Apology for the Ministers Who Subscribed, Chapter 4

Apology for the Ministers Who Subscribed · Chapter 4

p. 184CHAP. IV. Of the Calumnies wherewith he Aſperſes Chriſts Miniſters; and particularly of the Middleway.

Firſt Calumny.

HIS Firſt great Calumny which comprehends all the reſt that lye ſcattered here and there throughout his Letter, is that we are Corrupters of Chriſts pure Goſpel, and differ from him and his party, in the main points of the Goſpel which they believe, and live by the Faith of, and look to be ſaved in: And by the Preaching whereof, they have Converted Sinners unto God, and have built up Saints in Holineſs and Comfort: Yea, he carries the Accuſation ſo far as to ſay that we Preach a New Goſpel, an Arminian Goſpel, to the certain peril of their Souls that Believe it: And that our cauſe is Coincident with the cauſe both of Arminius and alſo of Pelagius. That this is aſſerted by him, and that we do not Calumniate him, in reporting his Calumny againſt us, is evident from the expreſs words of his Letter; For pag. 10. He ſays, We ſee the pure Goſpel of Chriſt corrupted, and an Arminian Goſpel New-Vampt, and obtruded on People, to the certain peril of the Souls of ſuch as believe it. And a little after in the ſame page, he ſays, That we are ſuch Miniſters as creep in, not only to ſpy out, but to deſtroy, not ſo much the Goſpel-Liberty, as the Goſpel-Salvation we have in Christ Jeſus, and to bring us back under the Yoke of Legal-bondage. And indeed (ſaith he) the caſe in that Epiſtle to the Galatians and ours have a great affinity. By which words he gives the World to underſtand that we are ſuch Miniſters as are like the falſe-teachers in the Churches of Galatia, who taught people that they could not be juſtified and ſaved unleſs they became Jews, ſo far as to be Circumciſed and to keep the Law of Moſes; and therefore that Pauls curſe recorded, Gal. 1.8. falls upon us, [Though we or an Angel from Heaven Preach any other Goſpel unto you, than that which we have Preached unto you, let him be accurſed. Again in Pag. 13. he intimates that he and his party cannot be at peace with us unleſs they be either ſilent as to the main points of the Goſpel, or elſe ſwallow down Arminian Schemes of the Goſpel, contrary to the New Teſtament, and unknown to the Reformed Churches in their greateſt Purity.—And in the ſame page he ſays, That we might know that the most Learned and Godly in the Christian World, have for ſome ages maintained and defended the ſame Doctrine, which he and his party ſtand for. And he names three Authors who have done ſo, to wit, Bradwardin, Twiſs, and Ames. And then to drive the nail home, that it may ſtick to us, he ſaith, That Judicious Obſervers cannot but already perceive a Coincidency between our cauſe, and the cauſe of thoſe two Peſts of Chriſts Church, Pelagius and Arminius, and that they fear more when we ſhall either be driven out of our Lurking holes by force of Argument, or ſhall think fit to diſcover our ſecret ſentiments. And when that day comes, he threatens us that we ſhall find Enemies and Oppoſers enough both at home and abroad. This is his first great Charge which we have faithfully Collected from his own expreſs words; and a dreadful charge it is, if it were true, but of the truth of it, we find no proof but his bare word; and what credit his word deſerves, we have ſeen already. Indeed what he ſaith of his Judicious Obſervers, their ſearing that our cauſe is not only Coincident with Pelagius his cauſe, but that we are further gone off from the Truth than he; we cannot tell whether it be true or falſe. It may be true, for we read in Pſal. 53.5. That ſome men have been in great fear, where there was no juſt cauſe of fear. And it may be falſe for ſome men can write lyes, and ſay that they and, their Confederates do fear p. 185that which they do not fear, but only for their own ends would make ſimple People believe that they fear. So that for ought we know, it may be either true or falſe, that he and his party have ſuch fears of us. But the Lord himſelf knows, and we know, that they have no juſt cauſe to entertain ſuch fears and jealouſies of us; and it is a ſure ſign that they have but little if any Chriſtian Love, when without cauſe, they entertain ſuch jealous fears of their Brethren, that they are departed or will depart from the Truth of the Goſpel, more than Pelagius. And as to what he ſays, that our Cauſe is Coincident with that of Arminius and Pelagius, we are as ſure that it is falſe, as we can be that there is any ſuch thing as truth or falſehood in the World. And our Author alſo muſt needs know it to be falſe, and muſt lye againſt his knowledge and conſcience, if he knows what the Errors of Pelagius were, and that we are (as he affirms us to be) middle-way-men, who ſteer a middle courſe between the Orthodox and the Arminians. For the great fault, that theſe middle-way-men are charged with is, that they hold Univerſal Redemption in ſuch a ſenſe, as neither to agree with the Orthodox, that is, the moſt rigid Calviniſts, who (contrary to the expreſs mind of Calvin) deny that in any ſound ſenſe Chriſt can be ſaid to have Redeemed all mankind; nor yet with the Arminians who affirm that Chriſt hath Redeemed all the Reprobate World, in the ſame ſenſe that he hath Redeemed his Select People, whom he choſe in Chriſt before the foundation of the World unto ſpecial effectual Grace in this life, and unto eternal Glory hereafter in the life to come. This is to be a middle-way-man, to hold univerſal Redemption in ſuch a ſenſe as neither pleaſeth the Arminian, nor the Rigid Antiarminian. This our Author knows well enough, and if he knows as well what were the Errors of Pelagius, then he cannot chooſe but know that it is a lye to ſay that Our Cauſe is Coincident with the cauſe of Pelagius: For to be Coincident is to be the ſame. But it is not poſſible, that our cauſe ſhould be the ſame with Pelagius his cauſe, if we be middle-way-men, and hold univerſal Redemption as we are ſaid to be and to do; for Pelagius did not hold but denyed univerſal Redemption from ſin, or puniſhment of ſin; and it was accounted one of the Pelagian Errors above twelve hundred years ago, that he ſo denyed univerſal Redemption. This may be unknown to our Author, and he may be apt to think that ſure this is a Fiction of the middle-way-men; but if he be ignorant of this matter of fact, let not his ignorance make him boldly deny it, before he know what evidence there is for the Truth of it. We give him theſe two Arguments to prove the Truth of this matter of fact, that Pelagius denyed univerſal Redemption.

(1.) It is known and acknowledged by all who have any underſtanding of theſe matters, and our Author himſelf knows it, That Pelagius denyed Original ſin; from whence it follows by neceſſary Conſequence that he muſt needs alſo deny Univerſal Redemption of all Mankind. For Infants that dye in their Infancy before they commit any actual ſin, are a conſiderable part of Mankind: the Infants who from the beginning of the World have dyed, and who daily do dy, and hereafter will be dying to the Worlds end, and that both within and without the Church, before they commit any actual ſin, will make up a vaſt number; even many Millions of the race of Mankind. But Pelagius denyed that theſe Infants who ſo dye in their Infancy, have any ſin either Original or Actual to be redeemed from, and therefore he muſt needs deny alſo that they were Redeemed, and conſequently he muſt needs deny univerſal Redemption of all Mankind. Where there is no manner of ſin, there is no manner of puniſhment due for ſin, and conſequently no room for Redemption by the Blood and Death of Chriſt either from ſin or puniſhment. But Pelagius denied that Infants who dy in their Infancy have any manner of ſin, or that any manner of puniſhment is due to them for their ſin. Therefore Pelagius denyed that ſuch Infants are Redeemed by the Blood and Death of Chriſt either from ſin or puniſhment, and conſequently he denied univerſal Redemption.

