occaſion given him, whom yet he might have ſpared being dead, and ſo not able to anſwer for himſelfe. At leaſt; he might have freed him from ſuſpition of Browniſme, whoſe defenſe of the Miniſters and Churches of England, againſt Mr. Fr: Iohnſon, is extant in print, concerning whom more hereafter.
In the meane time, I muſt profeſſe, that I doe not find, in examining the complaints of the members, or in their private ſpeeches, that they are oppoſite to the Anſwerer, further then himſelfe oppoſeth their injoyment of that liberty and power, which himſelfe (in expreſſe words) acknowledgeth to be due to the Church. From which his practiſe ſo farr differeth, that it ſeemeth to ſweigh his Iudgement, in ſome particulars, a contrary way▪ wherefore let the Anſwerer agree with himſelfe and reconcile his owne judgement and practiſe, and, for ought I know, the oppoſition betweene him and theſe members will ceaſe. It had bene a worke, both more comfortable to himſelfe, and proffitable to the Church, for him to have done right to the Church, rather then to have juſtifyed an injury, and to have ſtopped the courſe of contentions, rather then to have opened the ſluces thereof, by publiſhing this booke, and perſiſting ſo ſtiffly in an unwarrantable way.
Nature and Religion, I confeſſe, teach and warrant ſelfe preſervation, but neither of them warrant a man, under pretence of anſwering for himſelfe, to calumniate others, and, under pretence of a defenſive warr againſt enimyes, to invade & ſpoyle confoederates and freinds. Nature teacheth particulars to loſe them ſelves in promoving the generall good, as the fire to deſcend and the water to aſcend, rather then there ſhould be a Ʋacuum, And Religion teacheth Chriſtians,1. Cor. 6.6▪7.8 rather to ſuffer wrong, then, either to doe wrong, or, by too contentious righting a mans ſelfe, to expoſe our Profeſſion to reproach. Both Nature and Religion ratifie this Maxime. Salus populi ſuprema lex eſto. The good of many muſt be preferred before our private benefit or content, How defective the Anſwerer hath bene herein is too manifeſt. But I leave that and ſpare him.
Only, For a concluſion, to prevent another prejudice, I doe earneſtly intreat the Chriſtian reader to beware how he ſuffer himſelfe to be caried away with any mans confidence, though he profeſſe a readines to ſuffer reproach for his opiniōs, knowing, that it is not the ſuffering, but the cauſe that maketh the martyr. Never theles; farr be it from me to approve any that reproach men with their errours, when they ſeeke the truth, in love of it, ſeing we all know but in part, and we are ignorant of more then we know, by farr: but let every man, according to the rule, try all things and hold faſt that which is good, 1. Theſſ. 5.21.not framing to him ſelfe a way of Religion, according to the fancyes of men, how grave and learned ſoever they ſeeme to be, but expecting a rule for the ordering of our whole behaviour in the houſe of God, from the Scripture, 1. Tim. 3 15.which is given by inſpiration of God, and is proffitable for doctrine, for reproofe, for correction, 2. Tim. 3.16.17.for inſtruction in righteouſnes, that the man of God may be perfect, being throughly furniſhed unto all good workes. From which rule who ſoeuer ſtragle,Ier. 18.…. they are truely and fitly ſayd to ſtumble in their way from the ancient wayes, and what ſoeuer Eccleſiaſticall Conſtitutions or cuſtomes, received in the Church, hauehave not warrant from the Ancient of dayes, in this word,Dan. 7.9. 1. Iohn. 2▪7. which is the old Commandement which we had from the beginning, they are but new formes though they hauehave a ſhew of antiquity, by their long continued vſe: in which ſenſe,Ioſu. 24.2 the Idolatry of the Pagans is ſaid to have bene of old time. On the other ſide; what ſoeuer forme of Churches and Church government is warranted by this rule, though it may ſeeme new to men, becauſe they never knew it before, yet it is not new, in it ſelfe; as it was no new-fanglednes in Nehemiah to celebrate the Feaſt of Tabernacles, Nehem. 8.17.though it had bene out of uſe from the dayes of Ioſhua unto that time. Theſe things we may ſafely publiſh, in life and death. But if any man ſhall adviſe men otherwiſe, though, upon his death bed, let it be rejected as unſafe counſail. I will conclude the examination of the praeface, with the prayer of the bleſſed Apoſtle of the Gentiles.Rom. 15.5 6. Now the God of patience and conſolation grant us to be like minded one towards another according to Ieſus Christ: that we may with one mind and one mouth glorifye God even the Father of our Lord Ieſus Chriſt! Amen.