These things, with many like to them, being the main points by this man handled, and by him asserted to be the design of Christianity, by these we must, as by a rule and standard, understand how to judge of the truth of doctrines. And, saith he, 'seeing the design of Christianity is to make men holy, [still meaning from principles of humanity, and by possessing us again, with the often repeated holiness which we had lost,] whatsoever opinions do either directly, or in their evident consequences, obstruct the promoting of it, are perfectly false' (p. 227,228).
Ans. Thus with one word, as if he were Lord and Judge himself, he sendeth to the pit of hell, all things that sanctify or make holy the hearts of men, if they oppose the design of his christianity. But what if the Holy Ghost will become a principle in the hearts of the converted, and will not now suffer them to act simply and alone upon the principles of pure humanity; or what now if faith will become a principle to act by, instead of these that are originally dictates of human nature? Or what if a man should act now as a son, rather than simply as a creature endued with a principle of reason? I question here whether these things thus doing do not obstruct, put by, yea and take the way[29] of his pure humanity, dictates of human nature, and instead thereof act and govern the soul by and with their own principles. For albeit, there be the dictates of human nature in the sons of men, yet neither is this nature, nor yet the dictates of it, laid by Jesus Christ as the truly christian principles in his. But you add:
'Those doctrines which in their own nature do evidently tend to the serving of THIS design of Christianity, we may conclude are most true and genuine' (p. 229).
Ans. The holiness which you so often call the design of Christianity, being by yourself said to be that which we had lost, for this one sentence is it on which your whole book is built (p. 12), whatsoever doctrine or doctor it be that asserts it, both that doctrine is of the devil, and that doctor an angel of darkness, or rather a minister of Satan, become as a minister of righteousness. For where is it said in all the whole book of God, that ever the Lord Christ designed, yea made it his errand from heaven, to put us again in possession of the holiness which we had lost? Yet this you affirm, and tell us the business of your book is to prove it. But blessed be God, your shifts are discovered, and your fig-leaves rent from off you, and the righteousness or holiness so much cried up by you, proved to be none of the holiness of the gospel, but that which stood with perfect ignorance thereof. I might speak to what yet remains of falsehood, in the other part of this chapter; but having overthrown the foundation, and broken the head of your Leviathan; what remains falleth of itself, and dieth of its own accord.
What you say of modes or forms, and sticklers for little trifles, such as place their religion in mere externals, you may fasten them where of due they belong: Yet I tell you the least of the commandments of Christ is better than your Adamitish holiness.
[The necessity of a sound foundation.]
Your twenty-first chapter tells us, if we will believe you, how we shall judge of the necessity of doctrine, to be embraced or rejected; also you say, it giveth us a brief discourse of the nature of fundamentals: But because your discourse of them is general, and not any one particularized, I might leave you in your generals till you dealt more candidly, both with the word of God and your abused reader.
First, Indeed you tell us of primary fundamentals. 'Such, as without the knowledge and belief of which it is impossible to acquire that inward righteousness and true holiness which the christian religion aimeth at;—but the particulars of these, say you, I shall not enumerate, because [as will appear from what will be said anon] it is not needful to have a just table of them' (p. 234).
Ans. Deep divinity! (1.) They are such as without the knowledge and belief of them, it is not possible we should acquire your true holiness; and yet for all that, it is not needful that we be told what they are, or that we should have a just table of them. (2.) But if they be things necessary, things without the knowledge of which it is impossible we should be truly holy, then is it needful that we understand what they are: yea, then is it needful that they be written, and presented one by one unto us, that our knowledge of them being distinct and full, we may the better be able to obtain or acquire your glorious (so pretended) holiness.
But I know your primary fundamentals, they are your first principles of morals; not faith in the righteousness of Christ, for that is comprehended in your positive, and in themselves indifferent things: your morals are the things in themselves absolutely necessary; of an indispensable and eternal obligation (p. 8,9). But,