A Defense of the Antidote Against Baxters Cure of Church Divisions, Letter 1
A DEFENCE OF THE ANTIDOTE AGAINST Mr. Baxter's Palliated Cure of Church Diviſions WHEREIN Mr. Baxter's Contradictions and Inconſiſtences, with the Truth, and with Himſelf, are clearly diſcovered: And the great queſtion about Conformity briefly ſtated, In a Letter to Mr. Richard Baxter.
By Edward Bagſhaw.
How long do yee halt between two Opinions,
1 Kings 18.21.
Should not the multitude of words be anſwered? and ſhould a Man full of Talk be juſtified?
Job 11.2.
Thou canſt not bear them which are evil, and thou haſt tried them which boaſt themſelves to be Apoſtles, and are not, and hast ſound them Lyars.
Rev. 2.2.
Printed in the Year 1671.
TO Mr. RICHARD BAXTER, Health, Peace, and a Sound Mind.
SIR,
I Perceive you take it for granted (without any particular enquiring from my ſelf about it) that I wrote thoſe juſt and weighty exceptions, which were lately publiſhed againſt your (Pretended and Palliated) Cure of Church Diviſions; and notwithſtanding any neceſſary Sharpneſs which I was forced to uſe in that ſeaſonable Antidote, yet I find you ſtill are pleaſed to call me Brother, which is a Civility I ſhould have thanked you for, had the reſt of your ſtile been anſwerable to the mildneſs of that expreſſion; but ſince you take that Unbecoming liberty, as to revile when you ſhould repent, and inſtead of Confeſſing and Forſaking your Errors, charge me with crimes, which I bleſs God I dare not allow in my Words, (much leſs in my Writings which are more deliberate.) This makes me ſuſpect that your Pretence of Friendſhip, and allowing me the title of Brother, was only done with the ſame deſign, that Joab had when he thus ſaluted Amaza, to make the Sword in your right Hand to be the leſs obſerved, and my wound thereby the more deadly and unavoidable; ſo that till my Truth and Innocence be cleared, and your Repentance (for wronging me in both) manifeſted, it will be a Favour if you look upon me as one, who neither deſires, nor (if you believe what your ſelf hath writ) Deſerves, any ſuch expreſſions of your familiarity.
To ſhew how much you are for the Middle-way (tha is in other words, neither to be Hot nor Cold, or neither to be altogether for Truth nor altogether for Error, but to hang Laodicea like, in a Lukewarm, and Neutral indifference between both) you have taken pains to find out a Middle name, between a Miſtake and a Lye, which you wittily call an untruth; and this you are pleaſed to charge upon me, as a very ſoft word, and one that I would not be offended with: But Sir, this frothy complement might have been ſpared, for I hope you are not to learn that every untruth is a lye (Iohn 1.62.2.2) and you needed not have been ſo ſcrupulous of ſpeaking your thoughts in Scripture language; but this I ought not to wonder at, ſince you are not afraid to dethrone the Scripture from being a Perfect Rule, (a)Part 1. p. 99, 100, 101.and therefore would manifeſt by this Invention, that you thought it not ſufficient to teach us the right way of ſpeaking, and ſo was not a Perfect Rule of good manners.
But leaving your Phraſe, I rather chuſe to ſpeak unto the Thing you mean by it, and whether I have been ſo guilty as to wrong you, either by a Miſtake, or a Lye, or an Ʋntruth, or whatſoever fine word elſe you pleaſe to uſe, remains now to be examined, in this brief review and defence of ſome of the principal Exceptions, that I have already urged againſt you, upon the clearing of which, the whole cauſe, that is in controverſie between us, will depend.
My firſt Exception was, That the whole deſign of your Book was to make your Brethren (that have not your latitude, and cannot reach the ſubtilty of your Diſtinctions) Odious. This you tell me, is a Fundamental Ʋntruth, which animates all the reſt for it was not your Deſign at all: Truly Sir, I am ſo unwilling to charge either you, or any elſe, with more then. I have grounds to think is juſtly your due, that I would gladly take your word in this matter, and ſo paſs it over; but I hope you will pardomme if I cannot; becauſe, Firſt, Many hundreds of ſober, impartial, and unbiaſſed perſons, have carefully read your Book, as well as my ſelf, and they all make the ſame judgment of it; and I think in reaſon, that is to be eſteemed the deſign of a Book, whatever was the ſecret and unknown intention of the Writer, which the words themſelves, and the manner of writing (without any ſtreining) do offer unto every ſerious and inquiſitive Reader: Secondly, This uſe hath already been made of your Book, to render ſuch as cannot Conform much more criminal then before, in that your Name and Credit is urged againſt them; and this not only in diſcourſe by many, but by a late Author in Print, who quotes your Book to juſtifie his Treatiſe againſt Toleration. Thirdly, in your very next Paragraph, (and likewiſe elſewhere in this laſt Book) (b)Pag. 2. p. 7. part 1. p. 60, 61.You call Separation a crying Sin, nay the crying ſin; and you ſcruple not to inſinuate that all the iudgments, which in this Nation we do either feel or fear, were to be changed upon ſeparation as the principal procuring cauſe. Pray Sir, conſider this, and then tell me, what can make your Brethren more Odious, and more expoſe them to the peoples fury, and to the Rulers Revenge, then thus to make them the Cauſes of the Nations Calamity: If in ſeparating from the publick Forms of Worſhip (which we therefore account falſe, becauſe God hath not commanded them) our ſin is ſo great, that the place where we live cannot be held Innocent, but muſt ſuffer from the Hand of God for our ſakes, we are certainly a people who deſerve to be hated of all, and the Confiſcations, Impriſonments and Deaths, which ſome of us have already felt (and poſſibly may yet remain in greater extremity to be our portion) are no longer to be bewailed and grieved for as Perſecutions of the Innocent, but rather to be rejoyced and gloried in, as due puniſhments of Noxious Offenders; ſo that either you muſt retract and blot ſuch paſſages out of your Book (and thereby teſtifie your Repentance of them) or we are confident both God and the World will juſtifie us, if we ſtill retain our Opinion of the ill meant and unworthy deſign of your Book againſt us.
