A Call to the Churches, Postscript
A DISPUTE at Cowbridge,Glamorganſhire. WITH Mr. Henry Nichols, Paſtor of an Independent Church, and Parſon of a Pariſh-Church: Ergo, None of the beſt (though a new-modeled Miniſter) Nor one of the old Welſh Saints, who minded Godlineſs more then Gain, 1 Tim. 6.6.
Perverſe diſputings of men of corrupt mindes, and deſtitute of the truth, ſuppoſing that gain is godlineſs. From ſuch withdraw thy ſelf,
1 Tim. 6.5.
For Mr. Davy Walter.
Worthy Sir,
I Wrote unto you in Wales a few lines, in anſwer to yours Your judging of what I publikely ſpake, becauſe the weakeſt and worſt of men would hear me, was no argument with Chriſt, whom Publicanes and harlots willingly heard, and whom he friendly received, yea feaſted with, when Phariſees and Hypocrites were offended. Truly, Sir, I know your ſincerity and ſingleneſs of heart, yea your unſetledneſs and looſneſs of ſpirit from all Church-forms, and empty forms of godlineſs, waiting for a higher Power and Spirit to appear in the Saints, which will gather up not themſelves onelyonly, but many Nations with them into God.
This is all I have taught my dear Country-men in Wales: yet indeed, Sir, I ſhould never have publiſhed this wilde Diſpute, but that I promiſed it on the place: for it was ſo confuſed, and full of Soloeciſms, and illogical proceeds, that if all particulars were written, it would nauſeate any Scholar, or ſpiritual man.
Such a one I wiſht my Antagoniſt had been; for then he ſhould have underſtood me, or I him: therefore I deſired Mr. Nichols in a Letter the week before, that we ſhould reaſon together in private, among Rational and Religious friends, both his and mine. But he was reſolved to have it in publike, either that the ſimple Welſh people might wonder at his wiſdom, or that his folly and mine might appear to all.
And truely I was a fool to accept of a diſpute before an illiterate multitude, and without a Moderator: for many ſometimes would be ſpeaking at once.
But it was agreed upon at laſt, that M. Nichols ſhould be Reſpondent, becauſe I was by Argument to maintain the Truth that I taught; which he had rumoured abroad to be Errour and Hereſie.
The things were theſe:
Firſt, That the new Jeruſalem is a ſtate of the Saints in this life. This he denied.
Secondly, That the Saints this day have not a Goſpelfaith. This he affirmed.
Thirdly, That God is in union with mankinde. This he was negative too.
But I was to maintain all three, in theſe following Arguments.
For the firſt, I had many grounds to build upon, and to prove that the new Jeruſalem, is a ſtate of Saints in this life. Firſt, becauſe it muſt be immediately after Babylons fall, which is in this liſe; where Babylon muſt fall, and riſe no more.Rev. 18.21. Rev. 19. throughout. Rev. 20.1, 7. Rev. 21.2, 3. Secondly, New Jeruſalem comes down from God out of heaven, not goes up to heaven from earth. Thirdly, there God dwells with men, not men with God: for 'tis a new earth, as well as a new heaven. Fourthly, whole Nations are here to be ſaved; and the Nations ſaved (with their Kings) bring their glory and honour to it: which cannot be in heaven above (as men conceive) but 'tis a third diſpenſation, differing from Law and Goſpel-Order. For the firſt was a nation ſaved by the Lord. Deut. 33.29. Act. 2.47. Zach. 2.11.In the ſecond, believers of all Nations were ſaved, or joyned to the Lord: not to a Church, but to the Lord; not in any particular form of Religion, Iſa. 60.21.but in the power of righteouſneſs.
The firſt Argument was thus:
The Nations of them that are ſaved, walk in the light of the new Jeruſalem; Rev. 21.24.and the kings of the earth bring their glory and honour to it.
Ergo, the new Jeruſalem is a ſtate of the Saints in this life.
Secondly, Jeruſalem ſhall be inhabited, Zach. 2.4.as a city without walls, for the multitude of men and cattel therein.
Ergo, 'Tis in this life.
