Conference Between a Paulist and a Galatian, Title page – Errata
A Friendly Conference BETWEEN A Paulist and a Galatian, In DEFENCE of the Apostolical Doctrine OF JUSTIFICATION by FAITH without Works; Against many Specious Exceptions of the Modern GALATIANS:
WHEREIN The Question, whether the Gospel be a New Law is modestly Discussed and Determined in the Negative.
By THOMAS DANSON, Minister of the Gospel, sometime Fellow of Magd. Coll. Oxon.
—Valde sibi acuti videnter Papistae quum …llegant Operibus se Nihil tribuere, nisi mediante Christi gratiâ. Quasi verò alius fuerit Galatarum Error. Neque enim à Christo desicere se credebant, aut renuntiare ejus gratiae,
Calv. in Galat. 5.2.
London: Printed for Samuel Crouch, over against the Royal Exchange, in Cornhil. 1694.
THE EPISTLE TO THE READER.
THE Author of this Discourse, pretends not to so great a name as to expect, That his Assertions should be swallowed without chewing, embraced without examination upon his Authority: And indeed, he sees not the need of any such Pretence for such an End; for he presents the Reader but with the Doctrine of the Protestant Divines, whose name and authority (if there be any defect in its evidence) might challenge such a Veneration, as may forbid any hasty or rough opposition of what they have unanimously consented in. As to his Performance in compiling, he is aware, that not himself, but the Reader must and will be judge; and therefore to prevent the trouble of bringing a Writ of Error against his Judgment, the Author thinks it needful to give an account of the occasion of the Composure, the manner of handling the Subject, the reason of the Publication at this time, and the weight of the Controversie.
As for the Occasion; About Eighteen Years since Three Reverend Divines Mr. William Jenkyn, Mr. Christopher Fowler, and Mr. William Cowper (with whom the Author had the honour to be intimately acquainted) did often in his hearing complain, of the increase of many dangerous Errours in Doctrine, since the Year 1660. In which complaint the Author also joyned, and withal gave them an account of a Collection which he had begun out of the most noted Authors, and cast under Four Heads (viz. Socinianism, Popery, Arminianism, Hobbeism) which account they encouraged him to augment and perfect, as accordingly he did. And the Reverend Mr. Jenkyn, was so well satisfied in the fidelity of the Collector, that upon occasion of a Contest between a Divine and Himself, he Transcribed so many of the Collections as he thought meet, and published them in his Latin Book, entituled, Celeusma. And the Report of those Collections came to the Ears of the House of Commons; when there arose some Debates about Religion, about 1678 and the Chairman of the Committee for Religion, Mr. Dubeis, of London, Merchant; sent the Reverend Mr. William Cowper, for those Collections which had, the Popish Errours, Names of the Authors, and of the Licensers in one Column, and the Doctrine of the Church of England, out of the Articles and Homilies, in another Column, and the Collectors name subscribed.
When these Collections were weighed, the Committee made Report, and the House was startled at … and it was thought, the Authors …ers would have been called to … the Prorogation of the House … it.
But to return to the Triumviri after the Collection above mentioned, they p…d to the Collector another Task, … to Draw up for the Press some (a…) the Principal Arguments against the Errours contain'd in the Collection, and a concise Reply to the most specious Objections; which, as to Popery and Arminianism accordingly was done to their Content.
And what is now tender'd, is a part of what was intended for the Press long since, in compliance with their requests; had not the Authors call into the Countrey, and the death of those worthy Divines hindred his further Incouragement, without which he was as a Ship becalm'd.
As for the manner of handling the Subject; It is handled concisely, that the Reader may not be discouraged from buying by the Price, nor from reading by the Bulk, and as plainly as the nature of the Subject would bear; which is done for the Advantage of Private Christians, many of whom are concerned about the Differences in these Points.
The Author well remembers, how much sorrow and wonder that Pious and Prudent Gentleman, Henry Ashurst, of London, Esq; (now ascended to Glory) exprest, at the joyning of works with faith in our Justification, by a Divine of Note (and whom he had a great Esteem for) and there are others living, that look upon the same Divine's (and his Followers) Errour in that Point with great regret.
