Apology for the Ministers Who Subscribed, Chapter 1 – Chapter 2
CHAP. I. Concerning the Occaſion and Deſign of the Letter.
FIrſt of all, We will conſider the Occaſion and Deſign of his Letter. And for the Occaſion of his Writing it, he ſaith, It was a Countrey Miniſters earneſt deſire of information about ſome difference amongſt Non-conformiſts in London, which was the cauſe of it: We ſuppoſe, he means the occaſional cauſe. And if this be true, we allow it for a lawful occaſion of writing a Letter of Information to his Friend and Brother in the Country, provided his Information had been true; but nothing can ever make it lawful to give falſe information to any, either in City or Countrey. Whether he hath done ſo, or not, by his Letter will appear by what follows in this Anſwer.
Next, for his deſign in writing, he ſaith, in Page 35. That, All his deſign in publiſhing that Letter, was plainly and briefly to give ſome information to ordinary plain people, who either want time, or judgment, to peruſe large and learned Tractates, about the point of Juſtification, wherein every one is equally concerned. We do not believe this to be true, yea we think it is not true: For ſurely it was part of his deſign to give a fuller information to his Brother in the Countrey, who being, as he ſaith, a Miniſter, we preſume he is none of the plain ordinary people, who want time, and judgment, to peruſe large, and learned Tractates, &c.
We do not think, that he firſt ſent the whole Manuſcript in a private Letter, into the Country, to inform a Miniſter; and afterwards printed it, to inform the People, that want time and judgment: But that if he did really write a Letter into the Countrey, it was but a ſmall part, it may be ſome of the Heads of it; See Lett. p. 27.and then publiſhed the whole with a deſign to inform, and to alarum too, both Miniſters and People in City and Countrey.
And whether this be ſo, or not, yet we cannot believe that All his deſign in publiſhing his Letter, was plainly, and briefly to give ſome Information to the People about the point of Juſtification. For he plainly manifeſts, throughout his Letter, that a part of his deſign in writing, was to vindicate himſelf, and ſome of his Party, from the ſuſpicion of Antinomianiſm, and to load other Miniſters, who differ from him in ſome things, with the odious charge of Arminianiſm and Pelagianiſm; and to warn the People, upon their peril, to have a care of ſuch Miniſters (as preach the neceſſity of Repentance in order to pardon of ſin,) that they be not corrupted by them, in moſt Fundamental points of Religion. Let any body, of common underſtanding, but read Pages 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 9, 10, 13, 15, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 30. of the Letter, and he cannot but ſee, that the main deſign of the Writer was to clear himſelf, and his Party, of the ſuſpicion of Antinomianiſm, and to bring the other Miniſters, who are not of their mind in all things, under the ſuſpicion of Arminianiſm and Pelagianiſm. This ſeems plainly to have been his principal deſign; and therefore he knows well enough, that it is not true, That all his deſign in publiſhing his Letter, was to inform ordinary plain People, about the point of Juſtification.
If he will yet ſay that it was All his deſign in publiſhing his Letter to inform the People that want Judgment to peruſe learned Tractates, we hope no body, that do not love to be deceived, will believe him. But, if any ſhould believe him, we would ask them; was not he then a wiſe Informer of the injudicious People, See Let. p. 6.to tell them of the matter and form of Juſtification; and that it is the believing Chriſts Righteouſneſs to be the matter, and not only the meritorious cauſe; and the imputation of it to be the form of Juſtification, which differenceth us from the Papiſts, who own the reſt of our Doctrine in the point of Juſtification, (as the ſimple People muſt be made to believe,) but err in their notions about the matter and form of it?
Further, we ask, Was he not a wiſe Informer of the ignorant People, to tell them, Page 13, That God bleſſed England with a Bradwardine, ſince a popiſh Prieſt can demonſtrate before any indifferent Perſons of underſtanding in thoſe matters, that Bradwardine was of the popiſh opinion, both as to matter and form, of Juſtification, and that he was a downright Papiſt in that point; and held Juſtification, not by Chriſts imputed righteouſneſs, but, by infuſed grace and inherent holyneſs; as ſhall be hereafter manifeſted from his own expreſs Words.
A wiſe Informer indeed of the injudicious People, to tell them of a Bradwardine, who was ſo ſubtil, ſo Metaphyſical, and Mathematical in his way of Writing, that he was commonly called The profound Doctor; and to tell them too, that he was a bleſſing to England, who held Juſtification by inherent Righteouſneſs: And yet at the ſame time to tell them, that it is a moſt dangerous, damnable errour, inconſiſtent with the Glory of Gods Free Grace in Juſtification, and deſtructive to the Souls of Men, to believe that which Bradwardine believed, and profeſſed; or to differ from him, Owen of Juſtification, pag. 291, 292.and his Party, in a matter far leſs than that, even about the form of Juſtification, which Dr. Owen confeſſeth hath no formal cauſe at all; but ſomething in ſtead of it.