M. Nichols Anſwers to both, truely I remember not, nor his to moſt of my Arguments; onelyonly to this ſecond his anſwer was in laughter, (like Solomon's wiſe man, Eccles 7.6.) crying aloud to the people, Hawer! here's cattel in heaven: whereas my proof was, that New Jeruſalem in Zechariah was not heaven, becauſe cattel are there.
Yet contrary to Order, Mr. Nichols would needs object; and what? That the new Jeruſalem is not this life: why? Becauſe (ſaith he) none ſhall enter in that defileth, or telleth a lye, Rev. 21.27.
I caught him preſently in three, before witneſſes. One was a great untruth: for whereas I was ſaying upon occaſion, that Zechariah's prophecie was after the Captivity, M. Nichols would face me down before the people, that his Prophecie was before; and Adeodate (ſaith he) is of the ſame judgement with me.
The next day that I ſpake, Adeodate was brought, and read in publike;Adeodate in Zach. 1. whoſe words were quite contrary to that M. Nichols ſaid of him: yea, the Scripture is clear, that Zachary, propheſied in the ſecond and fourth yeers of Darius; that's after the Captivity, Zech. 1.1. & 7.1. Ergo, (ſaid I) Mr. Nichols muſt not enter into the new Jeruſalem.
'Twas his own Argument.Iſa. 65.22. But my third was this:
In the new Jeruſalem men ſhall build houſes, plant vineyards; labour, and live long.
Ergo, New Jeruſalem is a ſtate in this life.
The ſecond thing that I held forth, as truth to me, was this: That none of the people of God this day have a Goſpelfaith. Which I proved, firſt, by an Argument ex enumerat is or ex particularibus, &c.
Neither M. Nichols, nor any of the godly Preachers with him, nor the people of God this day, have a Goſpel-Church.
Ergo, None have, &c.
'Twas proved thus:
Thoſe who live not of the Goſpel, Iſa. 2.4.have not a Goſpel-faith (For, the juſt live by faith.)
But neither M. Nichols, nor any of the godly Preachers with him live of the Goſpel: Ergo.
The minor or ſecond Propoſition I proved thus:
Thoſe who live upon Tythes, 1 Cor. 9.14.live not of the Goſpel.
But M. Nichols, and the reſt of the godly Preachers in Wales live upon Tythes: Ergo.
This was unanſwerable; therefore to the people of God I propoſed a ſecond Argument, thus:
Thoſe that have not received the Spirit which Jeſus gave after he was glorified have not a Goſpel faith.John 7.39.
But the Saints this day have not received that Spirit, &c. Ergo.
This I proved,
Firſt, becauſe that Spirit was not before given: or, (as the Greek there reads, The Spirit was not: foreign.
Secondly, the Spirit which the Apoſtles had before and afterward breathed on them by Chriſt riſen, John 14.17. John 20.22.was not that Spirit which Jeſus gave when he was glorified, or aſcended: but the Saints this day have not that Spirit as the Apoſtles had before▪ much leſs the Spirit which Jeſus gave after he was glorified. Ergo.
Thirdly the Spirit which Jeſus gave after he was glorified, was the Baptiſm of the Spirit (which the Apoſtles themſelves had not received before,Act. 1.5. till not many days after the Reſurrection) that is, the pouring forth of all the gifts of the Spirit on the Church;Act. 2.33, 38. which preſent Churches and pureſt Chriſtians are far from. Ergo, N…ne have a Goſpel-faith.
The third Argument was from Joh. 14.12.
Thoſe who do not the works which Chriſt did, and greater alſo then thoſe, have not a Goſpel-faith.
But none of the Saints this day, by all their faith, can do thoſe works, and greater alſo.
Ergo.
The Argument is ſtronger in Chriſt, who gives a double aſſeveration to it; Verily verily: that is, not onelyonly aſſevers; but ſwears, as Calvin interprets, Joh. 14.12.