Your next attempt is to free your ſelf from being looked upon as an Earneſt and Active Inſtrument in the late Warr; I mean (ſince you preſs me to ſpeak plainly) in the Parliament's War againſt the King: I ſaid, It became not you to mention with ſo much Bitterneſs what was then done, (c)Par. 2. p. 10, 11. p. 1. p. 26, 27.becauſe you were as guilty of ſtirring up and fomenting that warr, as any one whatſoever: This you abſolutely deny, and boaſt much of your Loyalty, and ſeem to be greatly offended that ſuch a thing ſhould be charged upon you, and I am again reproached wth Ʋntruth for it: Sir, I am not willing to take up former matters, nor do I at all delight to expoſe you union the ſcorn of your enemies, and to the pity of your friends, but I cannot help it; you have confidently made the challenge, and will not be beholding to an act of Indemnity, but ſtand upon your Innocence, and therefore you muſt endure what follows. I muſt confeſs your bold and reſolute diſclaiming any Activeneſs in that warr, did ſo much ſtagger me, that I began to queſtion the truth of all the Reports that I had heard; but your own books (which I have ſince read) do ſo fully prove my charge, that nothing but your hopes that all is forgotten as well as pardoned, which is paſt, could ever embolden you to ſo peremptory denyal? What Sir, were not you as Active in that War as any? whcn, in your Holy Commonwealth (d)p. 486.you tell us, That, when you engaged in the Parliaments war againſt the King, You thought it the greateſt outward ſervice that ever you performed to God; And, That you encouraged many thouſands to it. And, that, Though many things fell out otherwiſe then you expected, yet you were ſo far from repenting of what you had done, that did the ſame circumſtances occurre, you would do it again, or elſe you ſhould be guilty of Treaſon or Diſloyalty againſt the Soveraign power of the Land, and of perſidiouſneſs to the Commonwealth, &c.
Can you read Sir theſe paſſages, and ſtill deny, that with your utmoſt induſtry you did promote the War? or can you think you dealt uprightly in blaming thoſe, who did much leſs then you, though they have ſince ſuffered more? and becauſe you declaim ſo much againſt the changes which followed upon the War, and ask me, (who had nothing at all to do with it) many malicious and enſnaring queſtions about them. This I muſt tell you doth as little become you as the other; for how can you, with any appearance of integrity, reproach others for Changing the Government, when, (in your writings) you do highly approve of that, which was the worſt part of the Change, the ſetting up of Cromwell to be Protector? what is this elſe but to cry out loudly againſt the Treaſon, and yet to hugg and to embrace the Traytour? For you greatly commend that abſurd tool, The Humble Petition and Advice, (which was Cromwells inſtrument of Government) And you ſay of it (e)Holy Commonwealth, pa. 257, 258.A more excellent Law hath not been made for the happineſs of England, concerning Parliaments, at leaſt ſince the Reformation, And of Cromwell himſelf (though he dyed in his ſinful uſurpation, without manifeſting any Repentance) you give this Saint-like Character, in your Preface to the Army, The late Protector did prudently, Piouſly, faithfully (to his immortall honour, how ill ſoever you uſed him) exerciſe the Government. Sir, could you ſay all this of him then, and doe you think your moſt partial friends can juſtifie you now, when you compare him to the Tyrant Maximus, and make him in effect to be nothing elſe but a (f]pag. 374. laſt book part 2. pag. 140, 141.Murderous and a Bloody Ʋſurper? which although it may (in the mouth of another who never flattered him) be perhaps received as his True Character, yet it became not you (who had ſo officiouſly before brought your Odours to embalm his memory) thus to beſpatter and diſgrace him.
As for your Flattery to his Son, which I alſo charged you with, and you (with a ſtrange, but not to your ſelf unuſual, boldneſs) do deny, what can be more apparent? In your Diſputations about Church Government.
You thus addreſs your ſelf to him, I obſerve that the Nation generally rejoyceth in your peaceable entrance upon the Government, and many are perſwaded you have been kept from blood in our late warrs, that God might make you a healer of our breaeches, and employ you in the Temple-work, which David himſelf, though he earneſtly deſired it, might not be honoured with: And then you adviſe him to cheriſh Ʋnion among his own Paſtors; for This, ſay you, would be the way to lift him up higheſt in the eſteem and love of all his people, and make them ſee, that he was appointed of God to be a Healer and a Restorer, and to glory in him, and to bleſs God for him, as the inſtrument of our chiefeſt peace; you alſo tell him in the Dedication of your Key to Catholicks, that you are one who bleſs God for him, and who rejoyce in the preſent happineſs of England, and concurre with the common hopes of yet greater Bleſſings under his Government, which there you pray for, and ſo ſubſcribe your ſelf his Faithful Subject.
Now Sir, If you pleaſe, find out a Middle-word between Falſhood and Flattery, and think to excuſe your ſelf by that, while I take leave to ſay, that ſuch kind of Language, (to one who in no ſenſe could be accounted a lawfull Governour) doth too rankly ſavour of both: Go if you pleaſe, and boaſt your ſelf of your preſent Loyalty, and ſeem to take it ill as you pretend to do, [g]Part 1. pag. 26, 27if any think otherwiſe of you, but ſtill remember, that even you who now (in that reſpect) ſo much boaſt and exalt your ſelf above your Brethren) telling them, that [h]Cure pag. 257. Commonwealth p. 483, 484.God in juſtice hath put them down) did alſo ſay (when you thought you might do it ſafely) That you were ſatisfied in two things, Firſt, That [i] God in Juſtice had put down the former Governours (meaning the King and his Party) for their Perſecution and ſcorning of Piety. Secondly, That you thought your ſelf bound to ſubmit unto the preſent Government (which was then in the hands of Rich. Cromwell) as ſet over us by God, and that you would obey for conſcience ſake, and behave your ſelf as a Loyal Subject towards them. Sir, you that profeſſed your ſelf to be ſo Loyal then, cannot in reaſon be ſuppoſed to be conſcienciouſly Loyal now, and the leaſt you can expect, is neither to be believed nor truſted.
