Admonition to William Eyre, Section 1
§. 1.
Reverend Brother,
I Lately received a Book of your writing (whereof I had before intelligence by the weekly News book) entitled [Justification without Conditions, or The Free Justification of a sinner] against Mr Woodbridge, Mr Crauford and my Self, as Assertors of Conditional Justification. Your scope is to prove the Justification of Infidels, or of the Elect before Faith, and before they are men, if I understand you. Methinks, there appears in your lines, much more Piety, Candor and Judgement, then I am wont to meet with in men of your Way; though with mixed discoveries of too much defect, especially in the two last. For my own part, I bless God, I have at last learned to love and honour a Christian as a Christian; and therefore all that are Christians; though they have that withall that is displeasing to Christ, and must be so to me. This Debt I confess I owe you; Christ in you is nevertheless Christ, because of your frailties; and though he delay much of the cure of your distempers, I hope he will in due time accomplish it; and when the remnants of your darkness are removed, you will see that truth which now you see not. I ought not to despise you for these infirmities, when I am daily groaning under them my self; and am in the hands of the same Physition; and am so conscious of a necessity of his tender handling. If Christ would not take me with all my faults, and distinguish betwixt his own and mine, between me and my sins, and put up many a thousand provocations, I were lost. And ought I not to honour Christ in you, and see his amiableness through the clouds of such humane frailties, which you as well as your sinfull Brethren, are yet liable to? Yet as Christ loves my sins never the more (that is, hates them nevertheless) for all his incomprehensible love to me, no more will he allow me to love yours. And as I must not think well of them, so neither must I speak well of them. If I should not mistake that for your sinne which is none, I suppose I shall have your free consent to acquaint you with it: And if I mistake not those for your Errours which are none, I suppose you will consent that I warn all those that reade your Book, to take heed of them and reject them. For I suppose you are Virtually contrary to those Opinions which you Actually hold and maintain, and those Practises which Actually you venture to commit. I take it therefore for my duty, as to manifest your Errours with a hatred to them, because they are against Christ; so with Christian charity to your self, because you intended well, and are Virtually for Christ, even when you do most against him. For I perceive you have a zeal for Christ, though it seems to me, not according to knowledge: And though some of your opinions, I much fear, are destructive of Fundamentals, and would not stand with salvation, if they were fully reduced to practice, yet I perceive great reason of hopes in the rest of your Writings, and by that good which I have heard of you, that you hold them but speculatively, and that in the main you live contrary to the natural tendency of your opinions. I remember therefore that I am writing to a Brother that I must live with in Everlasting Glory, where we shall be both of one minde, when we are perfected in Knowledge: I remember that I am Writing against such sins as are pardoned in the blood of Christ; and as will be very shortly renounced by your self, and against which you will be incomparably more zealous then I can now be, and will speak more disgracefully of them then now I must do. If in the mean time you are confident in the dark, and angry with those that would do you good, yea and abuse them who walk not according to your conceits, it is no wonder, considering what man is, even the best of the Saints while they live in the flesh: Being my self liable to the same distempers, I crave your pardon, if I shall any way injure you in these following lines.
The substance of your Book I perceive is against M. Woodbridge; M. Cranford and I are brought in but on the by, but so as that you deal with him but in the beginning, and with me almost throughout. I shall not anticipate M. Woodbridge, and therefore intend not the answering of your Book, but to give you a brief account of my thoughts, of so much of it as concerns my self.
Your first onset is in your third Epistle. My title is [A leading man in these times:] when I have neither worldly advantages, nor eminency of Abilities, nor yet opportunities to be much Leading to any but my own Charge. I live I believe as retiredly as you, cloistered up in obscurity, daily exercised with the chastisements of my Lord, and waiting for my change, and minding little to be the Leader of any, further then to help them to heaven to the utmost of my power. And for leading of men into any Parties, from the Unity of Christians, my soul is possessed with as deep a detestation of it, as of most sins that the world is guilty of. And I think no man did ever yet come to you, and say, that I once laboured with him to bring him to any private opinion of my own: My Wtitings contain all my fault of that kinde, that I know of. And for them, I desire you and all men to understand me, not as peremptorily affirming every thing that I speak in difficult Controversies, to be infallible Verities, but only as giving you my own opinion of it, and leaving you and all Readers to accept or reject it, according to the evidence. If what I speak, have evidence of Truth, you cannot darken it by what you say against my person: If it have none, my person hath no advantage, to make my opinion taking with the world.