But, it may be, ſome will ſay, that he had no deſign at all, in publiſhing thoſe parts of his Letter, but that they dropt from his Pen by meer accident. If any ſhould thus Apologize for him; there needs no more to confure them, but to turn to, and read Pag. 6. Lin. 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8. of his Letter, and Pag. 13. throughout: For there it is, as clear as the Light at Noon-day, that his deſign in publiſhing thoſe parts of his Letter was to bring us under the ſuſpicion of Popery, Arminianiſm, and Pelagianiſm, that we agree with the Papiſts, and they with us, in the point of Juſtification; and that both in that, and other points, we are Arminians, and Pelagians; and that in all we are Corrupters of the Goſpel in the main points of it, in the points of neceſſary ſaving Faith; and that we have Twiſs and Ames againſt us, and not them onelyonly, but we have Doctorem profundum, the proſound Doctor Bradwardine for our Adverſary, even that Doctor, who prayed to God in theſe Words, Exurge, Domine, Judiea cauſam tuam, & ſuſtinentem te ſuſtine, &c. Ariſe, O Lord, Judge thine own cauſe, and uphold me, who uphold thee, &c. You may ſee, who we are told, is againſt us, not an ordinary Doctor, but a Doctor that upheld and ſuſtained the Lord himſelf; or elſe he put up a very proud, blaſphemous Prayer to God. Yet, he ſaith, Praeſationis Thom… de Bradwardina, Chancellarii Lond. &c. p. 2, 3.it was ſo far accepted, that thereupon he fell aſleep, and in a Dream was carried up into the Air, where he met with Pelagius, fought him, threw him down to the Earth, and broke his Neck.
We need ſay no more, to prove that it was part of the Writer of the Letters deſign, to inform his Friend, the Countrey Miniſter, and other Miniſters likewiſe, that we are leavened with Popery, that we are Arminians and Pelagians; and that as we have Twiſs and Ames, ſo we have the profound Bradwardine againſt us: And therefore it muſt be an untruth, That All his deſign, in publiſhing his Letter, was to give ſome information unto the injudicious People, about the point of Juſtification.
That it was a part of his deſign to inform the injudicious People, we do not deny, and how judiciouſly he hath done it, let them that can, judge; but that that was all his deſign, we have ſhewed reaſon why we cannot believe. We doubt not but he deſigned, Populo ut placerent, quas feciſſet fabulas, to gratifie thoſe People, who are diſaffected to us, with his ſtories of our being Arminians▪ Pelagians, and Corrupters of the pure Goſpel of Chriſt and of the Doctrine of Gods Free Grace in the Juſtification of Sinners by Faith in Chriſts Blood. Now whether this was an honeſt deſign or not, we ſhall refer to the judgment and conſcience of all unbyaſſed, unprejudiced Perſons after they have heard and conſidered what we have ſaid for our ſelves.
We think it is ſelf-evident alſo from his Letter, that it was a part of his deſign to clear himſelf, and his Party, from the ſuſpicion of Antinomianiſm and Libertiniſm. See Pag. 3, 4, 5. of the Letter, where at the end of the 4… Page, in the name of his Party, he conſidently proteſts before God, Angels, and Men, that they eſpouſe no new Doctrine about the Grace of God and Juſti…cation, and the other coincident points, but what the Reformers, at home and abroad; did reach, and all the Reformed Churches do own. And in pag. 5. gives in, a brief Summ of their Doctrine; after which, at the end of the page, he asks theſe Queſtions, What is there in all this to be offended with? Is not this enough to vindicate our Doctrine from any tendency to Licentiouſneſs? And pag 39. theſe are his own expreſs Words, But how unjuſtly this hateful Name (Antinomian) is charged upon the Orthodox, Preachers, and ſincere Believers of the Proteſtant Doctrine of Juſtification by Faith only — is the deſign of this Paper to diſcover. Now that ſolemn proteſtation aforeſaid, that Sum of their Doctrine, thoſe Expoſtulatory Demands thereupon, together with his own Confeſſion in formal expreſs words, do manifeſtly ſhew, that a part of his deſign was to clear himſelf and his Party, from the ſuſpicion of Antinomianiſm and Libertiniſm. And we heartily wiſh, that he had no worſe deſign than this: For we freely acknowledge, that any perſon, or party, who find themſelves unjuſtly ſuſpected of, and charged with horrid crimes, whereof they know themſelves not to be guilty, may, and ought to clear themſelves the beſt way they can; and if they cannot do it by Word, they may very honeſtly do it by Writing: provided that in clearing themſelves, they do not falſely accuſe others, and ſo fall into the ſame fault, which they blame others for, which if they do, aſſuredly they take wrong meaſures; for all conſidering Men will be apt to ſuſpect them more than ever of Libertiniſm, when they plainly ſee that they run themſelves into Libertine practices, in order to clear themſelves of Libertine principles.
