Admonition to William Eyre, Title page – Preface
Rich. Baxter's ADMONITION TO Mr WILLIAM EYRE OF SALISBURY; Concerning his MISCARRIAGES in a BOOK lately Written for the Justification of Infidels, AGAINST M. Benj. Woodbridge, M. James Cranford and the AUTHOR.
2 Pet. 2.19. While they promise them Liberty, they themselves are the servants of corruption.
Rom. 4.22, 23, 24. And therefore it was imputed to him for Righteousness. Now it was not written for his sake alone, that it was Imputed to him: But for us also, to whom it shall be imputed, if we Believe on him that raised up Jesus our Lord from the dead.
Ostendisti tales Discipulos, non fecisti: Hoc profecit doctrina tua, ut Peccatum ne Paenitentiam quidem habeat. Hieronym. contr. Jovinian. lib. 2. pag. (mihi) 43.
LONDON, Printed by A. M. for Thomas Ʋnderhill, at the Anchor and Bible in Pauls Church-yard near the little North-door, and Francis Tyton, at the three Daggers in Fleetstreet near Dunstans Church. 1654.
The Preface.
READER;
I Think it not inconvenient to give thee some advertisement of the occasion of this writing. Having met with a Sermon of Mr B. Woodbridge Pastor of Newbury, for Justification by faith, and against the Justification of Infidels, I saw so much worth in a narrow room, which caused me to bless God that his Church had such a man, and especially Newbury who had so excellently learned a Pastor before, who had mistaken so much in this very Point; and withall in the Epistle of a small Book that I since printed, to commend it to others: Mr Eyre of Salisbury was offended it seems at this; and in an Answer to Mr Woodbridge, newly published, with an Epistle of Mr Owens prefixed, he was pleased to speak of me, what thou hast here Answered.
In his Epistle against me, he telleth us of one Mr Crandon of Hampshire that [hath now in the Press a large and full Answer to my Paradoxicall Aphorismes.] The Character that Mr Eyre gives of this man is, That he is [a faithfull servant of the Lord Jesus, a workman that needs not to be ashamed,] This is good news if it be true: for then he will not write so many things that deserve shame, as are in this book of Mr Eyre's. But by his wish that others [of more strength and far greater helps] may by him be provoked to shame, I am afraid what the fruit of his Weakness may prove. I confess I have heard neer this twelvemoneth, that this man hath been about this work. The last I heard, informed me, that [he is against the Morality of the Sabbath in Doctrine and Practice notoriously, and one that cals it Legal Preaching to Convince men of sinne and misery, and supposed to be of Mr Eyre's Judgement for the Justification of Unbelievers; and that he having communicated it to Mr Eyre, was gone with him to London, to print a large Answer not only to my Aphorismes, but Passages in my other Books; His book about a hundred sheets, and some six Shillings price, having more leaves then Arguments, but most liberally pouring forth the Titles of Papist, Jesuite, &c. which is both the Logick and the Rhetorick of it. Also that he had written to the Eminentest Ministers in several Counties, whom he took to be most disaffected to my Aphorismes, to desire them for themselves and friends to take off his Books, which way is much by some distasted. I can say nothing of him of my own knowledge, nor of his Book till I see it. But if these two men be Brethren in a party, and Mr Eyre so much the more esteemed, as I hear; the Reader then may see what to expect by this. I have purposely hasted the Reply to this, that Mr Crandon may before his Book come forth, consider better of some things wherein he shall finde his Brother overshot himself, and correct what may tend to his hurt: for I would prevent his sinne. And I do hereby inform thee, Reader, that as soon as ever Mr Crandon's Book doth come to my hands, seeing the scope of it is to revile me as a Papist, I purpose to Print a plain Confession of my Faith, and specially how much I ascribe to Works, and how farre I am from Arminianisme also, which these Brethren do accuse me of, and I shall do it in as little room as I can; and then shall leave it to thy choice, whether thou wilt bestow six Pence to understand my true Belief and Profession, or six Shillings and six weeks reading (at least) to have thy ears charmed with the delicions notes of Papist, Jesuit, Arminian, Socinian, and what not of that kinde? If I finde the Book worth the answering, I know not but I may attempt it at large if ever I have time (which is not like,) But if it be according to my information of it, I shall not trouble my self or thee. It is my lot to be troubled by two sorts of men, commonly called Anabaptists and