I have done, Sir, with my Defence of this Exception, and now if you pleaſe, charge me with Ʋntruth; for affirming, You were as active as any, in the late War; and deny if you can, the conſequence I gathered from thence; that, It became not you to blame the effects; who gave ſuch Riſe and Encouragement to the Cauſe: I mean, unleſs you repent of the Cauſe; which it is evident, you have not yet done; and if I may not be believed in this Opinion of you, I doubt not but the Biſhop of Worcester will; who, for this very thing did formerly accuſe you of Rebellion kBiſh. of Worceſt. Letter.From which charge, he that lAnimad verſions on Biſhop of Worc. Letter.defended you then, leaves you to acquit your ſelf now as well as you can. And now, Sir, for a cloſe of this, I ſhould ask your pardon, for thus venturing to break the Act of Oblivion, but your Importunity did force me to it; and I could not otherwiſe clear my ſelf from your ſlanderous Imputation of Falſhood, but by bringing Truth to light, and by ſtripping you of your Diſguiſe (under which, for ſo many years you have been masked and covered) leave you naked and defenceleſs to the judgement and cenſure of every Impartial and Unprejudiced Reader; and if any thing is written here, which you will be aſhamed to read, and afraid to give an anſwer to, pray thank your ſelf, who would not be quiet, nor let your Brethren alone, till you were thus brought forth to an open Diſcovery.
Your mentioning, with ſo much ſcorn, the Doctrine of the Temporal Reign of Chriſt, which you, in deriſion, call the [b]Part 2. p. 55.59.4.110.Fifth-Monarchy-way, and your endeavouring to expoſe all that you think favour that Opinion, (and in particular Mr. Brown) is another Evidence, that you dare not look any Truth in the face, which brings preſent danger with it; no, though formerly you were as earneſt, and open an Aſſerter of it, as any: For not many years ago you told us, that [c]Holy Commonwealth, p. 221, 222.you were perfectly Neutral, as to the point of Chriſts Viſible and Perſonal Reign upon Earth, and you did not know which way your Judgement did moſt incline; But the Theocrotical Policy, or Divine Common-wealth (which is the unqueſtionable Reign of Chriſt upon Earth.) This, all Chriſtians are agreed, may juſtly be ſought, and the Temporal dignity of the Saints, which would undoubtedly much bleſs the VVorld. Sir, I have been very curious to enquire into the Doctrine of the Fifth Monarchy; and moſt of my Converſe is with thoſe that do in Faith expect, and in Pationce wait for ſuch a time; and I never knew any of them (however they are miſ-repreſented) carry the Notion farther than you have already done. It will become you therefore to enquire, what is your reall ground, why ſuch, who ſtill retain thoſe Principles which you once laid down, ſhould now be mentioned by you, with ſo much ſcorn and ſlighting: Till you have found out and declared a better Reaſon, pray give me leave to think this is the Chief; becauſe you dare not own any Hazardous & Perſecuted Truth; and you find it far eaſier (in your Notional Divinity) to recant all that formerly you were convinced of, than to bring your heart unto a willingneſs for Martyrdome; and this alone, I take likewiſe to be the true Cauſe, why ſo weakly, and ſo unlike a Minister of the Goſpel, you inveigh againſt [d]Pag. 73, 74, 75. part. 2Sufferings; For you have never yet experienced either the Comfort or the Cleanſing of them; and therefore venture raſhly to ſpeak evil of what you know not, and which I fear you have neither Courage nor Integrity enough to venture the Trial of. I ſpeak it to your ſhame, ſince the Scripture often recommends Afflictions as the neceſſary Exerciſe of our Faith, and the chief matter of our Chriſtian Joy and Triumph.
But how ill ſoever you had uſed the Living, methinks you ſhould have ſpared the Dead, and not diſturbed the duſt of my Fellow-Priſoner Mr. Powel, [e]Part 2 p. 60.74.80.by reproaching his memory with ſo abuſive and diſgraceful a mention of him, as if he were a Falſe Prophet, and acted by a deluding ſpirit: For you lay to his charge, that many years ago, he propheſied of ſome things, which we do not yet ſee fulfilled: But, Firſt, may not a Good man, nay a true Prophet, be ſometimes miſtaken? Was not Samuel ſo, when he took Eliah to be the Lords Anointed; was not Nathan deceived, when he encouraged David to build the Temple? and did ever any yet ſuſpect them to be Falſe Prophets for that? Secondly, may not many Prophets truly foretell things to come, and yet thoſe things be a long time ſuſpended and delayed becauſe of the ſins of a people? Is not this condition to be underſtood in moſt Scripture Prophecies, which we find expreſſed in Zech. 6 15. And this ſhall come to paſs, if you will diligently obey the voice of the Lord your God? This and much more may be ſaid in defence of that diligent and Faithful Servant of the Lord, whom I knew to be truly Religious and Worthy, and therefore thought it my duty to vindicate him from your Unchriſtian Calumny. And pardon me Sir, if I put you in mind (for you ſeem to have forgot) how in this the Lord favoured him, in that after much exerciſe of Affliction, he was taken away in Peace, and Buried in Honour; when I fear ſuch as you will be ſuffered to our live your own Fame, and your Memory ſhall dye before you. For God will reſiſt the proud, and ſuch as exalt themſelves ſhall be Abaſed and Humbled; Which Prophecy is true, whatever Mr. Powels was.