p. 186(2.) Our Second Argument to prove the truth of this matter of Fact, is from the teſtimony of Auguſtin, who is a very competent witneſs, becauſe he lived at the ſame time with Pelagius, and wrote againſt him, and confuted his Errors and Hereſies. Now Augustin in his writings againſt Pelagius and his Diſciples, teſtifies plainly that they denyed univerſal Redemption on the account aforeſaid. For thus he writes: Contra duas Epiſtolas Pelagianorum, lib. 2. ad Bonifacium, cap. 2. Manichaei dicunt Deum bonum non omnium naturarum eſſe creatorem: Pelagiani dicunt, Deum non eſſe omnium aetatum in hominibus mundatorem, ſalvatorem, liberatorem. Catholica utroſque redarguit, &c. The Manicheans ſay, That the good God is not the Creator of all natures. The Pelagians ſay, That God is not the Purifier, the Saviour, the Deliverer or Redeemer of all Ages among men: But the Catholick Church refutes them both; defending both againſt the Manichaeans the Creature of God, leaſt any nature ſhould be denyed to be made by him; and alſo againſt the Pelagians, that the human nature which is loſt in all Ages, might be ſought out and ſaved. Again the ſame Auguſtin in ſeveral other of his Books proves againſt the Pelagians, from 2 Cor. 5.14. both that all mankind, even Infants who dy in their Infancy, Lib. 20. de Civit. dei. cap. 6. & contra Julian. lib. 6. cap. 4.are guilty of Original ſin, and alſo that in ſome ſenſe, all are Redeemed by the death of Chriſt. In the Second Book of his imperfect Work againſt Julian a Pelagian Biſhop. Chap. 28. having alledged 2 Cor. 5.14, 15. We thus judge, that if one died for all, then were all dead: And that he died for all, &c. He adds, Unde colligitur quod dicit Apoſtolus, ergo omnes mortui ſunt, & pro omnibus mortuus est: Dic apertè, mortui parvuli non ſunt, qui peccatum nullum habem; morte pro ſe Chriſti, in quâ baptizentur, non opus habent. Jam dic evidenter, quod latenter ſentis, quoniam ſa…is prodis tuâ diſputatione quod ſentis. From which words we gather, or inferr for what the Apoſtle ſaith, Therefore all are dead, and he (Chriſt) died for them all: ſay plainly, Infan…s are not dead, who have no ſin. They have no need of the death of Christ for them, into which they ſhould be baptized. Now ſpeak out evidently, that which thou thinkeſt ſecretly, for thou do'ſt ſufficiently diſcover by thy Diſputation, what it is that thou thinkeſt. By this and the forgoing paſſage of Auguſtin, it is very evident that the Pelagians firſt denied that Infants had any Original ſin. Secondly, That Chriſt died for Infants to Redeem them either from ſin, or puniſhment of ſin. For though they declined to ſpeak out, and ſay plainly that Chriſt died not for Infants, yet they really believed, and held it for a truth, that he did not dy for Infants to Redeem them, becauſe they were not guilty of any evil either of ſin or puniſhment, from which they could be Redeemed. By theſe two Arguments our Author and others may plainly ſee that the Pelagians denied univerſal Redemption by the blood-ſhedding and death of Chriſt. And this being ſo, how is it poſſible that we ſhould be middle-way-men, who hold univerſal Redemption, and yet that our cauſe ſhould be Coincident with that of Pelagius who denied univerſal Redemption? Surely our Author cannot think both theſe things to be true of us, without ſuppoſing us to believe both parts of a contradiction at once. But whatever he himſelf may be able to do as to believing of contradictions, he is greatly miſtaken if he think that we have ſo ſtrong a Faith, or ſo wide a Swallow. For we that know our ſelves much better than he doth, declare ſincerely that we were never Maſters of ſuch a Faith as can believe known contradictions; and that we could never make both ends of a contradiction meet, ſo as to be able to ſwallow them down both at once. Either then our Author knew that the Pelagians deny Original ſin and univerſal Redemption, or he knew it not; if he knew that they deny both, how can he be excuſed from lying againſt his Conſcience, in telling the World in Print ſuch a known untruth and contradictious falſhood, that we are Middle-way-men, and that our cauſe is Coincident with that of Pelagius, that is, that we are for the middle-way and the extreme way, for the middle-way and not for the middle-way at the ſame time. But if he knew not what the cauſe of Pelagius was and is, with what Faith and Conſcience could he ſay that our cauſe is Coincident, or is the ſame, with the cauſe of Pelagius? Is it lawful for him, and his judicious Obſervers to defame the p. 187Miniſters of Chriſt, and to charge them with Pelagian Hereſie, and Confederacy with Pelagian Hereticks, when they do not well know what the Pelagian Hereſie was? Hath our Author a priviledge boldly to affirm what he doth not know nor underſtand? And is he fit to inform the people of that which he is ignorant of, and wherein he needs to be informed himſelf? We expect the People, for whoſe Information, he pretends to write, will be more juſt and reaſonable than to believe the Calumnies wherewith this man either maliciouſly or ignorantly aſperſes us; eſpecially when they may clearly ſee that his Calumnies do not hang together, but are inconſiſtent, and contradict one another; which is a ſure mark whereby to know a Calumniator and falſe witneſs; Mark 14.56. We do not poſitively ſay that he doth thus calumniate us out of meer malice, but we are ſure it is and muſt be either out of malice or ignorance; and we willingly incline to the more charitable (which is the ſafer) ſide, that he doth it rather out of pure ignorance and blind zeal, than out of meer malice, and Cain-like hatred of his Brethren. But whatever moved him to it, the thing it ſelf is unwarrantable and injurious, for which he muſt give an account to that God who is an infinitely more judicious Obſerver than he or any of his party; and who, as he obſerves all our opinions and practices, ſo he judges always aright according to the true merits of every cauſe; and in this cauſe we can with a good conſcience lift up our face to the Lord our God and ſay, Lord, thou whoſe underſtanding is infinite, and from whom nothing can be hid, and who haſt infinite power and right to puniſh us with everlaſting deſtruction, if we now lye to thee, and diſſemble with thee, thou knoweſt that our cauſe is not Coincident with the cauſe of Pelagius; and that this man doth Calumniate us in ſaying that judicious Obſervers cannot but perceive that they are coincident. To thee, O God, we appeal from this falſe Accuſer of the Brethren, and unto thee we referr our cauſe, to judge between us and this man, whether it be coincident, or the ſame with that of Pelagius.

But it may be our Author will object and ſay, That if our cauſe be not coincident with that of Pelagius, yet it is at leaſt coincident with that of Arminius. We anſwer, that neither is that true.

For (1.) Our Author and thoſe of his way, commonly ſay, that the cauſe of Arminius and Pelagius, is all one, and therefore if they ſay true in that, and do not calumniate Arminius, our cauſe cannot poſſibly be coincident with the cauſe of Arminius, unleſs it be alſo coincident with that of Pelagius, they being both one and the ſame.

(2.) Our Author ſaith, That we are for the middle-way, between the Arminians and the Orthodox, as he calls them: If that be true, our cauſe muſt lye in the midway between the two extremes, and then it is impoſſible to be Coincident with the cauſe of Arminius, for that is one of the extremes; and it is evident by ocular demonſtration that the middle cannot be the ſame with either of the ſides, and ſo cannot be coincident with either of the extremes.

If our Author ſay, that we are come off from the middle-way, and are come over to Arminius, and ſo are now on the other extreme, and wrong ſide, in oppoſition to the Orthodox, who are on the extreme right ſide.

We Anſwer (1.) If that be true, and he know it, then he is guilty of a groſs lye, in ſaying that our cauſe is coincident with that of Arminius, and ſo that we are Arminians, and yet that we are for a middle-way between the Arminians and the Orthodox. If he will have us to be Arminians, he muſt not (if he be a true honeſt man) ſay that we are for a middle-way between the Arminians and the Orthodox.

(2.) If we be come over from the middle-way unto the Arminian extreme, we deſire our Author to tell us when it was, and how long it is ſince, and how he knows that we are come over to the Arminian extreme; for we profeſs ſincerely that we know none of theſe things: We neither know when it was, nor how long p. 188it is ſince, nor do we know that we are yet come over, or ever ſhall come over to the Arminian extreme. Indeed we dare not pretend to any certain Knowledge of Future Contingents, that are not revealed to us; yet we truſt in our God through Jeſus Chriſt, that by the Grace of his Spirit, he will keep us ſo firm and fixed in the Truth of his Word, that we ſhall never go over to the Arminian extream. And ſince we know certainly what we are for the preſent as to this matter, we can ſafely and with a good Conſcience call Heaven and Earth to Record this day againſt this ſtanderer, that we are not Arminians, and that he doth very ſinfully reproach and calumniate us in ſaying, that we corrupt Chriſts pure Goſpel, and obtrude on People a new Arminian Goſpel, to the certain Peril of their Souls; and that our Cauſe is Coincident with that of Arminius. But,

(3.) Though according to the Light, which God hath given us by his Word and Spirit, we believe that the Arminians erre from the Truth in many things, and we do from our Hearts diſſent from their Errours, yet we hold our ſelves bound in Conſcience, as we muſt anſwer to God at Death and Judgment, not to calumniate them nor any other Erroneous Brethren; and therefore we cannot in Conſcience ſay, that whileſt the Arminians keep within the compaſs of the five Articles (wherein they differed from our Divines at the Synod of Dort) their cauſe is coincident with the cauſe of Pelagius. We do indeed think that ſomething and too much of Pelagianiſm or Semipelagianiſm is implied in, and by conſequence follows from their Principles; but that doth not make their cauſe to be Coincident with the cauſe of Pelagius.

Therefore our moſt Judicious and Conſciencious Divines do not ſcruple to declare Pelagianiſm to be a Hereſie, againſt the very Foundation of Chriſtian Religion: But as for Arminianiſm, keeping within the Compaſs of the five Articles, their Conſciences will not ſuffer them to ſay, that it is one or more Fundamental Errors, or Hereſies: this might be ſufficiently proved by many Teſtimonies of our Divines, but inſtead of all that might be alledged, we ſhall Content our ſelves at preſent with the Teſtimony of that famous General Aſſembly of the Church of Scotland; which in the Year 1638. at Glaſgow depoſed all their Biſhops; though that Aſſembly had accuſed many of their Biſhops of Arminianiſm, yet did they not ſay, that Arminianiſm was as bad as, and Coincident with Pelagianiſm, and that it was a Fundamental Hereſie: They were ſo far from ſaying ſo, that in the ſeventh Seſſion, November 28. the Moderator Mr. Henderſon, in the Face and with the Approbation of the Aſſembly, gave this Moderate Anſwer unto a Politick Objection of Dr. Balcanquel, who appeared there for the Biſhops, Controverſias omnes: &c. That all the Controverſies (eſpecially if they exceed not the limits of the five controverted Articles) between the Arminians and Anti-Arminians or Calviniſts, neither were nor are about Fundamental Doctrines; that indeed the Arminians erred grievouſly, but that he and the Synod were not yet perſwaded, that all Heterodoxies, that is, that all Erroneous Doctrines, Hiſt. motuum in regno Scotiae, Dantiſci, An. 1641. p. 100, 101.are Hereſies. This we find in the full Narrative of the Proceedings of the Synod of Glaſgow, Recorded by Dr. Spang in his Hiſtory of the Commotions and Wars in the Kingdom of Scotland, in the Years, 1638, 1639, and 1640. And by this Paſſage we learn, that Mr. Henderſon and the General Aſſembly of Glaſgow, were of another Spirit and Temper than our Author is; they would not, nor could in Conſcience ſay, that Arminianiſm, keeping within the Compaſs of the five Articles, was concerning Fundamental Doctrines; or that the Arminian Errors were Hereſies. But he preſumes to be now wiſer than Mr. Henderſon and a whole General Aſſembly of the Scottiſh Church; for he ſees and ſays that Arminianiſm is a new Goſpel. Yea he is ſo illuminated of late, that he can ſee and confidently ſay, that leſs Errors than the Arminian, even the pretended Errors of the Middle-way-men, are a new Goſpel, or inconſiſtent with and destructive of the main Points of the old and true Goſpel of Chriſt. Here we muſt warn our Author, and thoſe of p. 189his Way, to beware that from our alledging the Teſtimony of the Synod of Glaſgow concerning the Arminian Errors, they do not increaſe their Jealouſie of us, as if we thereby ſhewed our love to and liking of Arminianiſm; for we ſincerely, profeſs, that though we have a real Love and Reſpect for the Perſons of ſome Arminians whom we know, yet we have none at all for their Errors; but we do really hate their Errors, and all Errors wherever we diſcern them; and if we could diſcern any in our ſelves, there we ſhould hate them moſt of all, and renounce them with abhorrency.