Antinomians, because I was called by God to Vindicate his Truth against them. There came but lately to my hands two of one sort, and the report of a third that are written against me, Mr Fisher, Mr Haggar, and Mr Keye; but when I found them fraught with non-sense and reviling, I laid them by, and never mean to meddle with them more. Mr Eyre and Mr Crandon take the next turn: what one hath done I have seen: what the other will do, I know not but by report. But for my own part, I confess I had a hundred times rather encounter with this party then the former: Because I do not apprehend neer so much danger in the opinion of Rebaptizing, or not Baptizing Infants, as in the other. I confess this also hath been strangely followed with spiritual Judgements: But I suppose the main cause is, because it openeth the door to Separations, Contendings, and so Contempt of the Ministry that are against it: but it is hard to see in the nature of the meer Opinions, such hainous evils as we have seen attend it. But for the other, in my Judgement they do as dangerously subvert the very tenour of the Gospel as well as the Law (and much more) as any Sect that I have known, that hath such men to countenance it. I confess also that I do apprehend some more duty lie on us now to resist that way, then hath been ever heretofore: For it was formerly a very rare thing to meet with a man of Learning or considerable Judgement of that way: What men had Dr Taylor to deal with? Dr Crisp, Eaton, Town, were the chiefest Champions since, whom Mr Burgess, Mr Geree, Mr Bedford have Confuted. At last Den, Paul Hobson, Mr Saltmarsh took the Chair: The later strangely cryed up by many ignorant souls, and his weakness laid open by that Excellent, Learned, Reverend Mr Gataker. But now Libertinism grows into better Reputation. It makes a greater noise in City and Country; yea and men of some name for Learning, are the Patrons of no small portion of it. Lately came forth a Latine Dissertation of Ludiomaeus Colvinus, alias, Ludovicus Molinaeus Med. Doctor and History Professour in Oxford, writted against his own Brother Cyrus Molinaeus a Minister. I answered it, before I knew the Authour; and had no sooner finished it, but I received this of Mr Eyre's. I profess the desire of my soul is so great for the Unity of Brethren and the Churches Peace, that I could heartily wish both contendings and dividing Titles as much as may be laid aside: And therefore for those Reverend Brethren that hold but the more tolerable part of Antinomianism, I would not have them called by that name. But for the rest, to be tender of the credit of such pernicious errours, and to indulge them by favourable titles, is plainly to betray the Gospel, and mens souls.
For my part, if I should not preach against the opinion of the Libertines, I could not preach against prophanenesse: When I look back on the Sermons which I preached many years ago, meerly to work mens hearts to Christ, never thinking of the Libertine Controversies, I finde they were the very same things that I am fain to preach now against these Disputers. I was feign to prove to them their natural misery, and that before believing they were children of wrath, and all their sinnes were unpardoned, with the necessity of Faith, Repentance and Confession, for pardon: and the necessity of faithfull Endeavours for the attaining of Salvation; together with the necessity of Renewing Repentance, and begging pardon through the bloud of Christ, when we fall. Lay by all these and such like which the Libertines dispute against, and what have we almost to preach to those that will not have Christ to Reign over them? Truly I finde as farre as I can discern, that most of the prophane people in every Parish where yet I have liv'd, are Antinomians; They are born and bred such; and it is the very natural Religion of men, that have but the advantage to believe traditionally in Christ: I mean, their corrupt nature carrieth them without any teaching to make this use of Christ and the Gospel. And almost all the fuccess of my Labours which hath so much comforted me, hath been in bringing men from natural Antinomianism or Libertinism, to true Repentance and saving Faith in Christ. And therefore should I now side with them, I must unsay what I have been long saying from the plain word of God, to the ungodly that I have preached to. Blessed be God that the Church hath such Writings for plain men to reade, as Hookers, Boltons, Perkins, Dods, Rogers, Whateleys, Hildershams, &c. which are written in a sounder strain: Yea that we have such Writings as Sibbes, Prestons, Baynes, &c. to shew them, that Consciences may be Pacified without Antinomianism.