But after all he hath ſaid of his Party, their being falſely accuſed of Antinomianiſm, and that they could no longer be ſilent, Let. pag. 10.but muſt ſpeak and write in their own defence, and in defence of the Goſpel; we are at a loſs to know, who they are that ſo accuſed them. We can find no ſuch thing in Mr. Williams Book, nay we find that in it, which clears the chief of them of the charge of Antinomianiſm. At the beginning of the Digreſſion, Concerning the neceſſity of Repentance to forgiveneſs of Sin, pag. 113. theſe are Mr. Williams Words [My buſineſs in this Digreſſion is with Men of more Orthodox Principles,] to wit, than the Antinomians. There is one whom we know, as well as any Man in the World, to whom Mr. Williams ſaid, before his Book was all printed off, This is ſaid with reſpect to Mr. Cole, him I mean, and here I endeavour to ſtate, and make up the difference between him and Dr. Bates. Hereupon that Miniſter looked into the Digreſſion, and read ſome part of it, which he liked ſo well, as thinking it might be very uſeful both to conſirm Truth, and alſo to maintain Peace and Love among. Brethren, that it was to him one motive (amongſt others) which induced him to ſubſcribe unto the ſtating of the truths and errours in Mr. Williams Book. This we know to be true, we know it as certainly, as any other thing in the World; and we mention it to ſhow, that we did not ſuſpect that Party, (as our Authour hath been pleaſed to diſtinguiſh them) much leſs did we accuſe them of real Antinomianiſm. So far were we from it, that we were heartily glad to find that our Reverend Brother had expreſly owned them to be Men of more Orthodox Principles than the Antinomians: againſt whom, and no other, that Book was written.
How comes it then to be ſo often aſſerted, or inſinuated, throughout the Letter, that we falſely accuſe them, See p. 26.and charge them with Antinomianiſm, and put them upon a neceſſary ſelf-defence? We think we are wronged in this matter, and muſt think ſo, till we ſee better, proof than the bare word of this Authour. Or if any of us had really been ſo unjuſt and uncharitable, as to accuſe their whole Party of Antinomianiſm, did that warrant this Brother falſely to Recriminate as he hath done, and to charge us, eſpecially our younger Brethren with Arminianiſm and Pelagianiſm? Where did he learn ſuch Morals? Sure we are, not in the School of Chriſt: For Chriſt hath taught us all, not to render evil for evil. This we ſay upon ſuppoſition that ſome of us had, ſometime or other, done him wrong in this matter; which is unknown to us.
But if there was no ſuch provocation given, then this Authour was the more to blame, to fancy, or feign, that we had accuſed his Party of Antinomianiſm, that from thence he might take an occaſion, to accuſe us of Arminianiſm and Pelagianiſm. As for what any of us have, at any time, ſpoken or written againſt the Antinomian Tenents in Dr. Criſps, or ſuch Books, we thought it did not at all concern them, as being Men of more Orthodox Principles. Tho' we could not be ignorant, that there was ſome little difference of Judgment between ſome of them, and us in ſome things, yet we did not think, nor ſay, that that difference amounted to Antinomianiſm on their ſide; nor could we have ever thought (till the Letter informed us) they would have ſaid, that it amounted to Arminianiſm and Pelagianiſm on our ſide. But now we find we are miſtaken, for they have made us know that they had not ſo good an opinion of us, as we had of them. Yet we had rather be miſtaken in this, than in the other, that is, we had rather they ſhould, without cauſe, think us to be Arminians and Pelagians; than that ever we ſhould have juſt cauſe to conclude any of them to be indeed Antinomians. They tell the World, by the Authour of the Letter, that they have been ſuſpected. And we are afraid the late Writings of ſome of them, will increaſe the ſuſpicion: But what ever ſuſpicious Thoughts may be thereby raiſed in the minds of many; we will endeavour to hinder ſuch Thoughts from ſetling in our own Minds, and ſtill have the beſt opinion we can of our Brethren, till we ſee further what the iſſue will be. We do not then now account that Party to be really Antinomian (whatever Mens Thoughts may be of ſome particular perſons amongſt them,) and we hope, and wiſh we may never have cauſe ſo to do. The Authour of the Letter, in their name, hath moſt ſolemnly proteſted, that they are not Antinomians, and we do believe it, not ſo much becauſe he ſays it, as becauſe we have other evidence to ground our belief upon. For we have known very worthy Men of thoſe who were formerly called Congregational, that have been, as much againſt Antinomian errours, as we our ſelves are. Such there are at this day, and ſuch we doubt not there will be, when we are dead, and gathered to our Fathers. If then, by his Party, our Authour mean the Reverend Brethren of that Perſwaſion aforeſaid, we neither did, nor do ſuſpect them as ſuch. But, for all that, we are ſorry, that ſome, who have made themſelves of a Party, ſhould have alſo made themſelves to be ſuſpected at leaſt of favouring Antinomianiſm. This is the caſe of the Authour of the Letter, who raiſed ſuch a ſuſpicion in the minds of ſome that truly loved him, by recommending Dr. Criſps Book (as Mr. Williams ſays in his late Preface, and we know it to be true) and by lending it to one, without giving the leaſt caution againſt any of the errours in it. His own Conſcience knows this to be true. And this might very probably raiſe a ſuſpicion of him in particular. And we think lie was concerned to have cleared himſelf, and expected that in his Letter he would have done it, by diſowning ſome of the Doctrinal errours in the ſaid Booke. But we are diſappointed, for there we do not find that he hath ſo clearly diſowned any of the Doctrinal errours in that Book, as that the People who want judgment (as his expreſſion is) can diſcern, that he hath done it. This we ſhall endeavour to make out from ſeveral paſſages in the Letter it ſelf. As,
1. In Page 10. All that he ſaith againſt that Book is this. There are many Expreſſions in it that we generally diſlike. Now this he might ſafely ſay, and yet not diſown any, but in his heart believe every Doctrinal point in it.