I am ſorry that I am forced to ſpeak thus plainly, but the Pride of your heart, diſcovered by your Writings, is ſo apparent, that it cannot but be Known and Read of all men; to go no farther for inſtances then your laſt book; what needed you have told the World in Print, That [f]Part 1 pag. 40.You choſe once an Eaſter-day to communicate in a very populous Church in London; purpoſely that it might be the farther known: Is not this like the Hypocrites, to blow a Trumpet before you, and to do your actions that you may be ſeen of men? what other end could you have, in doing that ſo publickly then or in declaring it now, but a vain-glorious Hope, that doubting and unſatisfied Chriſtians might look upon your Example, as their Pole-ſtar, and accordingly direct their motions? I look upon it alſo as a ſtrange piece of Boaſting, when you tell us that men of all judgments have written againſt you: As to reckon them up in your own words [g]part 1. pag. 26.ſome Infidells, divers Quakers, Papiſts, Antinomians, ſome Arminians, ſome Anti-Arminians, Anabaptiſts, Seperatiſts, Levellers, Dioceſans, &c. What Sir, is it poſſible that men of theſe ſeveral perſwaſions, which you have expreſſed, have all written againſt you, and doth there remain yet a greater number concealed in the gulph of a bottomleſs &c.? Is it indeed true, that you offend all, and pleaſe none? and can you glory that you are counted the Iſmael of the Age? Pray Sir remember what became of him; He was caſt out of Abrahams houſe, that is, out of the Church of God, for Scorning, and when you do a little better conſider of it, that thoſe worthily famous and honoured men Mr. Rhotorford, Mr. Burges, Mr. Blake, Mr. Crandon (beſides ſome living of equal repute for learning and piety) have all written againſt you, and ſolemnly warned others to beware of your books (as containing much leaven of falſe and dangerous Doctrine in them) did I ſay, You ſeriouſly conſider this, you would be grieved for grieving them, and not put it in among your Triumphs, that you had provoked ſo many able and Worthy Pens to oppoſe and antidote the infection of your Writings: To conclude this Point (for it is a ſore place, and I would not handle it ſo roughly, but in order to healing) when I ſaid in one of my exceptions, that I feared you were not ſound in the Doctrine of Iustification by Faith alone, without works; inſtead of anſwering directly and ſatisfying my ſcruple (which you might have done in few words) you referr me to Five [h]part … p. 127.or more Treatiſes, which you ſay you have written upon that Subject: and in another place [i]part 2. p. 18.you tell me that you have written the better part of above Fifty Books againſt the Profane, the Jews, and the Mahumedans. (I will not enquire to what purpoſe, for I am very confident none of thoſe did ever read what you have written againſt them.) But adde to theſe your ſeveral other Treatiſes, as about Baptiſm, Confirmation, Church Government, Commonwealth, &c. Your Books will in all amount to as many Volumes as Toſtatus writ, concerning whom, (and all ſuch kind of Writers) you once gave this true Character, (though ſince you have moſt unhappily forgotten it,)[k]Premonition to the Saints reſt I cannot but account all thoſe Toſtatus's impudently proud, who think the world ſhould read no Bodies Works but theirs. Pray Sir, read this paſſage again, and compare it with what you have already writ, (and what as I hear you do yet farther intend to write;) and then tell me in earneſt what you think of your ſelf; for here, according to your own Words, [l]part 2. pag, 25.Evidence muſt decide the Caſe.
I think Sir, I may ſay to you with every whit as much truth and candour, what you dis-ingeniouſly reply upon me, [m]part 2. pag. 91.I have no mind to make you odious, nor to open your ſin to others; but you have opened it to the world, and I muſt open it to you, if poſſibly you may repent: and therefore having ſaid this to your ſelf, (that by ſetting before you ſome few of your many failings, you might be Humbled, and come to a more ſober underſtanding of your ſelf and way.) I come now to ſpeak ſomething, and that very briefly, to the Queſtion about Conformity, which hath occaſioned all this heat betwixt us: and in the handling of this, I think I may alſo ſay, as you ſometimes did [n]Premonition to the Saints reſt.I approve not Tautologies, nor a tedious ſtile, nor the heaping up of uſeleſs matter and words; which Rule in writing, though you forget to obſerve, yet I ſhall keep cloſe to; for Truth needs not many words to defend it.
In the ſtating of this Queſtion, you do your ſelf grant ſo much, that you ſcarce leave any thing, to be either diſputed or denyed by thoſe whom you pretend with ſo much vehemency to oppoſe; For,
Firſt, you grant [o]part 1. p. 8.9, & 74, 75.that we are not to have Communion with a Dioceſan Church, as ſuch, and that we are not to own Dioceſan Biſhops.
Secondly, You allow that we are not to have Communion with Perſecutors, nor with ſuch as have conſented to our Silencing,
Thirdly, You affirm that we are not to communicate with Pariſh Churches only, nor with all of them, and particularly, not with ſuch whoſe Paſtours are, through inſufficiency, Hereſie, and Impiety, Intolerable. And this you tell us, was your own Practiſe, For, you ſay [p]part 1. p. 36.you reſolved, if you lived where was an intollerable Miniſter, you would not hear him, nor come near him, ſo as to encourage him in his undertaking of that Sacred Office.
All this, and more of this nature (which you aſſert) being granted, I ſcarce ſee what it is that you contend for, or ſo earneſtly declaim againſt; ſince from theſe Grounds Separation at this day may eaſily be juſtified: For,
Firſt, every Pariſh Church is a Part of the Dioceſan; and if a Dioceſan Church, as ſuch, is not to be communicated with, then a Pariſh Church, as ſuch, is to be ſeperated from; ſince there is the ſame Reaſon of the Parts as of the Whole: And you muſt find out a new Logick, before you can prove, that if the Whole be Corrupt, any of the Parts are clean and fit for our Communion.
Secondly, a Pariſh Miniſter is (in that ſtation and office) but a Servant of the Dioceſan Biſhop, and therefore rightly called a Curate, and if we may not own, (as you grant) the Biſhop, I think it will neceſſarily follow that his Subſtitute and Curate hath no reaſon to expect any Reſpect from us. We doe not uſe, in other caſes, to Regard the Man, when we think it a duty to deſpiſe the Maſter.