But though we ought to hate, and be zealous againſt all Error, whereſoever and in whomſoever; yet we ſhould do it with Judgment and Underſtanding, and our hatred of and zeal againſt Errors, ſhould bear a due Proportion to the real Greatneſs or Comparative Smalneſs of them; for if we do otherwiſe, and make no difference between Errors and Errors, but judge all to be alike fundamental and damnable; the natural Conſequence thereof will be this, that as ſoon as ever we apprehend, right or wrong, that any Chriſtian Brethren are fallen into an Error, we ſhall immediately damn their Perſons, and ſeparate our ſelves from their Society; which we take to be againſt the Rules of Chriſtianity, and highly prejudicial to the common good of Chriſts Church, and to the particular good of our own Souls. Wherefore, as we have warned, ſo we adviſe our Author when at any time he apprehends any Brethren to be in an Error, that he would not preſently cry, Theſe men have got a new Goſpel, Away with them, Anathema to them; that is, let the curſe of God be upon them; but rather take time to conſider, whether it be really an Error, and if it be, whether it be a Fundamental Error, and inconſiſtent with their glorifying God on Earth, and obtaining Salvation in Heaven: And if after he hath uſed the beſt means he can to inform himſelf, he cannot but think, that it is ſuch a great and damnable Hereſie; let him think alſo, whether he had not better endeavour to reclaim them by inſtructing them in meekneſs and love, than preſently to proclaim them to be curſed and damned Hereticks. And laſtly, if after he hath converſed with them, heard them ſpeak for themſelves, and found (it may be) that they have Arguments for their Opinion from Scripture and Reaſon, which he cannot eaſily and clearly Anſwer, it may not be amiſs for him to abate his Confidence, and to think ſoberly with himſelf, that the Errors of theſe men may not be ſo great and damnable, as he thought, nor the men themſelves ſo bad as he took them to be; but that for ought he knows to the contrary, they may be good People in the main, and ſuch as Chriſt himſelf will own (notwithſtanding all their involuntary Errors) for true living Members of that Myſtical Body, whereof he is the Head and Saviour.

As for our Authors alledging, that Bradwardin, Twiſs and Ames are againſt us, becauſe they are againſt Pelagius and Arminius; it implies the foreſaid Calumny and falſe Accuſation, that we are Pelagians and Arminians, and is grounded upon it, otherwiſe it is impertinent; for if we be (as we are) againſt Pelagius and Arminius, as well as they, it makes nothing againſt, but for us, that they are againſt them likewiſe. Yet we muſt tell our Author what it may be he doth not know, that Bradwardin and the Arminians agree in ſeveral of their Errors wherein we differ from and oppoſe them both; for inſtance, Bradwardin holds, that Chriſt died for and redeemed not only Sufficiently and Efficaciouſly alſo, many of the Reprobate, ſo that in the Viſible Church, many of them are through Chriſt made Effectually Partakers of Regenerating Juſtifying and Sanctifying Grace for a time, inſomuch that (quoad statum praeſentis Juſtitiae) in reſpect of the preſent state of Juſtification, wherein they are, there is no intrinſecal difference between them and the regenerate juſtifyed Elect, but they always fall from that State of Grace or Juſtification totally, and finally, and are damned Eternally: The neceſſary Conſequence whereof is, that none of the Regenerate, Juſtified Elect, can be abſolutely ſure without a Miracle, or extraordinary immediate Revelation, that they ſhall not fall from Grace totally and finally, p. 190and be damned too: For though they be never ſo ſure that there is a Holy change wrought in them, and that they are converted and juſtified, and in a State of Grace for the preſent, yet they can conclude nothing from that with an abſolute Certainty, that they are elected and ſhall perſevere to the end and be ſaved; becauſe all that Grace that they have for the preſent, is of the ſame common Nature with that Grace which is in many Reprobates, and ſo the one may be finally loſt for ought they can know to the contrary, as well as the other. Thus Bradwardin by holding the actual Juſtification and Sanctification of Reprobates, ſubverts the Doctrine of the Saints total and final Perſeverance in Grace, and Aſſurance of Salvation, as ſhall be proved from his own Words, if our Author have the boldneſs to deny the matter of Fact. And now let him go and make his beſt of Bradwardin, and tell the People what an Orthodox Defender of the Grace of God, he hath got for his ſecond againſt us, whom he hath highly provoked to the Combat, and neceſſitated to take Arms for our own Defence: For as Ruffinus ſaid of old, Chriſtianus non eſt qui notam Haereſeos diſſimulat; He is no (good) Chriſtian, who ſuffers the black Mark of Hereſie to be ſet upon himſelf, and does not endeavour to wipe it off, and clear himſelf of it.

But now at laſt it is like, our Author will ſay, that if we are neither Pelagians nor Arminians, yet we can never clear our ſelves of being Middle-way-men, and that here he hath us, and will hold us, and we ſhall never eſcape his Inquiſition.

Whereunto we Anſwer, That according to the Deſcription, which he gives of a Middle-way-man, Let. p. 2.we may ſafely and with a good Conſcience according to the Light which God hath given us, deny that we are Middle-way-men; for he makes a Middle-way-man to be one who eſpouſes, defends and promotes a Middle-way betwixt the Arminians and the Orthodox. But that we are Middle-way-men in this Senſe, we muſt deny; for we cannot own our ſelves to be ſuch men without lying againſt our Conſciences, and ſaying, that we are not Orthodox, or but half-Orthodox, which we believe to be a great falſhood.

If therefore our Author would have us to confeſs that we are Middle-way-men, (1.) He muſt give us a better and truer Definition of a Middle-way-man, for this will not fit us at all; belike he would have the World believe that we are half-Arminians and half-Orthodox; but if that be his meaning, in intimating that we ſteer a Middle-courſe between the Arminians and the Orthodox, it is an abominable Calumny which we have already wiped off, by ſolemnly and ſincerely Declaring that we do not participate of the Arminian extream at all, we are no Arminians in whole or in part.

(2.) He would do well to tell us whom he means by the Orthodox, it may be that by the Orthodox, he means chiefly himſelf and his ſmall party, excluſively of all other Proteſtants. If that be his meaning; we ſay,

(1.) That he muſt not thus beg, but prove his Orthodoxy, before we can own him to be thus very Orthodox.

(2.) We think that ſuch a Notion of Orthodoxy is too narrow and Schiſmatical. It is a Monopolizing of ſoundneſs in the Faith to a Party, and that Comparatively a ſmall Party of Chriſtians too; and a branding of all the reſt with the Mark of Unſound and Erroneous in the Faith: Whereas the real Difference between thoſe called Middle-way-men on the one ſide, and the moſt of thoſe called Orthodox on the other, may not be matter of Faith, ſtrictly ſo called, but rather matter of Opinion; and ſo both Parties may be Orthodox or ſound in the Faith: That is, notwithſtanding ſome different Sentiments in leſſer things, they may both firmly and fully agree in believing all the Articles of Chriſtian Faith, which are neceſſary to Church Communion on Earth, and to the obtaining Eternal Salvation in Heaven, through the Mercy of God the Father, the Merits and Satisfaction of the Son, and the Grace of the Holy Spirit.

p. 191(3dly.) If he had ſhewed us in his Letter, wherein that Middle-way doth particularly conſiſt, according to his Opinion; we ſhould have (it may be) either owned or diſowned it in part or in whole, according as we had found him to have truly repreſented or miſrepreſented it to the World. But ſince he hath not done that, we cannot know certainly what he means by that Middle-way he talks of.

(4thly.) Yet by ſome Paſſages in his Letter, we gueſs that he Points at the controverſie about the extent of Chriſts Death, which hath been amongſt Proteſtant Divines ſince the Reformation, or ſince the time that Beza and Piſcator began to write on that Head after the Reformation.

And if that be the thing he Points at without naming it, we will, Firſt, Give the true State of the Controverſie. Secondly, Declare briefly what our Opinion is, as to that matter. And for the State of the Controverſie:

Firſt. There are ſome Divines in the World, who are ſaid to hold that Chriſt died equally for all men, Elect and Non-elect; and that God on the account of Chriſts Death, gives a common ſufficient Grace to them all, whereby they may all (if they will) apply to themſelves the Vertue of Chriſts Death, and thereby obtain Juſtification and Salvation. But that Chriſt did not dye for the Elect, out of any ſpecial Love to them above others; and that God through Chriſt doth not give any Special Effectual, Determining Grace to the Elect more than to the Non-elect. This is the Arminian extream.

Secondly, There are other Divines, who hold that Chriſt died for the Elect only and excluſively of all others, and that he died not for any of the Non-elect in any proper tolerable true ſenſe; that he no more died for any of thoſe Men, who are not elected to Eternal Life, than he died for the Devil; and that ſuch Men have no more to do with the Satisfaction and Meri…s of Chriſt, than the Devil hath. This is the other extream. And we ſuppoſe that this is that which our Author accounts the Orthodex ſide, and that he is of this ſide himſelf.

But Thirdly, Between theſe two extream Opinions, there is a Golden mean, there is a Midd…e-way, which hath been many hundred years ago, and ſtill is expreſſed in this form of Words, That Chriſt died only for the Elect-Sinners of Mankind both Sufficiently and Efficaciouſly, but that he died for the Non-elect only Sufficiently but not Efficaciouſly. This is the State of the Controverſie.