There are many precious Truths ill expreſſed by ſome very Orthodox Divines; and in ſuch a caſe, we may well ſay that we diſlike the way of expreſſion, tho' we dearly love the Truth ſo expreſſed. We find that the Reverend and pious Mr. Rutherford in a Faſt Sermon, preached before the Houſe of Commons in the Year 1643. on Dan. 6.26. ſaith, Page 32.That the Antinomian is the Golden white Devil, a Spirit of Hell cloathed with all Heaven, and the Notions of Free Grace. It ſeems the Devil of Antinomianiſm did not appear white enough to our Authour in Dr. Criſps Book; but what if he had appeared in a better and whiter Dreſs, what if the Antinomianiſm had been better expreſſed, how would the Authour of the Letter have liked it then? Truly for any thing he hath here ſaid to the contrary, he might have liked it well enough.
It is true, in the end of that Paragraph he ſays, That Error is often, and unhappily, oppoſed by Error under Truths name. And we confeſs he may poſſibly apply one part of that paſſage unto Dr. Criſps Book, and we would hope that he thereby meant, that indeed there are Errours in Dr. Criſps Book; but withal we muſt ſay, that ſuch an acknowledgment of Errour to be in that Book, is too obſcure to be diſcerned by the ordinary people that want judgment, and for whoſe uſe (he ſaith) he wrote his Book; and that becauſe it is a general expreſſion, which is true enough in it ſelf, without reſpect to Dr. Criſps Book, and whether it be applied thereunto or not.
2. In Page 26. he ſayes, We justly complain that in their oppoſing of true Antinomian Errours, and particularly the alledged Tenents of Dr. Criſp, they hint that there is a Party of, &c. Now, pray mark how warily he expreſſeth himſelf, and how tender he ſeems to be of the credit of that Book. He doth not ſay, (true Antinomian Errors, and particularly the Tenents of Dr. Criſp;) for then indeed he had plainly confeſſed, that there are true Antinomian Errours in the Book; but he only ſaith, [the alledged Tenents of that Doctor] by which Word [Alledged] he may make ſome People believe, that he never meant there were any true Antinomian Errours in that Drs. Book; but that true Antinomian Errours are alledged out of it by Mr. Williams and others, and that very wrongfully, as Mr. Chancey pretends.
3. In Page 24. he ſays, It is not yet called in queſtion by any, but that there is a decreed Juſtification from Eternity. Here may be another Juggle, for theſe words (there is a decreed Juſtification from Eternity) are capable of the Antinomian ſenſe, nay more, they are not fairly capable of any other ſenſe, to underſtand them properly: For a decreed Juſtification, is not the Decree it ſelf, but the object or effect of the Decree.
The Decree it ſelf, is from Eternity, but the object and effect of the Decree is in time, as Dr. Twiſs tells us; and even common ſenſe and reaſon may aſſure us of it. For the Decree being from Eternity, and the object and effect of the Decree being after the Decree, it cannot be from Eternity too, and if it be not from Eternity, it muſt be in time. And yet the Letter ſaith, that a decreed Juſtification (though it be the object or effect of the Decree) is from Eternity; which is the very Errour of the Antinomians, who ignorantly confound the object and effect of the Decree with the Decree it ſelf.
We are ſure the Words of the Letter, bear this ſenſe; yet we will not poſitively affirm that he meant them in this ſenſe, becauſe we would hope, though he hath ſaid expreſly that there is a decreed Juſtification from Eternity; that yet he onelyonly meant, and would have ſaid that there is a Decree of Juſtification from Eternity. If any now ſhould object on his behalf, and ſay, the that foreſaid words not only may, but muſt be underſtood of the Eternity of the Decree it ſelf, and cannot be underſtood of the Eternity of the decreed Juſtification, which is the effect of the Decree; becauſe of the diſtinction which follows, of a virtual and actual Juſtification: We can eaſily anſwer that if we our ſelves were true Antinomians, and durſt ſo far diſſemble, as ſometimes to ſeem not to be Antinomians, we could make the opinion of Juſtifications actual exiſtence from Eternity, conſiſt well enough with the diſtinction of vertual and actual Juſtification, mentioned in the Letter. For we would underſtand it with reſpect to manifeſtation Thus,
1. Juſtification, which actually exiſted from Eternity, was virtually manifeſted in, and by the Death, and Reſurrection of Chriſt.
2. It is actually manifeſted, and is actual in manifeſtation, when we lay hold on, and plead Redemption in Chriſts Blood by Faith.