Secondly, thoſe who believed on Chriſt, did greater works then he did in the days of his fleſh:Act. 9.18. Act. 2.8, 41. Act. 4.4. for ſome gave the Spirit by the laying on of hands. 2. Others could ſpeak to every one in his own tongue. 3. They converted many thouſands at once. 4. Could preach the Goſpel to every creature under heaven; whereas Chriſt did onelyonly to one Nation;Col. 1.23. Mat. 15.24. Mark. 6.4. Mark 16.17.18. for his commiſſion was no farther. 2. Converted but a few. 3. Spake not with tongues. 4. Gave not the Spirit by laying on of hands, as the Apoſtles did, after Jeſus was glorified.
Thirdly, the weakeſt this day, I mean many of the ſcattered Saints, (who do not profeſs any Goſpel-faith to themſelves, yet dare not deny it in them, (for there's a perfect confuſion, a Babel in their ſpirits, as in gathered Societies) I ſay, the weakeſt of ſcattered Saints this day do greater works then Chriſt did in the days of his fleſh; though the Spirit appear not in them nor they as doing thoſe works.
For firſt, Babylons fall is by them: yea, Babylon the great, from firſt to laſt, has been ever laid lowe by the weakeſt of ſcattered Saints;Iſa. 26.5, 6. Zach. 12.7. Jer. 51.58. while the gathered Churches in all Ages have been ſtill building Babylon a new, when and old Form or piece of the wall has been falling.
Secondly, the leaſt of the flock draws for Babylon, for utter deſtruction, Jer. 50.45. yea, draw them out: whom? Saints out of the Church.
Thirdly, the weakeſt,Iſa. 41.15. Jer. 51.20. Pſal. 149.8, 9. 1 Cor. 6.2, 3. even worms do this day threſh mountains, throw down hills, tear the rocks, and whole armies in pieces, break kingdoms, binde kings nobles, and judges, yea, judge the world, and angels of Churches: for the feeble (or fallen, Hebr.) is become as David, and the houſe of David as God, Zach. 12.8.and the angel of the Lord before them.
All this we ſee done by the Saints this day, and the Saints thus to be, though they believe not: for now they begin to walk not by faith, but by ſight, (that's the third diſpenſation) which being full,Iſa. 52.8. Rom. 8.18, 24. Rev. 22.4. faith ſhall be ſwallowed up into viſion, hope into o poſſeſſion of that glory, wherein we ſhall ſee God as he is, ſee his face, and the Father's Name on our foreheads; yea, his Name ſo viſible and clear upon us, that all men ſhall ſee God the Father in us; and whole nations joyn to the Lord with us in that day.
This was the laſt truth which I taught,
That God is in union with mankinde.
And this I was about to prove by Argument, That God is in union with man: And this was all I taught the people. But M. Nichols fearing the Arguments that might follow, would needs perſwade, that I held a ſpiritual union between men and God.
This I never ſaid: but for Diſputes ſake, and to try the mans ſtrength, I undertook to prove,
That union which is by the Spirit is a ſpiritual union.
But the union between God and mankinde is by the Spirit: Ergo.
This he could neither ſtand againſt; therefore falls off fairly again. Truth (ſaith he) the union is ſpiritual, but not of grace: God is not graciouſly united to All men.
I was willing to follow the man, or the Lord in his weakneſs; therefore I replied again,
The grace of God that bringeth ſalvation, Tit. 2.11.hath appeared to All men:
Therefore, the grace of union is to all, or God graciouſly united to Mankinde.
[This is that Philanthropie, or kindneſs and love of God our Saviour toward man, which appeared, Tit. 3.4.]
This he grants again: and therefore cries quarter the third time. 'Tis of grace (ſaith he) there is a gracious union: but the union is not ſaving between God and all men or Mankinde.
Here I would follow him no further, but left him in the flight, becauſe I foreſaw and Ambuſh laid before me, and that, in the ſalvation of all men, the man ſought my deſtruction. Therefore here the Diſpute ended; and we both departed in peace, as friends.
But though I deſire not any Diſputes with men, yet I ſhall (with God) make it good in due time, That there is a Saving union between God and Mankinde: for,Tir. 2.11. the grace of God that bringeth ſalvation to All men, hath appeared; (ſo the margin reads) and ſo I am ready to prove to all the world.
London, Jan. 18. 1652. Your William Erbery.
FINIS.
End of the text · William Erbery, A Call to the Churches (1653)