2. If, Secondly, It be now demanded Whether we be for this Middle-way or not? In Anſwer to that demand we ſay, That there are a great many of us, who are Calumniated by our Author as corrupters of the Goſpel, by holding a Conditional Covenant, and tho' we do not doubt, but we all agree in the foreſaid General form of Words, and in admitting the Diſtirction of Chriſts dying for the Elect Efficaciciouſly, and for the Reprebate only Sufficiently; yet it may be, that when we come to explain what we particularly mean by Chriſts dying Sufficiently only for the Non-elect, there will be ſome little Difference amongſt us in ſome of our Notions and Expreſſions, and poſſibly ſome of us may not in effect differ from our Author, further than in the manner of our Expreſſion, and in the Method of our Conceptions and Notions.

But (1.) We are all of one Mind and of one Faith with reſpect to Chriſts dying Efficaciouſly for the Elect only, and we hope alſo that our Author himſelf agrees with us herein: Which is the main thing wherein our Agreement is neceſſary. And then,

(2.) As to the Non-Elect, eſpecially thoſe of them to whom the Goſpel is preached; we hope all of us do and will agree to this, That Chriſt died for them ſufficiently in ſuch a ſenſe as he did not dye for the fallen Angels, ſo that if they ſhould believe in Chriſt and repent of their ſins, as they are bound to do, according to the tenour and terms of the Goſpel, they ſhould be ſaved through Chriſt; and not periſh as they do by perſevering in Unbelief and Impenitence: And being thus far agreed, p. 192we hope we ſhall keep the unity of the Spirit in the bond of Peace; and as to any little difference of Judgment that may remain, we ſhall bear with one another in Love, after the example of the famous Synod of Dort, whereof the Members differed in the Synod upon this very point, and yet they bore with one another, and wiſely agreed againſt the Arminian extreme, as moſt manifeſtly appears from the Acts of that Synod. And we would hope alſo that our Author and thoſe of his way, will not be againſt this mutual forbearance, when they conſider that the ſaid middle-way was not only tolerated but even approved by the Synod of Dort, in that the ſuffrages which expreſly aſſerted it, were approved; and that long before, it was held by our firſt Reformers both at home and abroad. For inſtance, the Univerſality of Chriſts death in the ſenſe before explained, was believed and profeſſed by the Bleſſed Martyrs Latimer and Hooper, in England, as alſo by the Church of England her ſelf; and by Luther in Germany, and Calvin at Geneva, as ſhall be proved by their own words, to be ſeen in their writings extant at this day, if any have the conſidence to deny it. At preſent we ſhall only give our Brethren to underſtand, Firſt, That Luther on John 3.16. God ſo loved the World, that he gave his only begotten Son, that whoſoever, &c. ſays [Jam ſanè tibi & omnibus hominibus fatendum eſt mundum, &c.] Now truly, thou and all men muſt confeſs, that the whole race of Mankind is called the World, comprehending in one, all men in general and every man in particular; do'ſt thou believe therefore that thou art a man? or if thou canſt neither believe nor know that, put thy hand in thy boſome, or feel thy Noſe, make an experiment whether thou hast not all thy Members full of fleſh and blood, as other men? Wherefore then wouldſt thou exclude thy ſelf out of this word (World), ſince Chriſt expreſly declares that God did not ſend his Son to the Virgin Mary only, nor gave him to Peter or Paul, but to the World, that all might lay claim to him, even as many as are called the Sons of Man, &c.

Secondly, That Calvin on 1 John 2.2. ſays, [Ego verum eſſe illud dictum fateor ſufficienter pro toto mundo paſſum eſſe Chriſtum, ſed pro electis tantum efficaciter.] I confeſs that ſaying to be true, That Chriſt ſuffered ſufficiently for the whole World, but efficaciouſly for the Elect only.

And on Rom. 5.18. [Communem omnium gratiam fecit, quia omnibus expoſita eſt, non quod ad omnes extendatur reipſa, nam etſi paſſus eſt Chriſtus pro peccatis totius mundi, atque omnibus indifferenter Dei benignitate offertur, non tamen omnes apprehendunt.] The Apoſtle (ſaith Calvin) Makes Grace common to all Men, becauſe it is expoſed to all Men, not that it is really and effectually extended unto all. For tho Chriſt ſuffered for the ſins of the whole World, and through the goodneſs of God, he is indifferently offered unto all; yet all do not apprehend or receive him. Here is that which is called the middle-way owned by Luther firſt, afterwards by Calvin as plainly as can be expreſſed in ſo few words. Whereupon we demand, Did our Firſt Reformers, Luther and Calvin, by this, Corrupt the Old, and Preach a New Goſpel, or not? If they did corrupt the old true Goſpel, and preach a new falſe Goſpel, Then (1.) We owe no great thanks to them, or reſpect to their Memory, for their Service in Reforming the Church.

(2.) If we grant this to be true of Luther and Calvin, we betray the Reformation, and yield to the Papiſts that which their hearts do moſt earneſtly deſire, that Luther and Calvin may be accounted Two Impoſtors and Deceivers, who deluded the People, corrupted the Chriſtian Religion, and Preached a new Goſpel to the World. For our parts, we dare not thus far betray the Proteſtant Cauſe to the Papiſts; rather than do ſo, we maintain that Luther and Calvin by holding univerſal Redemption in the ſenſe explained, did not corrupt the Chriſtian Religion, nor preach a new Goſpel. And if they did not, then thoſe amongſt us who hold univerſal Redemption as they held it, do no more corrupt Religion, nor preach a new Goſpel than they did; and conſequently it is a vile Calumny and Reproach caſt upon us (and through us upon … Firſt Reformers,) that by the middle-way aforeſaid we corrupt Religion, and preach a new Goſpel.

p. 193We have been ſomething long in ſhewing the falſe-hood of our Authors firſt Calumny, and in wiping it off, becauſe it is general, and ſeems to comprehend or to be the ground of all the reſt that abound in his Letter. But for the reſt of them, ſince we have removed the grounds of them, by the account we have given of our principles in the points of Juſtification and of the extent of Chriſts death, they fall of themſelves, and light on the head of him that raiſed them; and therefore we ſhall not much trouble either our ſelves in refuting them, or others in reading a long Refutation of them. Yet we will take particular notice of ſome of them, and briefly ſhew how falſe they are.

Second Calumny.

HIS Second is to be ſeen in the the ſixth page of his Letter, where he ſaith, Let. pag. 6.The righteouſneſs of Chriſt in his active and paſſive Obedience, hath been aſſerted by Proteſtant Divines, to be not only the procuring and meritorious cauſe of our Juſtification, for this the Papiſts own; but the matter, as the Imputation of it is the form of our Juſtification.

Here a groſs Calumny is implyed, to wit, that we differ not from the Papiſts in the point of Juſtification, and to make the ſimple people believe this, he gives them to underſtand that we hold Chriſts righteouſneſs to be only the procuring and meritorious cauſe of Juſtification, and that the Papists own this as well as we do; and conſequently that there is little or no difference between us and the Papiſts in the Fundamental point of Juſtification.

But that this is a Calumny doth appear by what we have ſaid before, when we ſhewed that Chriſts Righteouſneſs alone comes in the place of that perſonal perfect ſinleſs Righteouſneſs which was the condition of the firſt Covenant in Innocency, and of the law of Works, and by which perſonal Righteouſneſs, man was to have been juſtified according to that Covenant, if he had perfectly kept it, and had not fallen from his Innocency. There we ſhewed that, ſince no man in his lapſed ſtate hath or can have in himſelf that perſonal ſinleſs righteouſneſs; every man is to ſeek a righteouſneſs in Chriſt that may ſerve him for his Juſtification, inſtead of that which he ſhould have had in himſelf, but hath not; and he that ſeeks it in Chriſt, as he ought to do, will there find it: For Chriſt by his obedience, unto death, even the death of the Croſs, hath paid the full price of our Redemption, and by paying that price hath made full ſatisfaction to the Juſtice of God for our ſins, and hath merited for us the full pardon of our ſins, and eternal Salvation of our Souls, if we ſincerely believe, repent, and obey the Goſpel, by that Grace which he hath alſo purchaſed for us by his blood, promiſed to us in his Word, and gives unto us by his Spirit. So that we are compleat in him who is our head, our living and life-giving head, in whom it pleaſed the Father that all fulneſs ſhould dwell, that out of his fulneſs we might receive, and grace for grace. Now will any man of Conſcience, who hath a competent Underſtanding of the controverſies between us and the Papiſts, ſay, that they give as much to Chriſt in the point of the Juſtification of a Sinner, as here we do, and ever did? We aſcribe all ſatisfaction for ſin both with reſpect to eternal and temporal puniſhment, unto Chriſt and his righteouſneſs. We likewiſe aſcribe unto Chriſt and his righteouſneſs all merit of every good thing whatſoever, all merit of pardon of ſin, of right to eternal life, and of eternal life it ſelf, and all the degrees of it; all merit of whatſoever Grace here, and of eternal Glory hereafter. Dare any man ſay that the Papiſts do all this, that they aſcribe all ſatisfaction and all merit unto Chriſt and his Righteouſneſs: And that as we, ſo they deny that men do ſatisfie Gods juſtice for ſin with reſpect to any puniſhment, and that they properly merit any the leaſt grace or favour at the hands of God? We think no Proteſtant, eſpecially that is a Miniſter of Chriſts Goſpel, will be ſo impudent or ſo far imitate the Father of Lyes, as to affirm theſe things to be true, which all the World know or may know to be notoriouſly falſe.