Thirdly, If Perſecutors are not to be communicated with, nor ſuch as have conſented to our Silencing, which you alſo allow, (though I could wiſh you had proved it better then by the obſcure and diſputable Example of Martin) [q]part 1. p. 76,then I think very few, if any of the Pariſh Ministers, but muſt even upon this account alſo be ſeparated from; ſince either by Open Conſent, or elſe by an Ʋndoing and Pernicious ſilence, they have all made themſelves guilty of that grievous ſin: There being but little difference in the ſight of God, between the perſecuting of Brethren ourſelves; and (by not ſharply reproving it,) ſeeming to approve of it in others.
Laſtly, admitting there are ſome Worthy and able men among the Pariſh Ministers (which for my own part, I believe never a whit the more becauſe you affirm it,) yet this we muſt ſay, that their ſin is great in ſubmitting to ſo undue a way of entring into the Miniſtry; and therefore we both forbear our ſelves, and warn all others not to hear them, becauſe we cannot think our Lord Chriſt ever ſent ſuch to Preach in his Name, who directly and by a ſolemn Oath have Renounced their Christian liberty, under pretence of Preaching Chriſt; and are indeed nothing elſe (as to the whole diſcharge and exerciſe of their Office) but Servants of men, which we have already fully learned from the Apoſtles, is altogether inconſiſtent with being Servants of Chriſt, Galatians 1.10. 1 Corin. 7.23. and therefore as ſuch we cannot own them.
For the queſtion is not (as you weakly and inſignificantly word it.) Whither [r]part 1. p. 78.a Defective, Faulty, True Church may ordinarily (or at leaſt ſometimes he joyned with; but whither a defective faulty impoſing Church is not to be ſeparated from; This we affirm; Becauſe, Firſt, we know not how elſe to preſerve our Chriſtian Liberty (which it is an indiſpenſible duty to maintain) but by ſeparating from thoſe who would unduly take it from us: Secondly, Being preſent where thoſe things are uſed in the Worſhip of God, which God hath not commanded, This would involve us in the guilt and contagion of them; nor doe we believe (however we have your Word for the contrary) the Lord will otherwiſe interpret it, ſince he hath ſo ſtrictly charged us, To keep far from a falſe matter; and not to partake in other mens ſins: Laſtly, whatever pretences may be uſed (as it is eaſie to write Declamations) for the keeping of Peace, yet (to ſpeak ſtrictly and ſo as to ſatiſfie conſcience) Peace is but ill bought, if we muſt purchaſe it at ſo dear a rate, as with the loſs of Truth: And this Truth concerning the ſole Sovereign power of our Lord Chriſt, in appointing all matters of his Worſhip (He being the Lord of his Houſe, and Faithful in all things as Moſes, Heb. 5.) this is a point ſo neceſſary to be maintained, and ſo utterly inconſiſtent with the ſuppoſing that any thing is to be Obtruded, which he hath not Commanded, that we dare not allow our ſelves in the practiſe of any thing, which may prejudice that Fundamental: And we judge we have ſufficient warrant from what the Apoſtles did in a like caſe, Acts 15.24. For if they reproved ſuch as Preached up Circumciſion, and other Legall Ceremonies, at that day, when as the Apoſtles had given them no ſuch Commandement; ſaying of them, that they ſubverted (or ſpoiled) the ſouls of the Diſciples; then may we affirm the like of thoſe now, who, in things equally indefenſible doe act with every whit as little authority, from whom upon that very account, we think it our duty to ſeparate.
I am not ignorant that you (after many others, who have formerly much better pleaded this cauſe) do inſiſt upon two Arguments by which you labour to defend your irregular way of Communion.
The firſt is, that in the Primitive Churches there were many Corruptions, which the Apoſtle writes against, but doth not adviſe any, becauſe of them, to ſeparate: But I anſwer, that in this Inſtance… as well as in your State, you do wholly (I will not ſay ignorantly) miſtake the Queſtion: For it is not Corruption or Errour, barely conſidered as ſuch, that we account to be a ſufficient ground of Separation; but the impoſing of that error with an high hand, and making a ſubmiſſion to it (at leaſt in our practice and outward obſervance) the very condition of Communion, this, we ſay, is a thing which neceſſitates us to make a Separation, and that for the Reaſons I have already urged; To which I will adde only this, that, however the preſenting our Bodies at a Worſhip which we doe not inwardly approve of, may render us excuſable and juſtifie us among men, yet we are ſure it will not in the ſight of God, who hates hypocriſie in his ſervice, and values every offering by the heart of him that brings it.