And thus by a different uſe of Words, a Man void of the fear of God, might juggle, and at different times, and upon different occaſions might pleaſe two contrary Parties, and make them both believe that he were of their Judgment. We do not ſay, that our Authour doth ſo, only we wiſh, that he had not expreſſed himſelf ſo ambiguouſly, but that with more plainneſs, and ſimplicity, he had declared himſelf againſt thoſe Antinomian Errours. Thus he had effectually removed all grounds of ſuſpecting him any more, whereas, as he hath carried the matter in general doubtful expreſſions (it may be to avoid the diſpleaſure of ſome of his good Friends,) inſtead of fully clearing himſelf, he hath left ground to ſuſpect him ſtill, that if he be not a real Antinomian, he is at leaſt a Favourer of them, and one that would keep up his Intereſt amongſt them; and therefore in ſpeaking of Dr. Criſps Book, all that he ſayes is, that he likes not his way of expreſſing himſelf, and that there are true Antinomian Errours alledged out of it, but not that there are any really in it; as alſo he grants to the Antinomians, that there is a decreed Juſtification from Eternity, which is as much as they deſire: for decreed Juſtification is diſtinct from, and is the object and effect of the Decree: And ſo if Juſtification, as it is the object and effect of the Decree, be from Eternity; then the Antinomians and he are agreed in that matter, and both of them hold that not onelyonly the Decree of Juſtification (as of all other things) is from Eternity, but that Juſtification it ſelf is from Eternity. We do not ſee how Men of their Principles, can gather any other ſence from his Words: But whether he uſed ſuch Words on purpoſe to make them conceive good hopes of him, we ſhall neither affirm nor deny, but leave it to his own Conſcience. And as the Antinomians may hope well of him, ſo will we too, but not in their way; we will hope, that he is not for the Antinomians, but for the Truth, and for us, notwithſtanding his Ambiguous Expreſſions.
Now we have ſeen how well he hath cleared himſelf of the ſuſpicion of Antinomianiſm, which he brought upon himſelf by his own Act and Deed. Let us next ſee how he hath cleared his Party.
We have declared already that we did not ſuſpect them, much leſs accuſe them of real Antinomianiſm, and ſo they needed no clearing with reſpect to us: Yet ſince the Authour of the Letter hath told the World, that they were both ſuſpected and accuſed, and ſince he hath undertaken to vindicate them, and to clear up their innocency, let us ſee how well he hath behaved himſelf in this matter. And for this let us look into the Third Page of the Letter, where he thus writes, As to the Party ſuſpected of Antinomianiſm and Libertiniſm (in this City,) it is plain that the Churches wherein they are concerned, are more ſtrict and exact in trying of them that offer themſelves to their Communion, as to their Faith and Holineſs before their admitting them; in the engagements laid on them to a Goſpel-walking at their admiſſion, and in their inſpection over them afterwards. As to their Converſations, they are generally of the more regular and exact frame. Is it not unaccountable to charge a People with Licentionſneſs, when the Chargers cannot deny, and ſome cannot well bear the ſtrictneſs of their walk? Then to confirm the Argument from the more than ordinary Holineſs of their Lives, he ſays that they ſincerely profeſs that their godlineſs begun with, and is promoted by the Faith of their Principles: Here we have him pleading for his Party, that he hath lately aſſociated himſelf unto, by an Argument that reflects on his old Friends, and caſts Dirt on all the Presbyterians throughout the World. For the plain Engliſh of it is this, we and our Party are more Godly than you, our Churches are better conſtituted than yours, we are alſo more holy in our Lives than you, and this our Godlineſs and Holineſs begun with the Faith of our Principles; therefore it is an unaccountable thing to charge any of us with Antinomianiſm. Now though we do not charge them, yet ſince they are by ſome body charged with it, or elſe this Authour tells a great untruth; we ſhould be glad to ſee them better cleared than they are by this Argument: For that upon which the ſtrength of this Argument depends is begged, and not proved.
1. It is taken for granted, yea it is plainly enough aſſerted, that their Churches are better constituted, than ours, or than all the Presbyterian Churches throughout the World. And yet he knows that this is a thing in queſtion, and that the controverſie about it, is not yet decided; yea that moſt (we think) of both Perſwaſions in England, have agreed to leave it undecided, as it was; and have agreed unto an Union without the deciſion of it. We wiſh therefore that this had not been mentioned, but ſince he hath mentioned it, and laid ſtreſs upon it; we muſt refer him unto one, of whom he hath heard, and for whom, we hope, he hath yet ſome honourable eſteem, and that is the Reverend Mr. Wood againſt Mr. Lockyer. Let him weigh well his Arguments from Page 127. to Page 168. and look forward into the Appendix, if he pleaſe. Let him conſider alſo what the …iſe and peaceable Mr. Durham ſaith of Mr. Wood, with reſpect to thoſe very Arguments, in his Treatiſe of Scandal, London Edition, 1659. Page 92. The Reverend and moſt Convincing Writer Mr. Wood, &c. If thoſe Arguments do not convince our Authour, we leave him to pleaſe himſelf a while with his new choſen Opinion; but we cannot allow it to be a good Medium whereby to vindicate him, and his Party, from the ſuppoſed charge of Antinomianiſm.