I am no Prophet; but I confess I am so confident that the prevalency of this Sect will be but of short continuance, that I do not much fear them. For though nature be ready enough to befriend it, yet two disadvantages they runne upon, that will infallibly dash them all in pieces, as soon as the storm of Temptation is allayed. First, They contradict the experiences of the souls of Believers; and the very nature of the New-man is against them: The greatest part of the Spirits work on the Soul is against Libertinism, and the rest against Popery and Pelagianism; supposing the prerequisite foundation laid. And surely the workings of the Spirit are unresistible, and shall bear down these natural conceits before it. The contest between the Gospel and Libertinism in the Church, is like the Contest between the Spirit and the flesh within us, and goes much on the same terms: and Christ will be Conquerour and bring forth Judgement unto Victory, in both. Sound-hearted Christians, that be not only tickled with Sermons, but sanctified by the Spirit, will not long be drawn from such apparent Truths, and sweet and needfull Duties, by the bare names of Free-grace: nor will they deny Free-grace, and the glory of Christs intercession and Kingdom, upon an empty pretence of magnifying his death; when that very magnifying is but a dishonour. A sound-hearted Christian I am perswaded hath something within him that potently strives against Libertinism and Pelagianism. For example, In prayer, Let a Libertine tell him, [Your sins were all pardoned before you were born, and therefore you must not pray for pardon, but for the Feeling of pardon;] He hath a spirit of prayer within, and a secret impulse to bewail his sinnes, and make out to God for Remission, that will not let him obey those delusions. So if a Pelagian should say [The Power is in thy own Will to please God, and Love and fear him.] The new nature of a Christian doth contradict this, and is inclining him still to beg grace of God, which is a real confession of his own insufficiency. Yea though this Christian should be tainted with either of these Delusions, I am perswaded even while speculatively he holdeth them and talks for them, yet other principles lie deeper in his heart, and are secretly working him a contrary way, even to pray for pardon, contrary to the Libertine, and for prevailing Grace, contrary to the Pelagian.
Another Rock the Libertines run against that will shortly dash them all to pieces: and that is [the clear light of express Scripture.] So plainly hath God been pleased to reveal his minde in these cases, that though a few may shut their eyes by prejudice, most will see: and if they are blindfolded a while, it is not like to be long. If all Disputers fail us, as long as plain honest Christians have but recourse to the Word of God, it will convince them at last, and shew them the Errour. For example, in this very Discourse (by one of the rationalest men of that way that I have met with) what plain light doth shine in his face! what palpable abuse is he forced to offer to the Scriptures? So that I dare trust a Reader of any competent judgement and honesty, that is not deeply forestalled, to confute him by the bare reading and observation of the Text. As for instance, That to be justified by faith, is to be justified by Christ, without faith. So pag. 42. he expounds Gal. 2.16. [That we might be justified by the faith of Christ] i.e. That it might be manifest that we were justified before we had faith in Christ. But that's common: pag. 43. That text Rom. 8.30. which most exactly and purposely expresseth the order of Gods Works, [Whom he called them he justified] is put off but thus, 1. The order of words in Scripture do not shew the order and dependance of things, &c. 2. The Apostle's scope here is not to shew in what order these benefits are bestowed, &c. 3. I see no inconvenience at all, in saying that the Apostle here speaks of Justification as declared and terminated in conscience, which some Learned men (Mr Owen and Mr Kendall) do make the formale of Justification. But more grossely, pag. 44. he expounds Rom. 4.24. [Righteousness shall be imputed to us if we beleeve.] 1. He saith, [The particle [if] is not conditional, but declarative, describing him to whom the benefit belongs.] Yet one would think that it might hence be gathered at least, that This benefit belongs not to Infidels: But to avoid that too, this is his Paraphrase, [q.d. Hereby we may know and be assured that Christs righteousness is imputed to us, &c.] The Apostle saith [It shall be imputed, if we beleeve.] Mr Eyre saith [We know by this that it was imputed before.] To put the time past for the time present, and a Declarative for a Conditional, is the way of such bold Interpreters, as make their own faith. But tender-conscienc't Christians will not long suffer you so to make their faith, though you may your own.
Besides such Expositions, the Book contains Conclusions so contrary 1. To plain reason: 2. To known Truths in Divinity: 3. To the new nature or inclination of Beleevers: 4. To his own professions; that though itching ears may be pleased by it, and for the bait of [the name of Free Grace] it may be swallowed down, yet when Judgement, Affection and Practice should digest it, the humble soul will vomit it up again. I will give you but a brief touch of his dealing in the four respects mentioned.