The matter which you first charge me with is, my commendation of M. Woodbridge's Book in the Epistle to my Directions for Comfort. And your self are pleased to give M. Woodbridge your free commendations for the eminency of his natural and acquired parts, even to be as Saul above his Brethren: and that you seem to confine his worth to these, as if in spirituals the matter were otherwise, will make his cause never the worse before his Judge. You adde that [It is not to be wondred at that M.B. hath given this superlative encomium to M. Woodbridge's Sermon; he knew well enough that it would rebound upon himself, M. W. being a son of his own faith, and this notion of his, but a spark from out of M. Baxter's forge.] Repl. 1. Thus do bad causes hang together, and the sentences of the Oblivious destroy each other. My great imperfections are commonly known: Mr. W. you confess to be as Saul above his Brethren: What likelihood then of his receiving these things from me? 2. If you speak of the cause in hand, do you seriously think that I am the first that hath said, that [Infidels are not justified] or that [The Elect are not justified till they have faith.] Think you that Mr. W. need to come to such a one as I, to learn that which the Church hath held ever since it was called Christian? 3. Truly I never saw Mr. Woodbridge, nor did there ever a message or word in writing pass between us; nay (living here obscurely out of the observation of things remote) I had never to my knowledge heard of him, till I saw his Book. But when I did see, expede Herculem, I saw such discoveries in it of a clear understanding, which caused me to bless God for such a man, and in special that you had drawn him out into the world; nor am I sorry much for this your Answer to him, as not doubting but it will draw forth yet more of Gods precious gifts, which he is furnished with for his Church: I also much rejoyced in that providence of God which had made him successor at Newbury to Dr. Twisse, giving that people a man so sound, and so able to inform them better, in that one point, wherein the Doctor did so mistake. And indeed Sir, I should take it for a great priviledge, were I near him, to be the Auditor and Scholar of so Judicious a man; and I doubt not you will finde, that he is well able to manifest your mistakes to the world. And I confess I honour him yet more then I did, since you tell me in this Book (which I knew not before) that Mr. Parker was his Grandfather; the name of that man for his Labours and Patience (and especially that excellent Treatise de Descensu) being very precious to me. 4. And for your intimation of my self-seeking in commending his Book; you know it is our Masters prerogative to be the Searcher of hearts. Do not you know that an honest man may value those most that are of his own minde? Nay must do, cateris paribus; for else he cannot value a man for the sake of Gods Truth: For did we not take it to be truth, we could not be of that minde our selves. Doth not this raise your estimation of the Learned commender of your Book, and of others whom you oft quote? Would you have envied the praises of Mr. W. or his Labours, if he had been of your opinion? Do as you would be done by: Would you have been offended if I had as much commended you and yours?
You adde, [I suppose Mr. Baxter's praises or dispraises are not greatly regarded by sober-minded Christians, who have observed how highly he magnifies J. Goodwin with others of his notion, and how slightingly he mentions Dr. Twisse and all our Protestant Divines that differ from him.]
Repl. I confess in respect of ability of judging of mens Learning, and the worth of superlative Divines above my reach, my praise is small addition to any mans honour: But whether my conscience be so small that sober-minded Christians neither should nor do regard my words, must be determined by my Judge, to whose blessed and more equitable sentence I am approaching. And so farre as I am guilty of Error or partiality, I beg his pardon (for its according to my Judgement so to do.) For the high magnifying of Jo. Goodwin which you mention, I desire the time and the words may be considered; and then I think he that would then envy him such a commendation, is more partial then I am, though I were as contrary to him as you. I thought it had been only unmannerly language to my Brethren that I had been blamed for: but it seems its praising them too, if it be against the interest of the adverse party. Have you ever heard me praise him for any evil? If you have, speak it out: If not, give me leave to love a Christian as a Christian, and a mans Parts and Labours so farre as they deserve, and to honour so much of Christ as I see in any. But how plainly do you still confute your self? You intimate that my commending men is because I am of the same minde: and yet you know or should do, that I do in that very place profess my own Judgement to be contrary to that of Mr. Goodwin and the rest there named, and that I only reprehend men for their bitterness and contempt of them. Now Sir, if your conscience will warrant you in such dealing as this, to say I commend men as of my notion, (if you mean mine) even when I purposely express my opinion to be against them, and write against theirs, it is not of the same complexion as mine is, as bad as I am.
And as little truth is there in your words of my slighting Dr. Twiss, yea and all our Protestant Divines! Which be the words Sir that are guilty of that charge? For Dr. Twiss I have honoured few men living more formerly; and much honour his Name and Labours still; though I rejoyce that I am got out of the snare of one or two of his Mistakes. You are no Papist I hope; and therefore do not think a man slighted that is not taken to be infallible, or perfect. But of this I have said enough to Mr. Kendall. The rest of your Accusation, (as to all Protestant Divines that differ from me) is either a breach of the ninth Commandment, or else my Tongue or Pen hath somewhere spoken quite contrary to my heart.