I might content my ſelf with urging thus much, but becauſe the Corruptions that were in the firſt Churches, are often pleaded in this Caſe, I will therefore examine the argument drawn from them a little farther, and Firſt, this is clear in Scripture, that our Lord Chriſt (who was himſelf Holy and ſeparated from ſinners) did never Call nor deſign his Church to be an impure mixt body of Holy and Ʋnholy, without any diſtinction blended and hudled up together; but we have it frequently mentioned in Scripture, that he called his people out of the world, to be an Holy ſeperate people; an habitation, and houſe for himſelf by his ſpirit to dwell in; with many expreſſions to the ſame purpoſe, whereupon every one who names the Name of Chriſt, is ſolemnly commanded to depart from all unrighteouſneſs. Secondly, though through the Corruption of men, and negligence of Church Officers (for which they are blamed Rev. 2.14.20.) many Ungodly Prophane Formaliſts and Hypocrites, did (and daily doe) creep in, yet there is a ſtrict command given to put ſuch out of the Church 1 Cor. 5. 2 Theſ. 3, Rev. 2. And all are commanded to turn aſide from them, 2 Tim. 3, 5. Rom. 16.17. which commands do ſtrongly and convincingly imply, that if ſuch are to be with drawn from, then if any Church who is admoniſhed concerning them, ſhall ſtill maintain, abet and countenance ſuch; that Church alſo is thereby defiled, and become unfit to be communicated with: For a little leaven leavens a whole lump, 2 Cor. 5.7, and one ſinner deſtroyes much good, Eccl. 9.18. and many are defiled by the contagion of one, Heb. 12.15. All which places ſhow, that a Church, which after admonition and diſcovery of Offenders, will not uſe her authority in caſting them out, doth partake of their ſins, and becomes as guilty as they, and therein as unworthy of Communion, Laſtly, which will fully anſwer the ſcruple, it is to be conſidered, that the Primitive Churches were ſetled by the Apoſtles, and conſtituted according to the divine pattern, having all the Ordinances of Chriſt, and true Officers, rightly eſtabliſhed amongſt them; ſo that though many ſcandalous ſins did break out, and were viſible among ſome of the Members, yet a power was ſtill retained in each Church for the keeping themſelves pure, by caſting out Offenders; whereby they were kept to the Institution and Orders of Chriſt, without any univerſal Innovation or degenerating in thoſe Eſſentials of Order as well as Doctrine, which they fell into in the ages after; and when Anti-Chriſtianiſm (which was then working) did manifeſtly ſhew it ſelf not only in rejecting the Truth, 2 Theſ. 2. but in impoſing error, Rev. 13.16.17. then was Separation neceſſary to be made; which is implied in meaſuring, (as it were circumſcribing and encloſing) the Altar-Worſhippers, and caſting out the others. Rev. 11.1.2, and likewiſe in the ſealed ones that had a mark upon their Foreheads; whereby is meant ſome outward note of diſtinction from Anti-Chriſts Followers, Rev. 7.1.2. and 14.1. This neceſſity of Separation which began then, continues ſtill; ſince our Churches, though Reformed from Popery ▪ (that is, from Anti-Chriſtianiſme) in ſome points, yet are not reſtored unto the Primitive pattern and purity: ſo that more may be ſaid for ſeparation now (when whole Churches are out of Order and Corrupt) then could be at that time, when Corruption had infected only ſome particular members, for it is not, as I ſaid before, Corruption barely, no nor Impoſition barely, that is a ſufficient ground for any to ſeparate (for where ſome leſſer errors are held but not impoſed, or where only Neceſſary things are impoſed, we ſhall not forbear Communion) but when Error is once impoſed, and by a ſtrong hand forcibly maintained, (notwithſtanding all admonitions and endeavours of Reformation) here we muſt ſeparate or conſent to ſin, which is our preſent caſe; and till you draw your Parallel exact, and ſuit it in all reſpects to what it was before, your inſtances, from the practice of former times, are but impertinent and unconcluding.
The ſecond Argument that you do with much vehemency preſs, is the example of the Former Non-Conformiſts, who you ſay were all againſt ſeparation, and why ſhould we be wiſer then they? To which I anſwer in Learned and Judicious Mr. Hilderſhams words, and the rather becauſe I find you quote his Name in favour of your opinion.
Lecture 59 on John 4.Firſt, It hath been an old trick of Hypocrites to pretend great Reverence and reſpect to the Servants of God that are dead, when their credit might ſerve to the diſgrace of Gods ſervants that now live and are their Teachers: ſo did the Jews ſpeak gloriouſly of Moſes and the Prophets, Mat. 23.29. Whereas on the other ſide, the Faithful are deſcribed by this Note, They embrace and are eſtabliſhed in the preſent Truth, 2 Pet. 1.12. that is in the truth that is now taught them.
Secondly, admit that the Servants of God, whoſe judgement and practice theſe men do ſeem to ſtand ſo much upon, had been never ſo Learned and Godly men, yet we may not build our Concience upon the credit of any man, neither of them that have taught us heretofore, nor of them that teach us now, but only upon the Word of God: If any (though far, inferiour to them in Piety and Learning) ſhall bring you the word of God, the manifeſt word of God, againſt ſuch or ſuch an abuſe? and you ſay you will not receive it, becauſe ſuch a Learned and good man was of another mind, you ſin in an high degree againſt God, for you oppoſe the credit of man to the Authority of Gods word, In this caſe, we muſt remember what the Apoſtle ſaith. Gal. 8, 9.
Thirdly, we are not to reſt in the judgement and practiſe of thoſe good men that have lived before us; for as it is with the particular members of the Church, ſo it is with the whole Church, it muſt grow and encreaſe in grace and knowledge. Though Aſa was a good King, and Reformed much in his firſt days, yet Jehoſaphat Reformed more, 2 Chron. 17.6. and Joſiah went further, then either Jehoſaphat or any other that had been before him, 2 Kings 23.25.
And whereas you mention the Holineſs and Learning of thoſe Non Conformiſts, thereby to deterr us from going beyond their Line & Meaſure, I may reply, in that ſame worthy Authors words — Lecture 8 on John 4.Though they were Holy and Learned Men, yet it may well be, that the Lord hath revealed that to his ſervants now, which they ſaw not, for the Lord hath oft done ſo; David had more underſtanding than his Teachers had, Pſal. 19.99. and the Diſciples of Chriſt, ſaw many truths, which many of the Prophets (though they were it may be holier then they) did not ſee, Luke 10.24. Many points of Gods Truth are revealed now even to Babes, what the Patriarchs and Prophets, (though Holy Men and highly in Gods favour) ſaw not: He adviſeth therefore, reſt not ſo much on the Judgment, advice, and example of the beſt men, but examine them by the Scriptures, for good men have oft proved Satans inſtruments to deceive others, as Peters example miſled Barnabas, Gal. 2.12.14. Thus far, and much more to the ſame purpoſe ſaith that excellent Author, (whoſe words becauſe I thought they might be of weight to you,) I choſe to tranſcribe at large, rather then to ſay the ſame things in other words of mine own.