p. 194There are indeed ſome Papiſts, for inſtance Bellarmin, lib. 2. da juſtif. cap. 7, Who in diſpute, grant ſo much to us that they may ſeem unto ſome who do not throughly underſtand their principles, to have yielded the whole cauſe to us. And therefore ſome of our famous Divines, as Dr. Downhame, Prideaux, Rivet, Le Blanc, & Turretin, have not ſtuck to ſay, that Bellarmin there grants the very thing which Proteſtants plead for, and he had diſputed againſt; and that if he would ſtand to thoſe few words, and not contradict them again, there might be an end of that Diſpute about the imputation of Chriſts Righteouſneſs. Turret. Inſt. part. 2. loc. 16. p. 709.After Turretin had quoted Bellarmin, ſaying, That [if the Proteſtants would have this only, that Chriſts merits are imputed to us, becauſe they are given to us by God, and we may offer them to the Father for our ſins, becauſe Chriſt took upon him the burden of ſatisfying for us, and reconciling us to God the Father, their opinion or judgment would be right.] He adds immediately after this Conceſſion and Confeſſion of Bellarmin: [Atqui nihil aliud volumus, nam quod addit, nos velle ita imputari nobis Chriſti juſtitiam, ut per eam formaliter juſti nominemur & ſimus: hoc gratis & falsò ſupponit ex praepoſterâ ſuâ bypotheſi de juſtificatione morali.] Yea but, or ſurely, we would have no other thing, (but what Bellarmin hath here granted us) for as to that which he adds, that we would have Chriſts Rigteouſneſs ſo imputed to us, that by it we may be denominated and may be formally Righteous, he ſuppoſeth it without proof, and falſely, upon their perverſe and prepoſterous Hypotheſis concerning a moral Juſtification. Thus Turretin writes of the Conceſſion and Confeſſion of Bellarmin and other Papiſts. Then he proceeds to ſhew that notwithſtanding thoſe good words of theirs whereby they ſeem to come over to us, yet they and we are never the nearer, but remain at as great diſtance as before, becauſe by Gods imputing to us Chriſts merits in order to Juſtification, they mean that for the ſake of Chriſts merits imputed to us, God infuſes Grace into us, by which infuſed Grace it is that we are juſtified according to their principles. Whereas we hold that Chriſts merits are ſo imputed and communicated to us, (ut ſint cauſa meritoria ſola noſirae juſtificationis, nec ulla alia detur juſtitia propter quam abſolvimur in conſpectu dei,) that they are the alone meritorious cauſe of our Juſtification, neither is there any other Righteouſneſs for which we are abſolved in the ſight of God. Thus Turretin ſhews that notwithſtanding the ſeeming agreement between Proteſtants and Papiſts in the point of Juſtification, yet the reall difference remains ſtill. But how doth he ſhew it? Doth he ſhew the difference by denying that Chriſts Righteoſneſs is the meritorious cauſe of our Juſtification, becauſe the Papiſts affirm it to be ſo in ſome ſenſe? No, no, Turretin hath left that unto our Author to do, if he pleaſe; but he ſhews that there is a great difference in the point of juſtification between us and them.

(1.) In that we hold Chriſts Righteouſneſs to be the meritorious cauſe of Juſtification, in another ſenſe, than they hold it ſo to be.

(2.) In that we hold Chriſts Righteouſneſs excluſively of all other, to be the only meritorious cauſe of Juſtification; whereas the Papiſts deny this, and affirm that men are firſt formally jnſtified before God by infuſed Grace and Juſtice, and that by the exerciſe of that infuſed Grace and Inherent Juſtice, they themſelves do merit their further Juſtification in this World, and eternal Life, and Glory in the World to come. And we think this is a very conſiderable difference. Yet this is far from being all the difference, for Monſieur Claude who was one of thoſe Divines whom our Author calls middle-way-men, in his defence of the Reformation ſhews, Claudes Hiſtorical defence of the Reformation. par. 2. ch. 6. p. 217, 218. &c.that notwithſtanding the agreement that there may be in ſome things between Proteſtants and Papiſts in the point of Juſtification, there ſtill remain no leſs than twelve differences relating to that point, whereof many are very conſiderable, we pray all who deſire ſatisfaction in this matter to conſult the place in Monſieur Claudes Book which we p. 195referr to, eſpecially let thoſe who can, conſult the original in which all is clear; whereas ſome things are obſcure, and hardly intelligible in the Tranſlation; there a man may ſee the true reaſon why our firſt Reformers laid ſo great ſtreſs upon the Controverſies they had with the Chuch of Rome about the Article of Justification, and that they then had, and we at this day ſtill have great cauſe ſo to do; and yet amongſt all thoſe Controverſies which Claude obſerves to be between us and Rome upon that Article, there is not a word of that Diſpute about the matter and form of Juſtification, about which our Author in his great Wiſdom thought fit to inform the ordinary plain people, who either want time or judgment to peruſe large and learned Tractates. Letter p. 35. with p. 6.The man it ſeems would have the people to think that ſurely he is mighty well acquainted with all the opinions that have been in the Church, and that he can inform them of them all, and tell them to a hair which is right and which is wrong; therefore he reckons up ſo many Controverſies as have been and are among Reformed Divines. But cui bono, to what good end and purpoſe did it ſerve, to tell ſimple injudicious people that there are ſo many differences amongſt Proteſtant Divines about Juſtification? Whatever our Author may think of it, others cannot but judge that this courſe tends rather to confound, diſtract and unſettle injudicious people, than to edify and ſtabliſh them in the Faith: For it is not probable that there are many ſo very injudicious as to believe that he can lay the Spirits again which he hath raiſed, we mean, that he can infalliblydecide the Controverſies which he hath brought upon the Stage before the People; and ſo quiet the minds of thoſe whom he hath perplexed, and diſcompoſed. To us he ſeems not altogether ſo well qualified for deciding of Controverſies, and quieting peoples minds, as for throwing dirt on his Brethren, and calumniating them to the People, as if they differed not from the Papiſts, in holding Chriſts Righteouſneſs to be the meritorious cauſe of Juſtification, which if it be not a lye, we are ſure it is a ſwinging falſehood, and a very great miſtake.

Third Calumny.

HIS Third Calumny is to be ſeen in the 8th and 9th Pages of the Letter, and it is, That we deny the Headſhip of Chriſt, and not only deny his Suretiſhip, his being the Second Adam and a publick Perſon, but alſo treat theſe things with contempt. All which is utterly falſe: and on the contrary, we declare that with all our hearts we own Chriſts Headſhip and Suretiſhip, his being the Second Adam and a Publick Perſon. For his Headſhip we believe according to the Seventh Canon of the Synod of Dort, on the firſt head of Doctrine concerning Divine Predeſtination, T…at (Deus Chriſtum ab reterno Mediatorem & omnium Electorum caput, ſalutiſque fundamentum conſtituit); God from eternity ordained Chriſt to be the Mediator and Head of all the Elect, and the foundation of Salvation. We believe alſo according to the Suffrage of our Brittain Divines, read in and approved by the ſame Synod, That Chriſt is the head and foundation of the Elect, ſo that all ſaving Graces prepared in the Decree of Election, are beſtowed upon the Elect, only for Christ, and through Chriſt. Engliſh Tranſlation of the Suffrage, p. 5, 6.This was their Poſition, upon which they ſay, That [God in the eternal Election of particular Men, by one and the ſelf ſame Act, doth both aſſign Chriſt to be a head to them, and alſo doth appoint them according to his good pleaſure, to be the Members of Chriſt, to wit, in time when they believed.

For his Suretiſhip, doth this man think that he can make the ſimple People believe that we are ſo impious as to deny it, and treat it with contempt? when as the Apoſtle ſaith expreſly, that Jeſus was made a Surety of a better Teſtament, Heb. 7.22. But it may be our Author means that ſome of us deny the Aminomian notion of a Surety, and treat their notion with contempt; and indeed that may be, but what then? Doth it follow that therefore we deny Chriſts real and true p. 196Suretiſhip, which God hath revealed in his Word for our Faith and Comfort? Before that conſequence be admitted, our Author muſt prove that the Antinomian notion is the real, true, Scripture-notion of Chriſts Suretiſhip; which we do indeed deny, and contemn as a very falſe unſcriptural notion; and challenge him to prove it by Scripture.

As for Chriſts being the Second Adam, it is an abominable falſhood that we deny it, or treat it with contempt; ſo far are we from ſo doing, that on the contrary we do moſt firmly believe it, and openly confeſs that as the Firſt Adam was the cauſe of Sin and Death, unto all who in the ordinary way of human Generation partake of the natural Bitth; ſo Chriſt as the Second Adam is the cauſe of Righteouſneſs and Life unto all who by Divine Regeneration partake of the Spiritual Birth: But as no man ſuffers any actual prejudice by the firſt Adam before he be naturally begotten and generated; ſo no man actually receives in himſelf, any ſaving benefit from Chriſt as the Second Adam, before he be Spiritually begotten and regenerated; our meaning is, that no man actually receives from Chriſt before the time of his Spiritual Regeneration, any benefit that hath a neceſſary and infallible connexion with Salvation, by the Conſtitution and Ordination of God.

Laſtly, That we deny and contemn Chriſts being a Publick Perſon, is falſe So far are we from that, That on the contrary we ſincerely declare to all the World, that we moſt firmly and ſtedfaſtly believe that Chriſt is a Publick Perſon, that he is the publick Prophet, Prieſt and King of the whole Catholick Church, and that it is his proper incommunicable Glory to be ſuch a publick Perſon.

Fourth Calumny.

HIS Fourth Calumny is, that we teach ſuch Doctrine in the point of Juſtification, as neither we our ſelves nor any other ſenſible man dare stand to at Death. This is to be ſeen in the 18th and 19th pages of his Letter.