I marvell at your next speeches, that [Mr. W. throughout all his Sermon, never so much as hinted, how or in what sense we are justified by faith.] Whenas he doth it as solidly (in my weak judgement) as ever I read in any Divine? Nay when your self bestow some labour to confute him: Doth he not tell you it justifies us by the way of a condition, though Naturally Active, yet Morally as it were Passive, qualifying us for Gods free Justification by his Covenant? To this purpose, but more largely, I well remember he speaks. How then durst you say, and publish to the world, that he never hinted how or in what sense we are justified by faith? Sure Brother, this is not well done.
Next you say of me, that [His advice to all Christians to buy one of these Sermons, argues rather his conceit of himself, then his charity to them.] Repl. Both these sins, self-conceitedness and want of charity, are latent in the heart, and by the Searcher of hearts it is that I must be tried, whose high prerogative, my opinion is, you should not usurp. Truly Brother, I have as much reason to value Truth, so far as I know it, as you or other men: and as little reason as many to be byassed in my seeking it. I dare say, I dearly love it, and that the searching for it doth cost me somewhat? If I know it not, it is not because I would not know it if I could. It is my hourly studied, and daily prayers, and if I knew any other lawfull possible way to attain it, how gladly would I use it, though it were to the loss of all I have in the world, or though the Truth were contrary to my former opinions, or though it would subject me to the ha; red of my dearest friends! He that knows my heart, knows that I speak my heart, if I know it my self. Nor do I take this for any high commendations; for mans intellect (as participativè voluntary) doth Will Truth as its proper natural object. I mean, it would know things as they are (where carnal interest and enmity causeth not the perverting of the soul herein.) And I do not finde in my flesh the least opposition to your opinion.
Where you adde your reason [That he dares take upon him the Office of a Universal Dictator to prescribe not only to his Kederminsterians, but to all private Christians what Books they shall reade.] Repl. If by [prescribing] you mean [commanding] all men know that I am no Commander, and therefore my commands were more likely to be derided then obeyed. If you mean [advifing] Why may I not dare to do that? Is that the work of a Dictator? If I may advise in other points of duty, I know not why I may not do the like in this. I have advised to the reading of other Books (as flat, I think, against your opinion) Bolton, Perkins, Hooker, Preston, &c. yet none ever charged me with [daring to prescribe as a Dictator.] However you know my word will not take much, and therefore you need not be so much offended. And for all the distinctions which you are pleased to take as Herring-bones, I doubt not but to mean Christians, that Book may be profitable: and that may prove happy food to others, which you call Poison.
You adde [As for the title of Antinomianism which he bestows upon our doctrine, it is no great slander out of Mr. Baxter's mouth, with whom an Antinomian and an Antipapist are termini convertibiles.]
Repl. 1. To begin with your last because it is the reason of the former: It is written, Thou shalt not hate thy brother in thy heart, but shalt in any wise rebuke thy neighbour and not suffer sin upon him, Lev. 19.17. I perceive by your words that you are Pastor of a Gathered Church (as it's call'd) were I one of your neer communion, I should openly desire satisfaction concerning these words, not as to my self for the wrong, but as to the Church, that otherwise if you prove impenitent, we might avoid you. My reasons are, because God hath faid, Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. And Lev. 19.11. Ye shall not steal, neither deal falsly, neither lye one to another. Deut. 19.18, 19. Behold, if the witness be a false witness, and hath testified falsly against his brother; then shall ye do unto him as he had thought to have done unto his brother. And I suppose you would avoid communion with a Papist, and have men so to do. Prov. 6.16, 19. Six things doth the Lord hate, yea seven are abomination to him: A proud look, a lying tongue,—a false witness that speaketh lies, and him that soweth discord among brethren. Prov. 19.5. A false witness shall not be unpunished, and he that speaketh lies shall not escape. So ver. 9. Prov. 14.5. & 12.17. Rev. 22.15. Without are— and whosoever loveth and maketh a lye, Psal. 15.1, 2, 3. Lord who shall abide in thy Tabernacle? who shall dwell in thy holy Hill? He that walketh uprightly and worketh righteousness, and speaketh the truth in his heart. Now as to the fact I prove it thus: If with me an Antipapist and an Antinomian be termini convertibiles, or all one, then I take all Antipapists for Antinomians. But the later is false: Therefore so is the former. All the Churches of France, Belgia, Bohemia, Helvetia, Scotland, England, &c. who subscribed the Harmony of Confessions, or owned them: All our Reverend Assemblies that made the late Confession of Faith and Catechisms, and all that own them: All that subscribed the Synod of Dort, I take for Antipapists, and yet I take them not for Antinomians, no nor any man for an Antinomian who believeth any one of all these: Therefore I take not all Antipapists for Antinomians. Again, either you speak of my heart or of my language. For the later, shew where, or prove when I said that Antipapists and Antinomians are termini convertibiles, expresly or implicitly, and then call me a slanderer and spare not. If you speak of my Thoughts, I know them better then you, and I profess them to be otherwise. Nay in the very particulars wherein I differ or seem to differ from my Brethren, I have received large Animadversions from very many Learned men, and I profess to take not one of them all for an Antinomian. So much for your ground-work. Now to your structure.