To the ſame purpoſe Mr. Gee, when he was urged with the authority of Calvin, Bucer, Pareus, &c. who all give an other interpretation then that which he follows in his expoſition of Rom. 13. Replyes thus, — The opinion or averment of man, (even of the beſt for Learning and Piety,) in a Caſe of Conſcience, or in the enquiry, what is the ſenſe of ſuch and ſuch a Scripture, or ſuch a Divine Precept is not an Oracle neither, will it paſs for ſuch in any controverſie. The truth is we are very prone to attribute ſome authority to it, and to urge it upon others, ſo far as we find it concurrent with our own perſwaſions, but who is he that will be prejudged or concluded by it, contrary to the opinion that he hath received, or in what he is otherwiſe doubtful? The words of that Learned Man may be applyed to the preſent Caſe, for Sir, you know how much you have departed from the Doctrine of thoſe Famous Non-Conformiſts in many the moſt material points of Religion, and therefore cannot juſtly be allowed; in this, to make uſe of their Authority: It will I ſuppoſe be eaſily granted that it is a very improper thing for any to ſeem to magnifie ſo much the Opinion of thoſe worthy men (as to preſs it now upon their Brethren) in the buſineſs of Ceremonies and Conformity, when they themſelves refuſe to follow them in their other more ſound and ſubſtantial Doctrines.
To give you a few Inſtances, Firſt, The former Nonconformists held Armenianiſme (that is, the Doctrines of of Free-will in the things of God, of Ʋniverſal Grace, and Ʋniverſal Redemption) to be ſo Fundamental and dangerous an Error; that they have called it a Beelzebub-Error, and Another Goſpel. But you do not only ſpeak favourably of it, but alſo proudly tell us, that of you are very confident, aPart 1. p. 6, 7.not one of many hundreds, who ſpeak againſt Communion with Arminians, do underſtand what Arminianiſme is; As if the difference were either ſo ſmall, that it was not worth the while to oppoſe it, or elſe ſo abſtruſe and difficult, that plain Chriſtians could not eaſily come to know it. Truly Sir, I acknowledge my ſelf the meaneſt of my brethren, and yet I think, who underſtands the neceſſity of being born again, and renewed by the Spirit of God, muſt needs underſtand his own Free will hath not the leaſt power to receive the things of God, and whoever doth this, knows very well what Arminianiſme is, though perhaps he may be ignorant of the Name, which is not at all material in the Controverſie: and indeed I wonder you can ſo confidently plead for Communion with Arminians, and that with an &c. too; when you formerly told us,Preface to the 5 Diſputations. That, in the points of Predeſtination, Redemption, Free-will, Effectual grace, Perſeverance, and Aſſurance of Salvation; the Jeſuites and Arminians do teach the ſame Doctrine. Sir, I hope you do not intend to enlarge your Communion ſo far, as to take in the Ieſuites alſo; if you do, pray deal clearly with us, and tell us ſo, and do not delude us with an unlimited and untelligible etcetera.
Secondly, The former Nonconformists did ſo fully hold that the Scripture was to be believed upon it's own authority and Teſtimony, that they all unanimouſly affirm, It is a dangerous thing not to reſt in the authority of Scripture, not to count it, foreign. But you, Jeſuite-like, for I am ſorry … cannot give it a milder term, are not afraid to ſay, The Scripture tells us not ſufficiently and particularly which Books in it ſelf are Canonical, bpart 1. p. 100. Part 2. p. 35.nor what various Readings are the right, nor whether every Text be brought to us incorrupted: So that in effect, you do reſolve the credit of the Holy Scripture, into the Truth of Church-Hiſtory; which words are ſo contrary to the true Proteſtant Doctrine, ſo derogatory from the Self-evidencing Light, and Divine Authority of the VVord of God contained in the Scripture; and ſo fully agreeing with the Doctrine of the Jeſuites in this Point, that all which you have writ (pretendedly for the Defence of the Scripture, when indeed you betray it) is not able to make any tolerable ſatisfaction.
What need I mention more, as that the Former Nonconformiſts thought there was no poſſibility of Salvation for the Papiſts, no more than for a Samaritan, or an Idolater: but you tell us, that aPart 2. p. 38.you confeſſe you affect not the Honour of that Orthodoxouſneſs. And in one of your Books, if I am not miſtaken in my Collections, you ſeem to affirm, at leaſt ſtrongly imply, that a man may be ſaved in any Religion, that lives morally, though he knows not Chriſt; which is, as Mr. Hilderſham calls it, a damnable conceit; ſince it renders the whole myſtery of Salvation by Chriſt alone, vain and ineffectual. Add to this, the Former Conformiſts ſaid, The filth of Nature cannot be ſufficiently ſpoken of; nay, no Angel can ſufficiently point out the myſtery of ſin, and filthineſs of nature. But you adviſe us, to take beed, leaſt in ſpeaking againſt the corruption of Nature, we run into Exceſs: which are the very words in Engliſh, of Andradius the Jeſuite in Latine, to whom the learned Chemnitius anſwers, as I do to you; that whoſoever thinks ſlightly of the ſilth of Natural corruption, muſt needs over-value himſelf, and undervalue the Grace of Chriſt.
I ſhall conclude with mentioning one thing more; I affirmed, that by Fleſh you had told us was only meant the ſenſitive Appetite; this you reply, is an untruth, and a meer fiction, b for you never ſaid ſo. Sir you had need have a good memory; for you have writ many Books, in which, as containing many words, there cannot want much ſin and vanity; and indeed had you meditated ſtrictly upon a quarter of what you have writ, you could not be guilty of ſo ſtrange forgetfulneſs: for in your Premonition to the Saints Reſt, you have theſe very words, Many think that by Fleſh is meant only In-dwelling ſin; when, alas! it is the ſenſitive Appetite, that it chargeth us to ſubdue; for which you quote Rom. 8.3, 4, 5. which of all the places, where the word Fleſh is named, doth … …vour your conceit: and indeed ſir, that I may confeſs a ſecret you, this very Paſſage of yours, I looked upon as ſo conceited and ſingular, and many years ago it gave me ſo great offence, that I threw away your Book upon it, and never would read it over; as not thinking it poſſible that one, who erred in the very entrance, in ſo plain a Truth, was able to inſtruct me in any thing that was worth my knowing. I believe many will think I concluded too raſhly and haſtily; but I am much confirmed in that judgement of your Book, ſince a Perſon yet living, and one worthy of credit, acquainted me, that when the learned and judicious Mr. Herle had read that cried up Book of yours, he told him, It had been happy for the Church of God if your friends had never ſent you to School. Mr. Cawdrey had the ſame opinion of it, and another perſon, as knowing in the mystery of Godlineſs as either of them, told a friend of mine, that notwithſtanding the noiſe about you, you would end in fleſh and bloud: which Propheſie, if you go on to write as you have done, will certainly be fulfilled.