1. Against common reason and use, he affirms that [If it have any condition, it is not free] and takes Mr Walkers patronage, p. 93. and applauds and repeats Mr Kendals gross Discourse, which would give much more of the honour and thanks to the Beleever, then the Giver, and repeats his Welsh example, [God bless her father and mother, who taught her to reade.] Yea this gross conceit is the very soul of his Discourse; by which it may appear how bruitishly it is animated. But I have proved to him, that a thing may be free that is conditional. Donatio, Absoluta, Pura, and Gratuita be not all one, or equipollent terms.
2. And contrary to all sound Divinity, pag. 134. he affirms that [Christs death was solutio ejusdem, because Christ was held in the same obligation that we were under: Gal. 4.3, 4. He was made under the Law; not another, but the very same.] Either he means here [the same obligation to duty] or [the same obligation to punishment.] If the former, what a proof is here that Christs suffering is solutio ejusdem? When the Law obligeth a man to duty, can you thence prove that it obligeth him to punishment? then Adam before his fall, and Christ as an innocent creature, and the Angels in heaven are obliged to punishment. But its like he means the later: And then 1. It is most unsound and dangerous doctrine, to say no more: Christs obligation was sponsionis propriae, the obligation of Contract or Consent, and as a creature of the special command of his Father thereto: Our obligation is violatae Legis. Obligation to punishment is guilt; our guilt was Reatus culpae & paenae propter culpam, ex obligatione legis: Christs guilt is but Reatus paenae propter culpam nostram, ex voluntaria susceptione. Christ was obligatus ad eandem paenam (the same in value) but not, eadam obligatione. 2. And how doth Gal. 4.3, 4. prove it? Who can think that it means, Christ was made under the curse of the Law? He was indeed made a curse for us by undergoing the penalty; but not said to be made under the curse, nor under the Law as cursing, but as obliging to duty: though its granted that it was part of his humiliation to undertake that task of ceremonious duty.
So pag. 191. he saith, [Let them consider whether it be more easie for a man that is dead in sin, to believe in Christ, to love God, &c. then it was for Adam in his innocency, &c. to abstain from the fruit of one tree, when he had a thousand besides as good as that: there can be no condition imagined more facile and feasable then Adams was.] This is against them that say, Evangelical conditions are easier then Legal works. Where he seems plainly to think, that it was not perfect obedience internal or external that was the condition of Life to Adam, but only the not eating of that tree, and so he makes it the easiest thing imaginable. Do you not see how admirably he exalteth the Gospel above the Law, and Christs easie yoak and burden, and his commands that are not grievous, above that which Adam was under? Is it not admirable to see that these men must needs have the new Covenant to have no condition, lest it be not free, and those must be cried down as enemies to free Grace, and Legal Preachers, that teach the necessity of faith and repentance to remission of sinnes, when yet the more rigorous Law of nature, Do this and Live, the condition of Adam, is the most easie imaginable? And what thoughts hath he of Adams sin, if he see not the Apostacy from God to the creature, unbelief, and many hainous sins were in it, as well as eating of that Tree?
3. Against all sound Divinity, and the very sense of a gracious soul, he hath many doctrines which the godly will be ready to tremble at. As pag. 122. [That the Elect Corinthians had no more Right to salvation after their Believing then they had before.] You see in this mans Judgement what we preach for, and what is the state of a natural man, yea of the veriest Rebel, Whoremonger, Murderer, that is Elect: he may have more knowledge of his happiness after, but he hath no more right to salvation then before. Why say our Divines then that such are not in a state of salvation?
So pag. 103. he saith, [Though men will not impute or charge sin upon themselves when there is not a Law to convince them of it, yet it follows not but God did impute sin to men before there was any Law promulged, or before the sin was actually committed. For what is Gods hating of a person but his imputing of sin, or his will to punish him for his sin?] Thus Gods preterition or nonelection, called hatred, is confounded with his hatred of Justice and actual displeasure: and God is made to impute sin to the innocent who have no sin, yea to them that are not: When as Imputation of sin is but either the estimation and judging of a sinner to be a sinner, or the adjudication of punishment for that sin, or the execution of that punishment: all which follow the act of sin; and so he makes Gods act of Imputation to be both untrue and unjust; but that indeed he gives the name of Imputation to the eternal Decree, to which God never gave it.