If this were true, we confeſs it might juſtly prejudice People againſt our Doctrine; and give them and our ſelves too cauſe enough to ſuſpect it to be falſe. But this is like the reſt, utterly falſe, and contrary to Experience. For our Doctrine is (as we have ſaid often) that Chriſts moſt perfect, ſatisfactory, Meritorious Righteouſneſs, is to us and all that are ſaved, inſtead of that perfect ſinleſs Righteouſneſs which we ought to have had in our ſelves, but ſince the fall neither have nor can have; and that by and for the ſaid Righteouſneſs of Chriſt alone, we are juſtified from the guilt of all our ſins of Omiſſion and Commiſſion, Original and Actual, and are accepted as Righteous before God, and receive a Right and Title to Eternal Life: This is the only Righteouſneſs which we cruſt to as the cauſe of our Juſtification; this Righteouſneſs we hold to be given unto us, if through Grace we ſincerely believe in Chriſt and repent of our ſins; and that on the account of this Righteouſneſs we ſhall obtain eternal Life and Salvation, if through Grace we perſevere to the end in Faith and Repentance, and in leading a holy Life, as was before explained: But on the contrary we maintain, that the forſaid Righteouſneſs of Chriſt is not given to any for their actual Juſtification before they firſt through Grace ſincerely believe and repent; and that none ſhall obtain eternal Life and Salvation on the account of Chriſts Righteouſneſs, but thoſe who after they have firſt believed and repented, do not Apoſtatize either totally or finally, but in oppoſition to ſuch Apoſtacy, perſevere in Faith repentance and holy Goſpel-obedience unto Death. This is the ſumm and ſubstance of our whole Doctrine in the point of Juſtification. Now why we or any ſincere Chriſtan ſhould be afraid to ſtand to this Doctrine at the hour of death and in the day of Judgment, it is above our Capacity to underſtand; for this is the Doctrine which the Lord himſelf hath taught us by his holy Spirit in the Canonical Scriptures: And therefore p. 197if the Scriptures be true, this Doctrine cannot be falſe, but is and muſt be true; and it is very ſtrange and wonderful, if all true Chriſtians be afraid to dye in the Faith of the true Doctrine of the Holy Scriptures.

We rather think, that if they be not delirious, but have the uſe of their Reaſon, they are not true Chriſtians, but meer Hypocrites that renounce the foreſaid Doctrine of Juſtification, and are afraid to ſtand to it at Death.

We are ſure that good Hezekiah was not afraid to ſtand to this Doctrine, when he juſtly apprehended himſelf to be under the Sentence of Death, ſince we find it written in Iſa. 38.3, 4. That he prayed thus unto the Lord, Remember now, O Lord, I beſeech thee, how I have walked before thee in Truth, and with a perfect Heart, and have done that which is good in thy ſight, &c.

And God was ſo far from being diſpleaſed with this his Prayer, that he moſt graciouſly accepted it, and ſhewed himſelf ſo well pleaſed with Hezekiah, that he gave him a further Leaſe of his Life for fifteen years, and Sealed the Leaſe with a Miracle; a thing we do not find that ever the Lord did for any other Man before or ſince. We have alſo read of many in Hiſtory, and have heard of others, and have our ſelves known ſome, who have not been afraid to ſtand to our Doctrine aforeſaid at Death; but have died comfortably in the Faith of it: As for our ſelves we live in the Faith of it, and deſire to die alſo in the Faith of it; and as we account it our Duty, to ſtand to it in Life and at Death; ſo we truſt and hope that (if the Lord be pleaſed to preſerve to us the uſe of our Reaſon, and to continue to us the Preſence of his Spirit and Aſſiſtance of his Grace) we ſhall be enabled to perform our Duty in owning at Death; and if he call us to it, in Sealing with our Blood the ſaid true Doctrine of Juſtification, which we have preached to his People in the time of our Life. As for our Author, we hope he agrees with us, that Chriſts Righteouſneſs is never to be renounced, but always to be truſted to and relied upon, as the cauſe of our Juſtification and Salvation, both in Life and at Death: What then would he have us to renounce? If it be our own Merits, he knows very well, that we admit not the very poſſibility of any proper Merits of our own, and that we renounce all Confidence in ſuch a Chimera, as much as he or any Man can do.

If it be our own good Acts or Works as the Cauſe of our Juſtification: He may know by what we have ſaid before, that we renounce as much as he doth, and ſomething more too, all cauſal Influence of any good Acts or Works of ours upon Juſtiſtification. If it be Faiths being the Condition of Juſtification, that he would have us to renounce: That we can never do either in Life or at Death, for the Reaſons we have given before. Beſides, he himſelf aſcribes as much, and we think ſomething more to Faith in the matter of Juſtification, than we do; for he maintains Faith, to be the Inſtrument of Juſtification, and if it be a proper Inſtrument, it muſt have an Inſtrumental Cauſality upon Juſtification, and ſo muſt be an Inſtrumental Cauſe, and to be an Inſtrumental Cauſe, is more than to be a Receptive Condition of Juſtification: If we may be afraid then to ſtand to it at Death, that Faith is the Condition of Juſtification, he may have more Cauſe to be afraid to ſtand to it at Death, that Faith is the Inſtrument of Juſtification.

But we ſuſpect his meaning is, that we will and muſt be afraid to ſtand to it at Death, that Repentance is a Condition neceſſary to Juſtification; and that perſeverance in Faith, and in the Practice of Repentance and Holineſs, is neceſſary to the obtaining Poſſeſſion of Eternal Salvation: and if this be it indeed, which he thinks we and all ſenſible men muſt be afraid to ſtand to at Death, and therefore muſt renounce, we cannot but judge the Man to be under a ſtrong Deluſion: for Firſt, The Scripture is as full and clear for the Truth of theſe things, as it is for the Truth of any other Article of the Chriſtian Faith.

p. 198Secondly, We have the Concurrent Judgment of Divines both Ancient and Modern, agreeing with us in the ſame Truth, as we have proved at large.

Thirdly, We have heard of many, and have known ſome who upon their Deathbed have bitterly lamented and bewailed, that they had not repented of their Sins in time, that for and through the Meritorious Righteouſneſs of Chriſt, they might have obtained Pardon and Juſtification; but we never heard of or knew any, who upon their Death-bed lamented and bewailed that they had repented too ſoon in order to their obtaining Pardon and Juſtification through Chriſts Meritorious Righteouſneſs.

The like we may ſay of the Neceſſity of a Holy Life, in Order to the obtaining of Eternal Salvation through Chriſt; many have moſt lamentably bewailed on their Death-bed their own Folly and Wickedneſs in not preparing themſelves for Happineſs by the Practice of Holineſs, without which no Man ſhall ſee the Lord. But we could never hear of any who on their Death-bed lamented and bewailed that they had held the Erroneous Opinion, that the ſincere Practice of Holineſs is neceſſary to the obtaining of Salvation and Happineſs through the Merits and Mediation of Jeſus Chriſt. On the contrary, the Generality of People that are ſerious and ſenſible, they then acknowledge the Neceſſity of ſincere Repentance in Order to the obtaining Pardon of Sin, and the Neceſſity of Holineſs, in Order to the obtaining of Salvation and Happineſs through Jeſus Chriſt our Lord. So abominably falſe is it, that no ſenſible man dare ſtand to our Doctrine at his Death, that the quite contrary is true, and no knowing ſenſible Man but will gladly ſtand to it and own it with all his Heart; except ſuch Nominal Chriſtians as are Conſcious to themſelves, that they are Hypocrites and unconverted Sinners, and fear that if the Goſpel be true, they ſhall certainly be damned: And therefore they may poſſibly (ſome of them at leaſt) flatter themſelves with the Hopes that God for Chriſts ſake will Pardon and Juſtifie them before and without Repentance, and ſave them without Holineſs.

But we dare not humour ſuch People, nor flatter them, however they may flatter themſelves, and therefore we muſt in faithfulneſs to Peoples Souls tell them from God, that except they repent they ſhall periſh; and that without Holineſs they ſhall never ſee the Lord, ſo as to be Happy in the ſight of him: And for the Hypocrites Hope of being pardoned without Repentance, and of being Happy without being Holy, it ſhall certainly periſh with himſelf: His Hope ſhall be cut off, and his truſt ſhall be as a Spiders Web. He ſhall lean upon it, but it ſhall not ſtand, he ſhall hold it faſt, but it ſhall not endure, Job 8.13, 14, 15.

Our Author inſtanceth in that Bloody Perſecutor Stephen Gardiner, and in another Papiſt whom he commends as an Ingenious Balaamite, who confeſſed that it is beſt for men at their Doath to renounce their own Merits, and to truſt then to be ſaved only by the Merits of Chriſt: But what is that to the purpoſe? Doth that make any thing againſt us or our Doctrine? for doth not our Author know well enough that our Doctrine is, that always both in Life and at Death men ſhould abhor all Thoughts of Meriting any good at the Hands of God by their own Works; and that they ſhould truſt throughout their whole Life to be ſaved by the alone Merits of Chriſt, as much as at their Death; was it not then wiſ…ly done of our Author, to Object againſt us and our Doctrine, the Example of Gardiner and ſuch Papiſts, who after they have publickly profeſſed as a main Point of their Religion to trust to their own Merits, and after they have led a wicked Life all their Days; at laſt when they come to die, think it beſt to renounce all Confidence in their own Merits, and flatter themſelves with the Hopes of being pardoned without a particular, practical Repentance; and of being ſaved without Reformation, by truſting only to the Merits of Chriſt; can … Author ſhew from the Terms of the New Covenant, that ſuch ſelf-condemned hypocrites have any ſure ground of obtaining the Pardon of their Sins, and Salvation of their Souls, meerly becauſe they do preſumptuo … that God will pardon and ſave them for the Merits of Chriſt? Is there any place in Scripture p. 199that gives us the leaſt Intimation, that ever God ordained that Chriſts Merits ſhould be a Sanctuary for Rogues and Hypocrites, whileſt they remain ſuch, and that if they flee into it by a Preſumptuous Confidence, they ſhall be pardoned before they repent, and be ſaved from Gods Sin-revenging Juſtice, before there be any real Holy Change wrought in them? It ſeems by ſome Paſſages in our Authors Letter, that this is the thing which he drives at, and that this is his way of Preaching the Goſpel. But alas! moſt People need not Miniſters to teach them this Doctrine, for the Devil and their own deceitful wicked Hearts will teach them this leſſon, and they are but too apt of themſelves to learn it. For as Mr. Book of Martyrs. Vol. 2. p. 192. Col. 1.Col 1Fox ſaith, Commonly it is ſeen, that worldly Epicures and ſecure Mammoniſts, to whom the Doctrine of the Law doth properly appertain, do receive and apply to themſelves moſt principally, the ſweet Promiſes of the Goſpel, whereby it comes to paſs, that many do rejoice, where they ſhould mourn.