2. He takes it for granted, nay he poſitively affirms, that his Party are generally more holy in their Lives. This is a very friendly Teſtimony; our Authour may poſſibly think, that he hath deſerved well of them by this: But we ſhould think them to be wiſer Men, than to eſteem him ever the better Man for ſuch a flattering like commendation of them. If an Enemy had done it, or if one leſs concerned had ſaid ſo, it would have carryed in it a better grace, and would have looked upon them with a better aſpect. For our parts, we know who it was that ſaid, God I thank thee, that I am not as other men are, &c. and we deſire not, to imitate ſuch; but chooſe rather to ſay with the deſpiſed Publican, God be merciful to us Sinners, Luke 18.13.
3. He takes it for granted, that Mens appearing for a time more holy than others, is ſufficient to ſecure them from falling under the juſt ſuſpicion, or real guilt of groſs and dangerous Errours. We cannot be of his mind in this;
1. Becauſe we read in Hiſtory and Antient Writers, That Tertullian and Origen in the Primitive Church were Men of extraordinary Parts, See Vincentius Lyrinenſis againſt Hereſies, from Chap. 23 10.25. Edit. Oxon. 1631.and exemplary Piety, (as appeared both by their Labours, and their Lives, in Times of great Perſecution,) yet they both fell into ſome groſs and dangerous Errours.
2. Becauſe in the Preface to Mr. Weldes Book of the Riſe, &c. of Antinomians in New England, Pag. 3, 4, 5. we read, That at firſt They would appear very humble, holy, and ſpiritual Christians, and full of Chriſt; they would deny themſelves far, ſpeak …xcellently, pray with ſuch ſoul-raviſhing Expreſſions and Affections, that a Stranger who loved goodneſs, could not but love and admire them, and ſo be the more eaſily drawn after them, looking upon them as Men and Women as likely to know the Seerets of Chriſt, and Boſom Counſels of his Spirit, as any other. And this opinion of them was the more lifted up through the ſimplicity and weakneſs of their Followers, who would in admiration of them, tell others, that ſince the Apostles times, they were perſwaded, none ever received ſo much light from God, as ſuch and ſuch had done, naming their Leaders.
4. As they would lift up themſelves, ſo alſo their Opinions by gilding them over with ſpecious terms of Free Grace, Glorious Light, Goſpel-Truths, as holding forth naked Christ: And this took much with ſimple honest Hearts, that loved Christ, eſpecially with new Converts, who were lately in bondage under Sin and Weath, and had new tasted the ſweetneſs of Free Grace; being now in their first love to Christ, they were exceeding glad to embrace any thing that might further advance Christ and Free Grace; and ſo drank them in (that is their Errours) readily.
5. See there their 5th. Sleight to ſpread their Opinions. And,
6. Mr. Welde ſays, They commonly laboured to work first upon Women — if once they could winde them in, they hoped by them, as by an Eve, to catch their Husbands alſo.
Whether our Authour deſigned to imitate them when he lent Dr. Criſps Book to, &c. he knows beſt himſelf; we know nothing of his ſecret deſigns, but if he had any ſuch deſign, we are heartily glad he miſſed his mark, and deſire to bleſs God, that that worthy Perſon was ſo well ſtabliſhed in the Principles of pure Chriſtianity, as not to be moved, unleſs it were to an holy Indignation at ſome things in the foreſaid Book.
7. Mr. Weld ſays, That aſſoon as they had thus wrought in themſelves, and a good conceit of their Opinions, by all theſe ways of ſubtilty, into the Hearts of People; Nextly they strongly endeavoured with all the craft they could, to undermine the good Opinion of their Ministers, and their Doctrine, and to work them clean out of their Affections, telling them they were ſorry that their Teachers had ſo miſled them, and trained them up under a Covenant of Works, and that themſelves never having been taught of God, it is no wonder they did no better teach them the Truth, and how they might ſit till Dooms day under their Legal Sermons, and never ſee light. Our Authour ſeems to have out-done thoſe Seducers in this black Art; for in the 32d. Page of his Letter, he ſayes that the Divines, who differ from him, do plead that ſame cauſe, which the Devil pleads dayly in the hearts of all natural men.
We are weary of tranſcribing, let any, who would ſee further into this Myſtery of Iniquity, conſult the Book it ſelf, which is lately Reprinted: But we have made uſe of the firſt Edition. Here our Authour may ſee the force of his Argument, taken from the appearing holineſs of his Party. For our Parts, we do not preſume to cenſure his Party, we judge well of all Men, till we ſee good reaſon to alter our Judgment; and had much rather be ſevere in our Judgments upon our ſelves, than upon others: Nor do we more fear that the Congregational Churches in Old England will turn Antinomian, than they did in New England. There they oppoſed Antinomianiſm, and teſtified againſt it, and we hope they will do the like here. But we cannot but think, that what hath been once, may poſſibly be again, and as ſome, that were of our Brethrens Perſwaſion there, fell fouly into groſs Antinomianiſm, after they had for a time made an high Profeſſion, and great ſhow of more than ordinary Holineſs; ſo may they do here: And therefore our Authours Argument from his Parties being (as he ſays) more holy than ours, is not (we judge) ſufficient to clear them of all ſuſpicion of inclining that way.