As for the term [Antinomian] I confess I think it more fitly applied to the Practice of those whom I have known, of that way, then to their Doctrine: For whereas the name is taken from one of the least of their great Errors, it should have rather been taken from the greater. For my part I heartily wish that among those whose opinions unfit them not for the Communion of Saints, and suffice not to Excommunicate them, all names of Parties or of Reproach were utterly laid aside; and would willingly contribute my best endeavours to that end, and heartily joyn with you in your motion to the Parliament that a Penalty might restrain such Dividing wayes. But yet 1. while men go commonly under such a name, we can scarce tell how to make known whom we speak of, but by the name or a description equipollent. 2. And I take a full Antinomian to be one that is unfit for Christian communion, as subverting the very substance of Christian Religion. But I confess I think it fitter to call them Antigospellers, or Antichristian, or Libertines, then Antinomians: And because it is the old and fit name, hereafter I will use rather the name of Libertines. But for sober moderate men, which are but half Antinomians, holding but the less dangerous part of their opinions, and disclaiming the rest, (though they are shrewdly concatenated) and not seeing that the rest do follow them, truly, as I dare not disaffect them, nor would avoid communion with them, so neither would I have them called Antinomians, further then to themselves to convince them of their participation in that sinfull way, as the name may be used in a course of arguing. And of these I hope you are one: and I hope it is no worse with some of your partakers.
But Sir, methinks you have some very strange passages in your Epistle Dedicatory about these things: I would warn you to search your heart whether the later part of the second page of that Epistle, be not the venting of pure malice; and a trampling upon men that have more to say against you, then you seem to take notice of. But the thing I mean is 1. Your most dangerous doctrine. 2. Your most palpable self-contradiction by word and deed. 1. In the bottom of the third page in your parenthesis [Nor can I excuse their connivence at any of those evils that are contrary to the Law of nature.] You seem to teach that the Magistrate should punish no other evils; for these words, following a discourse against force in matter of Religion, can bear no other sense that I know of. But is this your friendship to Christ, that you would have the Magistrate be indifferent to him and Mahomet or Antichrist? What? not command the preaching of Christ? and punish the neglect of it in those that should do it? Nor hinder men from preaching against Christ, or calling him a Deceiver, or blaspheming the holy Ghost? nor for preaching up Mahomet? Is this your friendship to the Parliament as to draw them into such a guilt, which would cause God to curse them and cast them out, and make their names hatefull to the Christian world? Is this your love to the Churches of Christ, that you would have this deluge of guilt and confusion let in upon us? Methinks the very thoughts of such a dolefull state of the Church, should make your heart sad! Is this your love to your native Land, to open upon it such a Floodgate of desolation? And is this your love to the souls of men to prostitute them to all deluders? If you think that truth is so discernable to good and bad, that if all may but speak there is no great danger; do but open your eyes and Judge by the experience which these times afford you! You can scarce get men to receive the truth that hear none contradicting it: How much less when they have ten speaking against it, for one that speaks for it, and that with such subtilty as they cannot resist?
Nay, Sir, I had hoped that you who do so let fly at me as a Papist, would not have proved such a friend to Popery. Would you have Popery have Liberty in England again in all the Points of it that are not against the Light of Nature? Truly you shew me but what I saw before! that all over-doing is undoing! and that none would sooner let in Popery then those that fly to the contrary extream. But shall I tell you Sir; If once they have full liberty here as you have, I think you will finde, that their numbers and prevalency will cloud your Sect, and all the rest of the Sects in England. And as very a Papist as I am, I would far rather joyn with you to keep them out; and would intreat you for the Peace of your own Conscience that you would unsay this again, and write a recantation of it to the Parliament.
I would have you also to consider your strange Contradictions to your own words.