Let our Author look to it, that he be not found guilty of hardning ſuch People in their preſumptuous way of living and dying; by telling the World that Men are juſtified by the Merits of Chriſt without any previous Condition required of them, and that they are pardoned before they ſincerely repent, and are accepted as Righteous through the Righteouſneſs of Chriſt imputed to them, before any real change, or Holy Qualification be wrought in them: And if he be wiſe, let him no more ſay that we teach People to expect to be juſtified from their Sins by and for their own Righteouſneſs; which is a thing that as we will not ſtand to at Death, ſo we do not ſtand for it, but againſt it in our Life, and now declare to the World that it is a notorious falſhood, and an abominable Calumny.

Fifth Calumny.

HIS Fifth Calumny is, that there are many Miniſters who in compliance with natural Men, patch up and frame a Goſpel, that is more ſuited to, and taking with, and more eaſily underſtood by them, than the true Goſpel of Chriſt is. And again that Divines plead that ſame Cauſe, that we daily find the Devil pleading in the Hearts of all natural Men.

This is to be ſeen in the 20th. and 32. Pages of the Letter. Whom our Author means by thoſe many Miniſters and Divines, who do this abominable thing, we do not certainly know; but this we know, that if he means us (as he ſeems to do almoſt throughout the whole Letter); what he ſaith is moſt falſe and injurious, and deſerves no other Anſwer than ſuch as Michael the Archangel gave the Devil, when Contending and Diſputing with him about the Body of Moſes, he ſaid, The Lord rebuke thee. Yet we do not deſire that the Lord ſhould rebuke this falſe Accuſer, as he rebukes the Devil in purely vindictive Wrath, but as he rebukes his diſobedient Children in Corrective Juſtice, tempered with Fatherly Love.

Sixth Calumny.

HIS Sixth Calumny is, to be ſeen in Page the 23d. of the Letter, where it is implied that we ſay (1.) That the Sanction of the Holy Law of God is repealed, ſo that no Man is now under it, either to be condemned for breaking it, or to be ſaved by keeping it (2.) Th…t it doth not now require perfect Holineſs. (3.) That we have much kindneſs for true Antinomians in Practice. Some late Writers of our Authors way, have expreſly charged us with ſome of theſe things, but our Author is here ſomewhat more modeſt and wary, and only implies and inſinuates, that we ſay and do theſe things. But however wary he be in the manner of expreſſing his Thoughts, yet that will not excuſe him from the Sin of Calumny, if he means us (as he plainly ſeems to do), and if the things he charges upon us be manifeſtly falſe; as they certainly are: And our Author might have known it, for a leading Man amongſt thoſe who are ſaid to be for the Middle-way, did many Years ago expreſly refute the two foreſaid Opinions, which are now falſely charged upon us; as is to be ſeen in Mr. Trumans Endeavour to rectifie ſome prevailing Opinions contrary to the Doctrine of the Church of England, Pag. 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 11, 12, 13.

p. 200Be it known then unto all men, That (1.) we do not ſay, nor ever did ſay, that the Sanction of the Moral Law is repealed, ſo that no man is now under it, either to be condemned for breaking it, or to be ſaved by keeping it. (2.) We do not ſay, nor ever did ſay, that the Moral Law doth not now require perfect holineſs: On the contrary we confeſs with our mouths, and declare to the World, what we have ever believed, and do ſtill believe with our hearts,

(1.) That the Moral Law doth now require of all men moſt perfect holineſs and ſinleſs obedience.

(2.) That all Unconverted Impenitent Unbelievers whilſt they continue ſuch, are under the penal Sanction of the Moral Law, they are under its Curſe and Condemnation, John 3.18. He that believeth not is condemned already. He is already condemned in Law; though the Laws condemnatory Sentence is not yet executed upon him. But as many as refuſe and neglect to uſe the remedy provided in the Goſpel, and ſo doing, live and dy in Unbelief and impenitence, they are certainly to be executively condemned for breaking the Law; and moreover having heard the Goſpel preached to them, and having had in the Goſpel a Soveraign Remedy offered them againſt the Curſe and Condemnation of the Law, they ſhall be condemned likewiſe for refuſing or neglecting to uſe the ſaid Remedy; Heb. 12.25. Heb. 2.3. John 3.18, 19. Matth. 11.22.24. So that profeſſed Chriſtians who live and dy in impenitence and unbelief will be doubly condemned both by Law and Goſpel; Rom. 10.14.Rom 10:14whereas Heathens who never heard nor could hear of the Goſpel for want of an objective Revelation of it, they living and dying without Repentance and Faith in the true God, under the guilt of Sins againſt the Law and Light of Nature, will be condemned by the Law, but not by the Goſpel, which they could not know; Rom. 2.12.

(3.) Since we believe that all Unconverted Impenitent Unblievers who live and dye in that State, are ſo under the ſanction of the Moral Law, as that they are to be condemned for breaking it, we cannot believe that the ſame Perſons are ſo under the ſanction of the moral Law, as that they are not to be condemned, but to be ſaved by keeping it: For that were to believe a contradiction, which we have not faith enough to do. Yet,

(4.) If the caſe be put disjunctively, as our Author expreſly puts it in his Letter, we maintain that what he charges upon us is notoriouſly falſe; and its contradictory is true, to wit, the ſanction of Gods moral Law is not repealed, ſo that no man is now under it, either to be condemned for breaking it, or to be ſaved by keeping it. We firmly believe that this disjunctive is true, Some men are now under the ſanction of the Law, either to be condemned for breaking it, or to be ſaved by keeping it. But take the latter part of the ſaid disjunctive by it ſelf, and underſtand it determinately, then we cannot believe it to be true, we cannot believe that ſome men are under the ſanction of the Law to be ſaved by keeping it, becauſe it is notoriouſly falſe.

And that (1.) Becauſe no meer man ſince the fall of Adam hath kept, doth keep, or ever will keep the Law ſo perfectly as never to ſin againſt it, and never to fall under the condemnation of it.

(2.) Becauſe that Holy Scripture aſſures us, that if Righteouſneſs come by the Law, then Christ is dead in vain, Gal. 2.21. And that if there had been a Law given, which could have given Life, verily righteouſneſs ſhould have been by the Law: But the Scripture hath concluded all under ſin, that the Promiſe by Faith of Jeſus Chriſt, might be given to them that believe, Gal. 3.21, 22. And again that what the Law could not do, in that it was weak through the Fleſh, God ſending his own Son in the likeneſs of ſinful fleſh, by a Sacrifice for Sin, condemned ſin in the fleſh, &c. Rom. 8.3.

This is our Judgment concerning the Law and its Sanction, with reſpect to Unconverted Impenitent Unbelievers, that ſo live and dye, they are under it, to be condemned, but not to be ſaved by it.

p. 201Then for Converted Penitent Believers, who are in Chriſt Jeſus by Faith, and walk not after the fleſh, but after the Spirit; we believe that they are under the Law and not under the Law in different reſpects.

(1.) They are under Gods Moral Law as it is a rule of Life, repreſenting to them what is the good and acceptable and perfect will of God; and directing them what to do, and what not to do, that they may pleaſe God in doing his will.

(2.) They are under it alſo as it is a Law obliging them to moſt perfect and ſinleſs obedience.

(3.) They are under it as a Law forbidding all their ſins, and likewiſe condemning all their ſins, but they are not under it as a Law by its Minatory Sanction condemning their Perſons which are in Chriſt by Faith, and walk not after the Fleſh but after the Spirit, for there is no condemnation to ſuch, Rom. 8.1. Gal. 5.22, 23.

(4.) They are not under the Law as a Covenant of Works to be juſtified and ſaved by it. Becauſe none can be juſtified and ſaved by the Law conſidered as it was a Covenant of Works given to man in the ſtate of innocency, but thoſe who perfectly keep it and never once tranſgreſs it, either by Original or Actual Sin. But that is impoſſible for any meer man to do, ſince the fall of Adam, and it is not only Morally impoſſible, but it is Phyſically impoſſible, yea it is Metaphyſically impoſſible, that is, it is ſo abſolutely impoſſible that it implies a contradiction, and can be done by no power Moral, Natural, or Supernatural, by no power Human or Divine: For all meer Men without exception have already broken Gods Law, ſo as that they are guilty of death for the breach of it: And that which hath already been, cannot poſſibly by any power whatſoever, be made not to have been; as it implies a contradiction and is abſolutely impoſſible that the ſame thing ſhould be, and not be at the ſame time, ſo it implies a contradiction and is abſolutely impoſſible that the ſame thing ſhould have been and not have been, or ſhould be paſt and not be paſt at the ſame time. But it is a thing already paſt and true, that all Converted Penitent Believers have already broken Gods Law, and fallen under the condemnation of it, thefore it implies a contradiction and is abſolutely impoſſible now, that they have kept it ſo as never once to tranſgreſs it; and conſequently it implies a contradiction and is abſolutely impoſſible that they ſhould be now juſtified and ſaved by the Law which they have broken, and which for that reaſon would certainly condemn them, were it not that Chriſt hath Redeemed them from its condemnation, and by the Law of Faith abſolves and forgives them.