I know Sir, you have very angerly promiſed me (as the Biſhop of Worceſter did you) that you will make no reply aPart. 2d. p. 145.But you are ſo apt to forget your ſelf in greater matters, and have ſuch an itch to be in print, that I will not take your word: and therefore when you write next (for I preſume you cannot be ſilent) I intreat only two things from you; Firſt, that you will be ſhort, for I am quite tired out with your tedious multitude of words, and then, that you will be ſignificant: I mean
Firſt, That you will not miſtake the thing you write about, but labour clearly to underſtand the queſtion. Do not ramble, and talk of Nature, as it is Pure, when you ſhould write about Nature corrupted. Do not diſcourſe about Free-will at large, bPart. 2d. p. 133.when you ſhould only handle Free will in the things of God: and becauſe many Profeſſors of Criſtianity are Ignorant and Injudicious, do not think that therefore you do well to call Christians, conſidered as Chriſtians ſo. Theſe are evident and apparent Sophiſmes, which abound in your laſt Treatiſe, and do diſcover that your Logick is every whit as ungrounded as your Divinity.
Secondly, Pray take a little pains to expreſſe your ſence in plain and intellegible Language; and do not love to jumble abſurd and inſignificant Phraſes together, as to ſay, cPart. 1. pag. 78.A defective, faulty, true Church: To mention dPart 1. pag. 8.A Political, Spiritual, Conſititutive Head. And do not think to excuſe your ſelf from writing of Nonſence, by ſaying you meant a thing [d]Part 1. p 36.Objectively and not Subjectively I And do not make Philoſophy Ridiculous, as you do when you tell us [e]part 1. p. 52.That our acts of knowing exteriour things are, as Philoſophers affirm, objectively organical, though not efficiently and formally. Sir I am ſure no wiſe man talks thus, and it Philoſophers do, it is time we left them, for they do not ſpeak according to the common ſenſe and reaſon of mankind, and it muſt be meerly their obſcurity that makes them conſiderable.
Laſtly, when truth is to be examined, and the Nature of a thing ſtrictly to be conſidered, doe not argue againſt it, becauſe of ſome ill conſequences, which you fancy will follow: This is a common practice of Papists, Socinians, and your beloved Friends the Arminians, whoſe ſteps you tread in, and therefore may juſtly be ſuſpected to own their doctrines, and this ill temper you have diſcovered, as in other things, ſo in particular in what you deſperately urge againſt the Scriptures being [f]part 1. p. 99, 100.a Perfect Rule; which Foundation of Faith and Practice you labour to overthrow, by Tragically inſiſting upon the conſequences that will follow, which is juſt to as much purpoſe, as if I ſhould deny the Revelation of God, concerning Himſelf, his Son, his Decrees, &c. becauſe I underſtand them not, and cannot reconcile them to that which I call reaſon; Sir, This in the end will be found perfect Folly and Madneſs, and therefore pray leave it in time, leaſt the Lord repove you, and you be found a Lyar.
I have now done, and you may ſee Sir, by this brief taſte, how eaſie it is for me to defend my ſelf throughout my whole Antidote, but I do not ſee it will be worth my while; for it is not a leſſening of your Reputation, that I mainly aim at; much leſs at the advancing of mine own upon the ruine of yours; but I thought the Truth of Chriſt was worth my vindicating: And when I ſaw that your Name did ſtand in the way of it, and that your Suffering-Brethren had their Burthen made heavier, in that your hand helped to lay it on, I thought it my duty to reprove you, and to ſet your ſin (and error herein) in order before you: And if (after all this admonition) you will ſtill go on, and under pretence of Writing for Love, doe what you can to keep up a mixed, diſorderly, perſecuting, and Imperfect Church state, leaving us no hope nor poſſibility of Reformation (unleſs it ſhall pleaſe God by ſome ſuddain and unexpected miracle to convert the whole Nation at once) I muſt then look upon you as one of our greateſt dividers and ſo much the more dangerous, as your pretenſions outwardly are the more fair and plauſible. The whole deſign therefore of this Letter, is, (as to others) to perſwade all to look upon you, not only as a Fallible, but as a Miſtaken man, whoſe Name and Authority is not fit to be urged when the appeal is made to Scripture: and likewiſe (as to your ſelf) my end is, to do what I can to recover you unto the Right Primitive Spirit of Christianity (if indeed you have as yet received it) or at leaſt to preſſe you to be looking after it; and then I am you ſure will (with us) contend earneſtly for the Faith, and ſtrive for Purity of Communion, as the only way to ſetled Peace. You will then make a vaſt difference between Ʋnavoidable Imperfections (which attend us even in your beſt and moſt commanded Duties) and unwarrantable (becauſe impos'd) Corruption, which is all at preſent that we ſeparate from; and however our Rulers may deal with us for this (who think their Laws are to be obeyed) yet we could not but let you know, that from you we deſerved better uſage; ſince you are in the ſame condemnation, and as much break the preſent Laws in ſome things, as we do in others. There is therefore one thing that I will confeſs my Error in; it was my miſcalling you Learned, Judicious, and Mortified Mr. Baxter. Sir pray pardon me this, for it is a great untruth, indeed the only one (though you take no notice of it) which you can juſtly charge me with; I will promiſe not to offend in the like kind again, but yet remain,
Sir, Ready to ſerve you in all Chriſtian Offices of Love. Edw. Bagſhaw Tuttle-ſtreet. firſt month, or March, 26, 1671.