1. You would have Names of Obloquy, and in particular that of Antinomians, restrained by Penalties. But is it against the light of nature for a man that is in Judgement against you, to call you Antinomian? If the Religion or doctrine may be tolerated, why may not the Naming of men accordingly? You will allow men to Do Evil, but not to be called Evil Doers? Where the Light of Nature reacheth not the Thing, me thinks it should not reach the Name! He that should judge you a Heretick, and thinks it his duty to make it known, seeth not by the light of Nature that he may not Call you so.
2. May not the Lord Jesus (for whom you seem zealous) have some of that favour from you, or respect, or tenderness of his Name and Honour, which you would have your self? If the Parliament must lay a Penalty on them that will call you Antinomian, I pray you put in one word with it, that they may lay a Penalty on any that will Call Christ a Deceiver, or reproach his Holy Name, or doctrine, or wayes; or would set up Mahomet or Antichrist against him; whether this be against the light of Nature or no. At least it is against the light of Nature to despise God: and Christ saith, He that despiseth you (his Ministers) despiseth me, and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me.
3. If all those Names must be restrayned by Penalties, then I doubt the Name of Papist must be restrayned, and Socinian too: And would you indeed have a Law made to punish all that call men Papists or Socinians? and yet seem so zealous against them. Still the Overdoing Enemies, are the greatest friends, to Popery and other Errors.
4. But how comes it to pass that I must be so frequently with you a Papist, Socinian, Arminian, and yet it is a sin to be restrayned by Penalties to use Names of obloquy? But you shew us plainly what kinde of Liberty of Conscience it is that men are now for: A Liberty for them and others to abuse Christ, his truth, and their Brethren: but a restraint of speaking against their reputation. It seems though you speak generally, it was the Name of Antinomian or Libertine that you meant. Truly Sir, though Mr Woodbridge, Mr Cranford and I, deserve not so much respect at your hands, yet me thinks the Parliament deserved sounder advice, and better and more carefull language of you then this: You should not have bespoken them with such Contradictions and dangerous Intimations.
You proceed with me thus [Let him shew us any one Church or single person, accounted Orthodox, till this present age, that did not hold some, yea most of those Points which he cals Antinomianism, and I will openly acknowledge I have done him wrong: otherwise let him be looked upon as a slanderer and reviler of all the Protestant Churches, who under a shew of friendship, hath endeavoured to expose them to the scorn and obloquy of their enemies.
Repl. I willingly stand to your motion: But I must needs say, that the tempter hath much foiled you, when he prevailed with you to write these and the following words! and to add impudency to falshood and slander: for so it is. You should have cited my words which you lay this charge upon, or else I know not what to vindicate; for I know not what you mean. But observe, that the question between us is not, Whether any of the reformed Churches do differ from me in any thing, or Whether I erre therein? But, Whether they hold any, yea most of those opinions which I call Antinomianisme? Would you make men believe that all the Protestant Churches are of your opinion? This is to put out mens eyes, and bid them renounce both sense and reason. I will call no man. Antinomian that doth hold the doctrines of the most Imperfect Confession in all the Harmony: Nay, I provoke you if you are able to name one man in the first, second, third, fourth or fifth Century, yea or for a thousand if not fourteen hundred years after Christ, that held any two, yea one, of the opinions which I ever call'd Antinomianism, except it were some that were notorious Hereticks. Till then, I suppose it is not the Accused, but the Accuser that is reputed the Calumniator till he make good his charge.
You proceed, [Mr. B. (the better to ingage his Reader), tels him his doctrine is of a middle strain, as if all the reformed Churches had hitherto been in an extream, in this fundamentall point of our Justification.]
Rep. 1. Though Justification be a fundamentall, yet so is not every point that concerneth it.
2. I hope you will not perswade us that all the Protestant Churches are for the Justification of Infidels! unless it be by taking the name of Protestant Churches from all that will not say as you.
3. What Divine of note can you name, but doth in one thing or other, differ from the greater part? I think but few. Yet we do not for that one Point separate him from the rest. And let me add to the former Section, that if it be proved of any one or more of our Divines, that they hold one or two lesser points of Antinomianisme, I think it not fit therefore to call them Antinomians. I will not call Zanchy a Papist, because he denied the Pope to be the Antichrist: or because of his so much differencing Johns Baptisme and Christs: nor will I call him an Anabaptist, because he thought that those in Acts 19. were twice baptized, alledging so many Fathers of his minde. The like I may say of many another.
4. No wonder if any doctrine that avoideth your extream be contemned by you: It hath alway been so with men in extreams. But the day is coming when Moderation and Truth (which lieth between extreams) will be better regarded.