If any, in favour to us, ſhould take the ſame Argument, (for it is a Leaden Dagger, and may be bended which way Men will,) and apply it to our Party, (as our Authour is pleaſed to diſtinguiſh us,) and go about to prove thereby that we can be in no danger of falling into Antinomianiſm, or Pelagianiſm, or any other Hereſie, nor can there be any ground to ſuſpect us, becauſe we are holier than our Brethren on the other ſide, or than any other people in England; we ſhould never thank him for his pains, but rather rebuke him for his Flattery; and adviſe him to forbear putting Fallacies and Tricks upon the people in favour of us. We think there is none of us all, on one ſide or other, how holy ſoever; but might fall for a time into as groſs Errours, as Antinomianiſm, if the Lord (to try us) ſhould leave us to our ſelves, and the Tentations of Satan, transforming himſelf into an Angel of Light; Wherefore let him that thinketh he ſtandeth, take heed leaſt he fall. 1 Cor. 10.12. Rom. 11.20.And thou ſtandest by Faith, be not high-minded, but fear. We receive this advice from the Lord, and apply it to our ſelves; and we would hope that our Authour, and his Party, will do the like.
And we think they have one reaſon ſo to do, that is proper and peculiar to themſelves, if they duly lay to heart how Mr. D. who went out from them, is turned aſide from the Truth, and is drawing Diſciples after him into Antinomianiſm. We need ſay no more to ſhew that this part of the Vindication of his Conſorts is inſufficient to attain its end, if his end really was to vindicate them, and not rather to commend himſelf to them by commending them to the World, as the holieſt People in England. If in other parts of his Vindication, he hath had better ſucceſs, and hath done them better ſervice, we are glad of it; for we would really have them well vindicated, if they be (as he ſaith they are) ſuſpected and accuſed. We verily believe, there are good ſerious People amongſt them, that ſincerely fear God, ſuch we honour and love: And wiſh that theirs and ours were all ſuch. And where the Churches are ſaid to be ſo holy, we ſhould be glad to find that all the Miniſters were as holy, and that the Holineſs of ſome of them did more appear than it doth in our Authours Letter, or in the late Writings of ſome others. If we ſhould follow the example they have given us, in our way of Writing, we think we ſhould have no great cauſe to tell the World of our Holineſs. The God of all Grace, through Chriſt Jeſus, grant that the great and precious promiſes of the Goſpel may have a better effect upon us all, and make us more careful, and ſtudious to cleanſe our ſelves from all filthineſs of the Fleſh and Spirit, perfecting Holineſs in the fear of God, 2 Cor. 7.1.
We have but one thing more to ſay on this part of our Authours Vindication, and that is, Whereas he ſays pag. 3. That his Party profeſs ſincerely that their godlineſs begun with the Faith of their Principles: We demand what Principles he means whether the Principles of Chriſtian Religion which are common to them and us, with the other Reformed Churches, or certain Principles proper and peculiar to them, as a Party diſtinct from the reſt? If the firſt, we have nothing to gain-ſay to it; for we our ſelves do, with all our hearts, acknowledge that all the Godlineſs wherewith the Lord hath bleſſed us, did partly begin in, and partly proceed from the lively effectual Faith of the ſame common Principles of Chriſtian Religion. But if our Authour mean the ſecond, to wit, That the Godlineſs of his Party begun with the Faith of certain Principles proper and peculiar to them, as a Party diſtinct from all other Societies of Chriſtians; we can by no means approve of their profeſſion in that matter. Indeed we have a better opinion of our Brethren, than to believe that they ever made any ſuch profeſſion; and we cannot think, that our Authour would ever ſincerely, and heartily join with them in it, and ſo proclaim himſelf to have been an Hypocrite till of late, that he joined himſelf, in full Communion, with them. For we read in Nethenus his Preface to Mr. Rutherford's Examen Arminianiſmi, that he was accounted a pious, godly Young Man, in the Year 1668. when he aſſiſted the ſaid Nethenus in the publiſhing of that Book of Rutherford. And though he hath lately gone off from his Principles, and we think from ſome Principles contained in that Book, both as to Doctrine and Diſcipline; yet we do not believe that he will even acknowledge that he hath changed his Godlineſs with his Principles, and that as he hath got new Principles, ſo he hath a new Godlineſs, and that he never had any before. If we ſhould be miſtaken in this our charitable opinion of him, we ſhould be ſorry for him, and could not but fear that he is in as bad a caſe, as he fancies the middle-way Men to be in, who uſually have a greater kindneſs (he ſays) for that extream they go half way to, Let. pag. 2.than for that they go half way from. For if he ſhould be found to have made ſuch a Profeſſion, that his Godlineſs begun with the Faith of his new Principles; he is not onelyonly gone the half, but (we think) the whole way to the extreme. And that (if it ſhould be ſo) will help us to account for his being ſo unmerciful in his cenſures, and accuſations of us, who had rather ſtop in the mid-way than to run with him into ſuch extremes.