And that the Discourse might be more suited to the capacity of the meanest Reader, capable of understanding Controversies, the Author hath thought fit to cast the materials into the Form of a Dialogue, which method he was encouraged to, by the good reception which the worthy Divine Mr. Matthew Pool's Dialogue, and a Friendly Debate of the Authors met withal, some years since; and by the advantage which it affords to the Reader, whose attention is quickned by alternate Discourse, which is dulled by a series of close Argumentation. The Author is not ignorant of the Exception which lies against this method of handling Controversies: That the Composer gives himself an advantage, (and too often uses it) to make his Antagonist say, not what himself thinks, but what the Composer pleases: but this Author is willing to bear the shame of Disingenuity, if he be found guilty in that kind. And yet being sensible of some appearance of such guilt, he thinks himself concerned to prevent censure by an Apology once or twice (at most) he brings in the Galation, as giving the Pauline Divines contemptuous words: but they are the very same which a Divine of that Denomination gives them in Print. And now and then the Galation is represented as at a loss for an Answer; the true reason whereof is, that the Author had neither met with any writer that answers some of the Paulist Arguments, nor could he excogitate a tolerable Reply. And sometimes the Galation is introduced as inclinable to face about and embrace the Truth he had relinquished, but that fault may admit of this fair excuse; That the Paulist supposes his Antagonist so honest-hearted, as to be willing to acknowledge his Errour, when convinced of it; and to suppose him convinced who makes no reply to the Argument produced, is no more unreasonable, than that a Prisoners standing mute at the Bar should be taken for a Confession of his Guilt. And indeed the Author of this Conference hath been so far from representing his Antagonists notions by halves, that he hath explained them when they seemed obscure, and added strength to their Arguments where they seemed to need it. And the Author hath given the Titles of Paulist and Galatian to the Dialogists, because the Controversie here agitated is the same, with that between Paul and the Galatians (viz.) whether we are justified by Faith or Works, Gal. 2.16. ch. 3.11, 12. The meaning of which terms, and the difference assigned between the Controversie then on foot, and now, is considered in the following Conference.
The Author hath not named the Authors nor Books, which he writes against; and to that omission he could hardly reconcile his own thoughts. He apprehended it might seem an effect of fear, to provoke perticular Persons; and yet he considered, that supposing it was so, yet that fear was not altogether unreasonable in him, who hath been a frequent Witness of Mens Impatience of Contradiction; of their being as hot as a Taylors Goose, tho not so weighty; and that the End aimed at might be obtained otherwise; and why then should a writer court spleen, and be fond of reproaches? especially such as disparage his skill in his Profession; of which the most Pious and Learned Durham took notice, and modestly retorted: and tho unlearned and unread Divines, be the Epithets of the opposers of this Doctrine, yet possibly experience may show, that such may most readily be the Embracers of it. Expos. on Rev. 3. p. 146. and he speaks of the very Doctrine this Treatise opposes.
The End aimed at, in speaking to things not Persons is, That the Discourse here offer'd may be weighed in an even ballance (to use Jobs phrase, Job. 31.6) not poized by the hand; and this end is more likely to be obtain'd, by the course above mentioned: for the opposers of the Doctrine here defended, when they find not their own Names called in Question, may more calmly Deliberate before they pass Sentence; and their Followers (who have their Persons in admiration) may possibly be induced to consider what is said, when they know not against whom; otherwise they might indulge themselves in the Heathens humour, Facilius effecerit, quisquis objecerit, crimen honestum, quàm turpem Catonem Sen. He would rather call Vice Vertue, than Cato vicious: And they may embrace Errour for Truth, wander with their guides, rather than believe they could mistake their way.
And the Author of this Discourse hath cited but few Protestant Divines (and those such as the Dialogists might have read, or quotations out of them; because his Design is not to prove the Matter of Fact, simply by their Testimonies (which is altogether needless to those who have perused them, with any heedfulness and judgment) but by laying their Arguments and Replies, to their Opposers Objections, as close as may be together, that the Reader may pass an Impartial Judgment upon Fact and Right; that this is their Doctrine, and that it is true.
The reason of the Publication, is not the want of Authors that speak fully and clearly to the Controversie in our Native Language; as Mr. Anthony Burgesse, Mr. Samuel Rolles, Mr. John Troughton, &c. (which latter deserves Perusal, particularly for the Proof he makes, of the natural Tendency of our Antagonists Doctrine to Socinianism, &c.)
But a Compliance with the Importunity of some Friends, who have entertain'd the better Opinion of the Discourse, because they knew that the three worthy Divines before mentioned had given their Imprimatur to it, and it's no uncommon Observation, that new Books like new Fashions are most in request; but indeed, the chief Motives are, That a great deal of Matter is crowded into a little room. The Book is like the Picture of a Fight, wherein are more Heads of Men and Horses than whole Bodies; by which course, whether he hath done right or wrong to the Cause, is not for himself to say. To affirm the former, would be Immodest Pride; to affirm the latter, Proud Modesty: And that the Author is willing to enter his protest against Errours, which he does greatly dislike, and the rather, because many Divines of better Abilities (for reasons best known to themselves) are contented to be Spectators, rather than Parties in this Quarrel, in a time when these Errours spread like a Gangrene.