5. As for my [engaging my Reader] which you talk of; I know not whether it discover more of the secrets of your own heart or mine: sure I am you know not mine, but should know your own: And if you speak according to yours, I will speak according to mine, and thats this; that I love Gods Truth, and therefore would propagate it; and I love mens souls, and therefore would do them all the good that I can: but for any advantage that I aim at to my self by engaging men to me, besides the doing of my duty, I yet know it not. Nay I must needs reckon upon the loss of mens esteem before I resolve to cross them in their opinions.
You proceed like the rest [I am sure he gives as much unto Works and less unto Christ then the Papists do.]
Rep. A false witness shall not be unpunished, and be that speaketh lies shall not escape, Prov. 19.5. Review the texts before cited. Truly, Sir, I cannot think you durst sin thus without shame and fear, if you had not been hardened in security, by thinking your sins were forgiven before you were born! What good will all your Arguments do to prove to any man, that your doctrine encourageth not men in sin, while they shall see you run on in it so boldly? What hear we words for, when we see contrary deeds? As the Papists have done as much against their Religion, by Powder plots, Treasons, lying, as by their very erroneous doctrines, among those that judge by such experiences; so have the men of your sect done, to the wonder of observers. Whether your words here be true or not, I shall refer the Reader to my Reply to Mr. Crandon, whither I reserve it.
You add [He makes Works by Virtue of Gods Promises and Covenant, to be the meritorious Causes of Justification and Salvation, and in no other sense do the Papists affirm it.]
Rep. Thou shalt not bear false witness against thy neighbour. It is a harsh provoking kind of answering, for to give a brother a plain mentiris: and therefore I love not to deal with those sayings, that will admit of no other answer in termes or sense. If the ninth Commandment be Law, then this practice of yours is Antinomian. Produce that place; express those words of mine, which may make good this charge. I have ever professed that our best works are not in the least degree meritorious, no not of a bit of bread, much less of Justification and Salvation. There never fell from my Pen such a word as you charge me with, and yet you dare do it. One would think that common wit should have told you, that when the falshood of such passages de facto are discovered, it should redound to your own shame, and consequently to the great prejudice of your Cause. Nay I durst not acknowledge any Causality in faith to our Justification, and therefore in that Point adventured to differ from many Brethren: Yet doth this man say, that I [make Works by Virtue of Gods Promise and Covenant, meritorious Causes of Justification. And mark what an occasion he takes of this slander. In the 26. Thes. of my Aphor. I purposely speak against the doctrine of Merit; shewing that properly no works of ours can be called Meritorious, but in the end did concede that Improperly they may: This I did, because the Fathers for many hundred years after Christ use the word Merit, in application to mans works; and because all our Divines that ever I read against the Papists, nemine contradicente, do answer that the Fathers used the word Merit improperly. But these three things I ever professed in speech and writing on all occasions. 1. That no acts or works of ours are Meritorious Causes of salvation, much less of Justification. 2. That therefore the word Merit cannot be applied to them, but Improperly. 3. That therefore it is not fit to use so much as the word. And though when we read it in the Councils or Fathers, we must interpret it with a due reverence to them, yet is it fit to be excluded among our selves. Yet should I meet with any godly, sober man of a contrary judgement, that thought the name might be used while he interprets it in the same sense which the Reformed Churches hold, I would not approve of that mans opinion of the use of the word, but yet I would not for the bare word pretend that we are of different Religions, or do differ in the Thing which he expresseth by that word, I should think it very unjust if I should report all of my brother, which may be said of him Improperly. If David say, All men are Lyars, meaning, not able to help in time of need, and therefore not to be trusted in, as being fallacious; may I therefore call every man that I speak with a Liar? What is there that may not be spoken of you truly in Impropriety? But suppose you would have made the worst of my words that malice could have done without express falshood, should you not then have taken up with my own words, without the addition of your forgeries? I said that [This is Improperly called Merit,] But I never said that [our works are the Meritorious Causes of Justification or salvation.] For as I have still maintained that they are No Causes at all, so in saying that they are called Merit Improperly, I say, they are no Causes Meritorious: no more then a Causa fine qua non is a true Cause, because it is Improperly so called. Nay I never once said, that as to our Justification begun, that works are so much as existent, but alwaies maintained that we are truly and fully as from all sins past Justified by faith, before Works of externall obedience are in being.