This puts us in mind of a paſſage in Mr. Patrick Hamilton's little Treatiſe, in the Book of Martyrs, Vol. II. pag. 188. Col. 2. to which the Letter refers us, Pag. 4.and which we have read, upon our Authours recommendation. The paſſage is this, [Evil Works make not a Man evil] We hope our Authour would not have us to underſtand theſe words juſt as they ſound, without interpretation, or diſtinction. We honour the Memory of that bleſſed Martyr of Chriſt, and are willing to underſtand his words juſt as he meant them, and as they are conſiſtent with the Truth of God; and that is thus. Evil works do not make a Man firſt evil, becauſe we are all evil by participation of the ſin of our firſt Parents from our Conception and Birth, Pſal. 51.5. John 3.6. Eph. 2.3. But for all that, we know very well, that in another ſenſe, evil works do really make a Man evil, they make him gradually evil, that is, they make him worſe than he was. If our Authour do not ſee the Truth of this at a diſtance, let him bring it home to himſelf, and then we dare ſay, he will ſee the Truth of what we affirm, That evil works will make a Man evil, that is, worſe than he was. For if not, then (1.) it muſt be either becauſe he is ſo very bad already, that he cannot poſſibly be worſe, and this, we hope, our Authour will confeſs not to be true of himſelf; or elſe (2) it muſt be, becauſe he is already ſo very good, that let him do never ſo many evil works, they cannot make him evil, that is, they cannot make him worſe than he was before he did them. Now we cannot think that he hath ſuch an Opinion of himſelf: If we knew that he had, we ſhould look upon him as a very dangerous Man to have any thing to do with; for he might do us all the miſchief he could by lying and ſlandering, or otherwiſe, and yet be perſwaded in his own mind, that he was never a whit the worſe for ſo doing. He and we both profeſs to believe that all Gods Regenerate, Juſtified people are kept by the power of God through Faith unto Salvation, ſo as that they do not fall from Grace, either totally, or finally.
But we muſt profeſs for our ſelves, that it is none of our faith, that the Saints on Earth are already ſo confirmed in Goodneſs, that they cannot ſin at all, or if they do ſin, (as alas too ſadly they have done, and frequently do!) that their ſins do not make them evil in any degree, nor in the leaſt, worſe than they were, before they ſinned. And we hope our Authour is not ſo far gone, but that he will yet join with us in this profeſſion. For by this time (we think) he may ſee (if he did not before) the certain and evident truth of what we affirm, that evil works will make a Man evil; that is, if he be evil already, they will make him more evil, and if he be good already, they will make him leſs good, and to be leſs good than he ſhould be, is to be in ſome degree evil. See the XVIth Article of the Church of England, which our Authour, and we have all ſubſcribed; as alſo the IIth. Article of the Ausburg Confeſſion of Faith, and by both it will manifeſtly appear, that our firſt Reformers, even the Lutherans (by whom Mr. Hamilton, through the Grace of God, was fully converted from popery, and from whom he had that paſſage, that evil works do not make a Man evil) never thought that a good Man cannot do any evil works, or that if any Man, good or evil, do evil Works, they will not make him evil, that is, worſe than he was before he did them. In all this we do not in the leaſt contradict the true ſenſe of the bleſſed Martyr Mr. Hamilton, but explain his Words, and give the true ſenſe of them, as will appear to any Man of Judgment, that will be at the pains to read attentively what he ſays before, and after the Words we are upon. We ſhould not have mentioned this, but that we are afraid leſt ignorant, injudicious people (unto whom our Authour recommends that little Treatiſe of Mr. Hamiltons) ſhould wreſt the Words of a Holy Martyr, to countenance and encourage Libertiniſm; 2 Pet. 3.16.as they do wreſt the ſacred Words of the moſt Holy God himſelf, unto their own deſtruction.
We do not by this reflect in the leaſt upon the ſaid Martyr of Bleſſed Memory, but rather endeavour (as we are bound) to ſecure his good Name from any Reproach, which the Enemies of our Religion might poſſibly caſt upon it, from a wrong, and wreſted ſenſe of his Words, as they are alwayes ready to do. This we have here provided againſt, by giving the true ſenſe of his Words, which being rightly underſtood have nothing harſh in them at all; but otherwiſe taken, juſt according to the ſound of the Letter, they carry a very ſcandalous meaning, which we dare ſay the Holy Martyr never thought of. We do not doubt therefore, but our Authour will confeſs, that we have done right to the Martyr, and have rightly interpreted his ſaying, which he learned of Luther. But if we happen to be miſtaken as to our Authour, and he will not admit this ſenſe we have given of the foreſaid words, then he cannot be juſtly offended; if this be given as his Character, the Authour of the Letter, is one who holds, that no Man can make himſelf evil by doing evil, that is, he holds that no Man by doing all the evil, and miſchief, that he is able to do, can make himſelf, in the leaſt degree, worſe than he was. And then let the World Judge, how well he hath cleared himſelf of the ſuſpicion of Antinomianiſm, which he had brought upon himſelf. But we are really perſwaded better things of our Authour, though we thus write upon a ſuppoſition, which we hope he will never admit, but rather than admit ſuch a ſuppoſition with its neceſſary conſequence, he will join with us, and ſay, that Luther and Mr. Hamilton meant no more, but that evil works do not firſt make a Man evil, becauſe ever ſince the firſt Sin of Adam and Eve, all meer Men, beſides them two, are evil by Original ſin, before they commit any Actual Sin. Thus much ſhall ſuffice to have ſaid of the Occaſion and Deſign of the Letter.