And now the Weight of the Controversie expects its room, in this Epistle. Some indeed of our English Protestant Divines speak slightly of it; one upon Rev. 3.1. hath this Passage: Thou hast a Name that thou livest, as being so full of Zeal for or against this Ceremony, and that Opinion, with hot and nice Disputes about Faith and Justification, and the time of these nice Disputes himself assigns (viz.) When Protestantism had become the Religion of Nations and Kingdoms; and thence we know very well (without being put to the trouble of guessing) that the Disputes were about Justification by Faith or Works, &c. Another Divine says, As far as I can see, St. Paul never meddles with a matter of that nicety; Whether a single act of Faith be the condition of our Justification, as it is distinguished from Evangelical Obedience— and a little after; I know the subtilty of later times hath made St. Paul dispute in the matter of Justification, not as one bred up at the feet of Gamaliel, but of the Mr. of the sentences.
The Author thinks it unmeet to let this latter passage pass without this brief Animadversion; That if that learned Divine intends that distinction (as probably he does) sides sola justificat, sed non quae sola, i. e. Faith alone justifies, but not that Faith which is alone. There seems to be no more subtilty in that, than in this distinction drawn from St. Paul's Doctrine, Christus qui Deus mortuus est, sed non quâ Deus. That is, Christ who is God dyed; but he died not as God, which it is to be hoped that worthy Divine approves of, notwithstanding its Subtilty. But there is a Third Divine who bears us in hand, That the common Opinion that justifying Faith, as justifying, doth consist in one single Act is a wretched mistake; and if so, then surely the mistake is of some consequence, or else his Epithite is very Hyperbolical.
But not to transgress the Laws of architecture, in making a large Porch before a little House: The Author recommends to the Readers Consideration, Mr. Durhams Sentiment of the Doctrines opposed in this Discourse.
If by this, all the former Doctrine of Justification be enervated, Where are we till now? If it stand so, as the followers thereof may attain Heaven; what is the use of this so full a mould, with so much professed danger in, and dissatisfaction with the former? Will it not be welcome to Papists to have Protestants speaking in their Termes, and hemologating them in condemning the former Language of the most Eminent Reformers, &c. Rev. 3 [pag. 146. in 4o.] and presently after he subjoynes, If under this new Model another matter is comprehended, than formerly hath been intended by other expressions, in the writings of others, it cannot be so easily approved, lest we should condemn the Generation of Gods People, who have gone before us, Id. Ib. And if their Doctrine be the same for Substance with the old Galatians, the Apostle hath passed this censure upon it, that it is another Gospel, ch. 1.6. [i. e. quite different from what he taught] yet not another, but a Perversion of the Gospel of Christ, v. 7. and hath denounced a Curse against the Teachers of it, v. 8. and learners too, ch. 54. And what Defence our Modern Galatians can make for themselves will soon appear (for the Tryal will not be long) they being now brought to the Bar) if the Reader will but take his Place on the Bench.
London, March 6. 1694. Tho. Danson.
POSTSCRIPT.
THE Author of the following Discourse thinks it meet to answer two objections; one which hath been made against the Publication of it (viz.) That the peace of the Church is not consulted thereby; to that Calvin shall return an Answer: The Purity of the Doctrine [of justification] (of that he speaks) is to be constantly maintained, though Heaven and Earth should be mingled together. The Name of Peace is Plausible, but Cursed is that Peace which is bought with the loss of the Doctrine of Christ, by which [Doctrine] alone we coalesce into an holy Unity. [Acts Ap. 15.1.] And there is another which he foresees likely to be made; that some Tenents are here confuted which their assertor hath retracted. The ground of the Allegation must be, that he once signified he would have the measure of his Judgment taken rather from other Books of his, than that out of which a Collection is here made. But that Retractation was but in general terms; and it seems evident that his Judgment was not changed, by his defence of the same notions against divers Learned men, who wrote against them; and by this Commendation of the Orthodoxness of a certain writer, in explaining those Texts that meddle with Justification, and Remission of Sins, with Faith and Works, which Explications contain the summ of the most Heterodox Opinions about these points, in that pretendedly retracted Book, and therefore are some passages quoted out of that commended Writer in the Conference now presented to the Reader; and besides if the Assertor of the Tenents above mentioned had really retracted them, unless he had imitated Chillingworths Candor (who answered his own Arguments against Protestantism in Print) it might seem needful to refute them, because there are many who still retain them, and therefore either do not believe his change of Judgment, or if they do, yet they take his Second Thoughts to be not better, but worse than his first. And indeed it is easier to thrust a Man into a deep Ditch, than to pluck him out again; to lead him into an Errour, than to draw him off from it.
T. D.
ERRATA.
P. 6. l. 5. r. pardoning. p. 7. l. 13. for Psal. r. P. p. 12. p. 25. after and r. the grand motive to it. p. 13. l. ult. blot of. p. 15. l. 26 blot cut by, and add, in the instance. p. 56. l. 13. after righteous add because. p. 29. r. score. p. 60. l. 13. after sense) r. that is. p. 19. r. Gospel. p. 65. l. 5. r. Tull. p. 67. l. 5. r. works. p. 70. l. 7. r. whereof. p. 78. l. 19. blot out is, before our. p. 80. l. 27. after ey… add, in the br…sen Serpent.