The next words ["and in no other sense do the Papists affirm it,] is another notorious falshood: which if it were in Doctrinals only, I could answer it with a cold Negatur; but thus to multiply falshoods one after another, seems a sad practice from a godly man. He might well know, if indeed he know what the Papists hold, that they are of several parties among themselves differing about this Point, yet all of them except Waldensis, or very few more, do maintain the fitness of the word Merit: most assert both Merit of Congruity before Regeneration, and Merit of Condignity after; and Scotus and a few more that reduce all to the right by promise are rejected by the rest, who affirm a Merit of value or proportion: And our own Divines generally approve of them that hold only Meritum ex pacto, as to the thing, denying only the fitness of the name, and that this is any proper Merit. This all Divines know to be true that have read the Papists writings and ours against them. And yet this man did not fear to say, that [in no other sense do the Papists affirm it,] yea and that I [give as much to Works and less to Christ then the Papists:] I shall purposely delay my particular proof of the contrary till I speak to Mr Crandon.
Nay a little before he saith of me [Its like he thinks, that the Papists are much neerer the line of truth then any of them,] i. e. of all the Protestant Churches. Here are two sins as evident as his sense, viz. false-speaking and uncharitableness.
A little before he said, he [feareth the men of Kederminster are fed but with little better food,] yet did this man never hear me preach, never see my face, and yet can censure my teaching! Nay had he but enquired of me, he might have learned how little I meddle with Controversie in the Pulpit: Or if I did, and did all erroneously, yet I read the Scripture to them, I publish the doctrine of the Creed and Catechisme, is all this poison or ch…aky meat as he speaks? Judge of the affection and practice of this man by the Apostles marks, 1 Cor. 13.3, 4, 5, 6, 7. and see what Charity he hath: Charity thinketh no evil: But how much of his own surmising hath he vented in a few lines? And yet he proceeds as fresh and fearless as before.
For he adds [I must needs say, I never met with that Papist, which cals Christ a fine qua non (i.e. a Cause which effects nothing) of our Justification.]
Rep. Would you not think here that the man did intimate that I say this, and but this of Christ? But mark the Case. In Thes. 56. p. 215. I speak only of Christs satisfaction, and not of any other work of Christ: And I say that it hath several waies of Causing our Justification. 1. That it is the Meritorious Cause, I say, I know few but Socinians will deny. 2. That it is also the Principal Cause fine qua non, as Removing Impediments: withall I shew, that I so call it only in respect of its Physical operation, but as to Moral Dignity, I plead for its preheminence. Now what doth this man but lay down this word alone, that I call Christ the Causa sine qua non, and leave out that I call his satisfaction the Meritorious Cause, and allow it the preheminence in Moral respect. Nay mark that himself makes Iustification to be from Eternity, and not at all Caused or procured by Christs death qu…ad actum volentis, but only quoad rem volitam: And let any man tell me what he can possibly ascribe to Christs satisfaction on those terms more then I do in the place that he carps at. Those things that are but Causa sine qua non in sensu physico, are of singular Moral Causality, and so I shewed that Christs death is; but that faith is so a causa sine qua non, as to have no Moral Causality at all, as being but the Accepting of a free Gift. These things are so far from Popery, that they accord with the opinions of his own Patrons, as expressed hereabouts, and yet this man saith he never met with Papist that said so.
He next proceeds to compare my doctrine with some Positions of Gardiners in Foxes Martyrology. I have not the book at this time in my study to examine his dealing, but to his Positions I shall answer particularly, thus. 1. All the effects of Christs Passion have not a Condition: The satisfaction of Iustice, the making of the New Covenant, the sealing it with Miracles, the publishing it to the world, and preaching it now to any Nation or Person, and the first Grace of faith and repentance; all these are given absolutely, and not made over upon any Condition on mans part. But Iustification, Remission, Adoption and Salvation, are given Conditionally 2. His second Position hath its answer in the first, 3. The third is false; for faith is the Condition it self, and not somewhat antecedent by which we must know it, unless he speak of any common faith which helpeth a man to perceive the need of saving faith; or unless he speak of the Condition of our Glorification or Iustification as consummate, which is sincere obedience, in subserviency to faith and concomitancy with it. 4. To the fourth, I will believe that faith is the Gift of God, if all the Papists living believe it, and that by this Gift, I do well in believing in order of nature, but not of time, before I am Justified. 5. And so that I do well toward the attainment of Justification; But not of justification in the Popish sense, which comprehendeth sanctification even in the first act, for so I do not well before it, so as any of my actions are Accepted of God in Christ, and their infirmities pardoned; but only as an unbeliever may comparatively be said to do wel in coming to hear the word, rather then in going to an Alehouse. 