So pag. 61. he saith, concerning all that Christ died for, though yet Infidels and Wicked, that [Divine Justice cannot charge upon them any of their sins, nor inflict upon them the least of those punishments which their sins deserve; but contrarily he beholds them as persons perfectly righteous, and accordingly deals with them as such who have no sin at all in his sight.] What humble soul would not tremble to say this of himself now regenerate; much more of the unregenerate? Must God be unjust if he inflict on us the least punishment for sin? And yet Scripture says so oft that God punisheth his people, in express words? If it be paena propter culpam it is punishment. and is none of your pain, losses, crosses, such? Is not the smalness of your knowledge, love, &c. and the remnant of sin, as suffered upon you, a punishment? nor death, nor the bodies remaining in the grave? Are not chastisements a species of punishment? Is not a man punished when he is hang'd for a sin? yea and that by God as well as man? What man dare say, [Lord, if thou hadst laid the least punishment on my body, before Conversion, even in the height of my sin, thou hadst been unjust? yea or if yet thou do it.] Was there no punishment in the dominion of sin, and the want of the sense of Gods favour, which they make to be the contrary to Remission and Justification? The Lord deliver poor souls from such Doctrines as these! Yea so far as they have grace, so far they are delivered. And I hope Mr Eyre speaks against his own heart, by the conduct of his fancy, and the instigation of his contentious passion,
4. Is it not against his own pretence, that he saith, in his Epistle to the Parliament, [Though God doth effectually move and perswade mens hearts, yet he doth not Necessitate them to believe and embrace the truth.] Would you think and reade this that the man were so zealous against the Arminians, when I, who am called Papist and Arminian, do think, that God doth so effectually move men to believe, as thereby to necessitate them? Though still he doth cause us to do it liberè, though necessariò, and so necessitate us, as that the act is stil contingent in it self, as from our will.
So pag. 117. he hath these words, [I dare say, a more unsound Assertion cannot be picked out of the Papists or Arminians, then this is, that faith (taking it as he doth in a proper sense) hath the same place in the Covenant of Grace, as works have in the Covenant of Works.] Where mark, that Mr Woodbridge speaks only of the place of faith, and not of the worth, nature, dignity, nor full use, as if it properly or fully had the same office as Works, but the same order in the Covenant. And then see 1. Whether this man doth not make Papists of the generality of the Protestant Churches, and Writers? 2. Or make the Papists as sound as the Protestants. 3. Of what credit this mans word is, that ushers it in with such confidence, [I dare say it,] and whether the reason why he dares say that and so many more such things, may not be because he thinks all's pardoned already, even before he beleeved. 4. He pretendeth Mr Pemble to be of his Judgement; yet see whether he make not Mr Pemble to hold as unsound doctrine, as any can be picked out of the Writings of Papists or Arminians: I may well bear his heavy charge, when Mr Pemble must bear it, who saies, Treat. of Justif. pag. 23. [There are two Covenants that God hath made with man, By one of which, and by no other means in the world, salvation is to be obtained. The one is the Covenant of Works, the tenour whereof is [Do this and thou shalt live, &c.] The other is the Covenant of Grace, the tenour whereof is [Beleeve in the Lord Jesus, and thou shalt be saved, &c.] The condition of this Covenant is Faith.] And so goes on to shew that the performance and nature of Faith and Works differ; but here gives them the same place of a condition in the Covenant. And pag. 22. he saith, [The condition required in such as shall be partakers of this grace of Justification is true faith, whereunto God hath ordinarily annexed this great priviledge, That by faith and faith only a sinner shall be justified.]
So pag. 206. he ensnares himself in an objection, which he cannot answer, as I doubt not but Mr Woodbridge will fully shew him, when he hath sifted what is the adequate object of that Assensus intellectus and amplexus voluntatis which Mr Eyre acknowledgeth. But I must ask pardon of Mr Woodbridge for thus anticipating his work. Reader, do but study God and thy own heart, and keep a tender conscience, and an upright life, and a little knowledge more may preserve thee from being a Libertine.
One thing I forgot, which I now adde, To intreat Mr Eyre and his partakers, to tell me, upon their grounds, Whether God do accept of the Works as well as the Person of an Elect Infidel? If they say, No: How then are they in Christ, and God perfectly pleased with them? and all the sinfulnesse of those works forgiven? Doth not God accept of that work in which there is no sin imputed? but all pardoned? nothing but the sinfulness can hinder his Acceptance of it? And where then is their vain distinction (that God is pleased with the person and not the work) by which they answer us when we tell them truly, that Without faith it is impossible to please God? Heb. 11.6.