Thus we have ſhewed how true penitent Believers are under the Law and not under the Law, and how it hath loſt its Sanction, with reſpect to their Perſons: It hath loſt its Promiſſory Sanction by reaſon of their Sins, and through their own fault: But its Minatory Sanction, whereby it bound them over to condemnation for their ſins, is taken away from it (with reſpect to Penitent Believers who walk not after the Fleſh but after the Spirit) by the Rich Mercy and Free Grace of God through the Satisfaction and Merits Chriſts obedience unto death, even the death of the Croſs. Now from the Premiſes it is as clear as the light at Noon-day, that we do not ſay, as is pretended, that the Sanction of the Law is repealed, ſo that no man is now under it, either to be condemned for breaking it, or to be ſaved by keeping it. So much for wiping off the Calumny which reſpects matter of Opinion.

The next which reſpects matter of Practice, is that we have much kindneſs for true Antinomians in practice. This being matter of Fact, and inſinuating into the People that we do not walk according to the Rules of the Goſpel, it ſhould have been proved by ſufficient evidence, before it had been thus charged publickly on Miniſters or People. But that is not our Authors way to bring evidence for the proof of his accuſations; but boldly to accuſe without proof: Whether the matter be true or falſe, it ſeems, is all one to him; for he is well acquainted with that, Calumniare audacter; aliquid adhaerebit, throw abundance of dirt, p. 202and in all probability ſome of it will ſtick. Well, but what is become of Conſcience in the mean time? It ſeems little of that is to be expected from ſome men.

As for our having much kindneſs for true Antinomians in practice; if he mean that we have much unlawful kindneſs for them, it is more than we know of our ſelves; and how he ſhould know that of us, which we do not know of our ſelves, we cannot underſtand.

But there being many of us who are thus accuſed, we freely acknowledge that it may be ſome of us have ſome Acquaintance and Hearers who are in ſome reſpect Antinomians in practice, and that for ſuch ſinful Perſons we have much civil kindneſs and Chriſtian Compaſſion; and by a kind and compaſſionate behaviour towards them, we deſire and endeavour to gain them to Chriſt, and to Convert them from their ſinful practices; where is the evil of this? what rule of the Goſpel do we tranſgreſs by this? We think we are obliged both by the Law of Nature, and by the Law of God, thus to be kind to them, ſo long as there is any hope of gaining them. But if our Author mean, that we have much kindneſs for their Antinomian and Sinfull practices, or that we encourage them in ſuch practices, and do not endeavour to turn them from them; it is utterly falſe: And the Lord knows that the contrary is true, and that it is to ſome of us matter of much grief and ſorrow of heart, that they take ſuch courſes as are both diſpeaſing and diſhonourable to God, and deſtructive to their own Souls; that we uſe means to reclaim them, that we moſt frequently and earneſtly ſeek God for them, and as it were travel in Birth untill Chriſt be formed in them. This is the greateſt kindneſs that we ſhew unto any who are true Antinomians in practice. And now let all who fear God, Judge, and even let our Authors own Conſcience, Judge, whether for this we deſerve to be thus reflected upon, and Calumniated.

Seventh Calumny.

HIS Seventh Calumny is to be ſeen in page 27th. of the Letter, where he chages the younger Miniſters with being for the new Rational Method of Divinity, and with being deſpiſers or neglecters of Luther, Calvin, Zanchy, Twiſs, Ames and Perkins. And to make the ſimple People believe that by this means they ſubvert the very ground and foundation of the Chriſtian Religion, he ſaith two things:

(1.) That to be Rational is no fit commendation of a Miniſter, but rather it is the commendation of a Philoſopher.

(2.) That to be Rational is yet more unfitly applyed to Divinity, becauſe, firſt, Divinity hath a higher and nobler Original, than reaſon, to wit, Divine Revelation. Secondly, Becauſe Divinity cannot be rightly learned without an higher principle than Reaſon, to wit, the Teaching of the Holy Ghoſt. In which our Author manifeſtly inſinuates, That (1.) We are for a new ſort of Divinity, and deſpiſe or neglect the old. (2.) That our new Divinity is not grounded upon Divine Revelation, but upon our own reaſon, or the invention of our own brains. (3.) That we pretend Divinity may be rightly learned by our own reaſon, or natural underſtanding, without the ſupernatural Teaching and aſſiſtance of the Holy Ghoſt. Of which things not one is true, but they are all abominably falſe.

(1.) It is not true, but falſe, that the Brethren, are for a new ſort of Divinity, and deſpiſe or neglect the Old: The falſhood of this hath been already fully and clearly demonſtrated.

(2.) As it is utterly falſe, that our Divinity is new, ſo it is as falſe that it is not grounded upon Divine Relation, but upan our own reaſon, or the invention of our own Brains. On the contrary, we believe in our hearts, and confeſs with our mouths, that the whole of our Divinity or Religion is grounded upon Divine Revelation. And as Divinity or Religion is either natural or ſupernatural; ſo Divine Revelation p. 203is either natural or ſupernatural; and then as natural Religion, is grounded upon Divine Revelation natural, ſo ſupernatural Religion is grounded upon Divine Revelation ſupernatural. That there is ſuch a thing as Natural Religion, and that it is grounded upon that Divine Revelation which God hath made of it by the Law and Light of nature within us, and by his works of Creation and Common Providence without us; we hope our Author is not ſo ignorant as not to know, nor ſo perverſe as to deny what in his Conſcience he knows to be true; and then for ſupernatural Divinity and Religion, our Chriſtian Religion conſidered as Christian, and as Contradiſtinguiſhed from all other Religion, is of that kind; it is properly ſupernatural, and could never have been known, unleſs it had been ſupernaturally revealed. Therefore our Chriſtian Religion as ſuch, hath its Original from ſupernatural Revelation, and is grounded upon the ſame ſupernatural Revelation from which it had its Original. We do not learn it (per viam humanae inventionis ſed duntaxat per viam coeleſt is diſciplinae,) by the way of human invention, but only by the way of heavenly diſcipline and inſtruction, for ſaith comes by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God, Rom. 10.14, 17. The Word of God is the means by which God hath ſupernaturally revealed to us, our Chriſtian Divinity and Religion: And that Word of God is fully and clearly contained in the Holy Scriptures of truth. So that we own no Chriſtian Divinity and Religion but what is revealed by and grounded upon the written Word of the Old and New Teſtament, which is to us the entire compleat Rule of faith and holineſs. Therefore it is falſe that our Divinity or Religion is new, and not grounded upon Divine Revelation.

3dly. It is falſe, that we pretend Divinity may be rightly learned by our own reaſon or natural underſtanding, without the ſupernatural teaching and aſſiſtance of the Holy Spirit. We ſay the quite contrary, to wit, that Divinity can never be rightly learned, that is, it can never be learned in a Spiritual and ſaving manner, without the Supernatural teaching and aſſiſtance of the Holy Spirit: For the Holy Spirit is the Efficient cauſe of all right Knowledge, that is, of all Spiritua… ſaving knowledge of God and Chriſt, and of the Spiritual things of God and Chriſt. Yet we muſt add, that as our Chriſtian Religion cannot be rightly, that is, Spiritually and ſavingly learned, known and believed, but by the ſupernatural teaching and aſſiſtance of Gods Holy Spirit, ſo it cannot be rightly learned, known and believed, without our own Reaſon.

For (1.) Grace doth not deſtroy, but refine and perfect Nature; the Holy Spirit doth not put out the eye of our reaſoning Faculty, Luke 24.45.Luke 24:45out opens it, clears it, elevates and raiſes it up above its natural ability, and ſtrengthens it to ſee Spiritual objects in ſuch a Spiritual way, as it could not ſee them by its own natural power alone.

(2.) The Spirit of God teaches us by the Word of God, and both the Word and Spirit ſuppoſe us to be rational; for the Word and Spirit of God are given to none but rational Creatures, and if we were not rational creatures, we ſhould not be ſubjects capable of being taught by the Word and Spirit, or of teaching others: We do not then make reaſon to be either the formal object or rule of Faith and Religion. But we hold it to be a light which God himſelf hath ſet up in our Souls:

Whereby (1.) We diſcern through Grace the Written Word to be indeed the Word of God; and the Spirit that teaches us by the Word, to be indeed the Spirit of God; and whereby we diſcover that every Word and Spirit which are contrary thereunto, are not the Word and Spirit of God.

(2.) We hold Reaſon, right Reaſon to be a light which God hath given us, wherewith to ſearch into the meaning of his Word; and by ſtudious inquiſition and obſervation, to diſcover and find out the true meaning of the Word, and to make it known to others, and by good reaſon out of the Text to convince others of p. 204…he truth of it. Theſe things we can never do unleſs we be rational Divines, and unleſs we uſe our reaſon in Studying, Speaking or Writing of matters of Divinity, and doth not our Author do the ſame? If he ſay that he doth not, becauſe then he ſhould be in danger of being a rational Divine; but he is not, nor will be a Rational Divine. Doubting Conſcience reſolved, p. 46.We demand in the words of Dr. Twiſs, Doth this Authors Reaſon go to Bed and Sleep, when he comes to Read and Studiouſly to conſider the word of God? If it doth, he will prove no better than a drowſie Student, and we know no reaſon but ſuch a one may be in Love with Dreams, as well as Anabaptiſt (ſaith Dr. Twiſs.) But we rather ſay, as w…ll as thoſe Prophets of w…om we read in Jerem. 23.25. That they Propheſied Lyes in the Lords Name, ſaying, I have dreamed, I have dreamed.

Thus we make an end of what we thought fit to ſay on the Fourth General Head: We have laid before the Reader, ſome of his Calumnies and Aſperſ… ons caſt upon us, and have wiped them off; and we could do no leſs, though it thereby appear that he hath been a falſe Accuſer of Chriſts Miniſters, againſt the ſincerity of Chriſtian Love.