6. I believe that Faith and Charity thrive together, I am a Papist if this be Popery; that Faith works by Love. I do not think it sound doctrine, that to the Attainment of justification is required Faith and Charity, without limitations and explication: For though a Love to Christ the Object is effential to that Faith that must accept him (for let men say what they will, Christ must be accepted as Good, and Good cannot be accepted without Love,) yet Charity usually signifies that Grace, as extended to all other objects of Love, as well as an offered Christ, and so the Proposition is false understood of our first being justified, as the word Attainment shews it is. 8. The eighth Proposition is false. If only the beginning be free, then the rest is not free, 9. The ninth is answered in the former. 10. The tenth I never heard Protestant deny in sensu diviso; I believe that God gives the grace of Repentance to men in deadly sin, even to all that have it, and I know not else how they should have it, and that this Repentance is a Condition of justification, in the Protestant sense, but not in the Popish sense, that is, of the first renewing of our natures. And now Brother I would I had given you all I have in the world, yea twenty lives, if I had so many to lay down, on condition you could but make it good, that the Papists erre no more then this; yea no more then these words of Gardiners in their obvious sense. But if you would be believed in crediting the Papists, you must get you Readers that never read their writings, or that have read none but such as the late Christian Moderator, that tells you by Merit they mean nothing but rewardableness. If you will make all the Papists Orthodox to prove me a Papist, youl shew how much your extremities hurt their Cause. For my part I say again, would I had lost my life so that it were true. I would no more remove from the truth because the Papists own it, then I would deny God because they profess him. And if you can make me believe that the Papists are as Orthodox men as you pretend them to be, you will but exceedingly glad my heart, and not a whit remove me from my own opinion. These be but words to affright such children that receive their faith on the credit of man, and that must know what the Papists hold, that they may be contrary, before they can tell what to hold themselves. These move not men that wait for the Law at the mouth of Christ, and that attend the Spirit of Illumination by the study of the word, and go to the Law and to the Testimony, and call no man Master on earth. The worst you can do by such Toyes of malice, are but to diminish my reputation, with factious men, that follow parties for their faith, and know not what the Unity of the faith means, nor what it is to depend for teaching upon Christ. Though these men may be godly and zealous, and such as I dearly love, yet were it not for being made uncapable of doing them good, and diminishing Gods interest and their benefit, by the diminution of mine, I think you would not much assault me with these weapons, if you knew how little I value their esteem, when I cannot have it with Innocency and Truth. Brother, I am proud and sinful the Lord knows as well as others: but yet I can truly say, that I have bent my studies and vigilancy against the sin of pride above most others, for divers years past, and that I have stood so long on the brink of the grave and the door of eternity, that I can with very little trouble bear all the quarrels and contrempts of men. How small a matter is it to me to be judged by man, who am daily looking to be called to the bar of God? I am almost out of this wrangling censorious world, and know its Gods Approbation which I must stand by, and then think of me all as you please; if God justifie me, I care not for your condemning me. But you proceed.
[And for his choice notion of Justification by Works as they are our new Covenant-Righteousness, I find it was a shift of the Papists long ago, &c.]
Rep. You are very unfit to parallel the Papists and me, who for ought I perceive understand neither of us I need not tell Divines that read them, the Papists opinion but for my own, I say still, that we are justified first, without so much as the presence of Works, and finally without their Causality: but yet had rather expound James, then deny the truth of his words. Nor do I acknowledge any Universall Righteousness but Christs, consisting in the remission of sins. OnelyOnly I think not that Christ died to pardon my Faith and Love, as such, but to pardon the infirmity of them: to forgive my sins, as sins, and not my duty, as duty, and therefore that we have a particular Righteousness by which in subordination to Christs, as being only the Condition of our Enjoying it, we may be said to be justified. But of these things more fully God willing hereafter.
He adds [I shall not trace Mr. B. any further, there being now in the Press, as I am informed, a large and full Answer to his Paradoxicall Aphorisms, by a faithful servant of the Lord Iesus, Mr. Crandon of Fawley in Hampshire, a Workman that need not be ashamed.]
Rep. Of this book I have spoke in the Epistle enough. Why speak you of it as a strange matter [as I am informed?] Its long since I was informed of your being with him at London, as combined together in the same Cause, and promoting each others work; one against Mr. troodbridge, the other against me.
Your next shews your modesty, in calling such books [far more dangerous then the Ranters Blasphemous Pamphlets] and imitating that they are Popish and Arminian, and how Reignolds, Whittakers, Davenant, Prideaux would not have endured them.] Would you make the world believe that these men were of your minde for the Iustification of Infidels? Truly if you will be of the same minde as these men were, though I may differ from you in some point of Method or Words, yet I will never oppose you nor write against you, if you wil but give me leave to forbear. My differences with these men are nothing to my differences with you. Nay you might have known if you would, that Davenant maintains the Conditionality of sincere obedience to the Continuance of our Iustification in the same terms as I do. And so much to your Epistle. Now to your Treatise.