The Author's Preface

The Author's Preface.

My appearing in this public manner on that Side of the Question, which is defended in the following Sheets, will probably be surprising to many; as it is well known, that Mister Stoddard, so great and eminent a Divine, and my venerable Predecessor in the pastoral Office over the Church in Northampton, as well as my own Grandfather, publicly and strenuously appeared in Opposition to the Doctrine here maintained.

However, I hope, it will not be taken amiss, that I think as do, merely because I herein differ from him, though so much my Superior, and One whose Name and Memory I am under distinguishing Obligations, on every Account, to treat with great Respect and Honour. Especially may I justly expect, that it will not be charged on me as a Crime, that I do not think in every Thing just as he did, since none more than he himself asserted this Scriptural and Protestant Maxim, that we ought to call no Man on Earth Master, or make the Authority of the greatest and holiest of mere Men the Ground of our Belief of any Doctrine in Religion. Certainly we are not obliged to think any Man infallible, who himself utterly disclaims Infallibility. Very justly Mister Stoddard observes in his Appeal to the Learned, (Page 97.) All protestants agree, that there is no Infallibility at Rome; and I know no Body else pretends to any, since the Apostles Days. And he insists, in his Preface to his Sermon on the same Subject, That it argues no Want of a due Respect in us to our Forefathers, for us to examine their Opinions. Some of his Words in that Preface contain a good Apology for me, and are worthy to be repeated on this Occasion. They are as follows:

It may possibly be a Fault (says Mister Stoddard) to depart from the Ways of our Fathers: But it may also be a Virtue, and an eminent Act of Obedience, to depart from them in some Things. Men are wont to make a great Noise, that we are bringing in Innovations, and depart from the old Way: But it is beyond me, to find out wherein the Iniquity does lie. We may see Cause to alter some Practices of our Fathers, without despising of them, without priding ourselves in our Wisdom, without Apostacy, without abusing the Advantages God has given us, without a Spirit of Compliance with corrupt Men, without Inclinations to Superstition, without making Disturbance in the Church of God: And there is no Reason, that it should be turned as a Reproach upon us. Surely it is Commendable for us to examine the Practices of our Fathers, we have no sufficient Reason to take upon Trust from them. Let them have as high a Character as belongs to them; yet we may not look upon their Principles as Oracles. Nathan himself missed it in his Conjecture about building the House of God. He that believes Principles because they affirm them, makes Idols of them. And it would be no Humility, but Baseness of Spirit, for us to judge ourselves incapable to examine the Principles that have been handed down to us. If we are by any Means fit to open the Mysteries of the Gospel, we are capable to judge of these Matters: And it would ill become us, so to indulge ourselves in Ease, as to neglect the Examination of received Principles. If the Practices of our Fathers in any Particulars were mistaken, it is fit they should be rejected; if they are not, they will bear Examination. If we are forbidden to examine their Practice, that will cut off all Hopes of Reformation.

Thus, in these very seasonable and apposite Sayings, Mister Stoddard, though dead, yet speaketh: And here (to apply them to my own Case,) he tells me, that I am not at all blameable, for not taking his Principles on Trust; That notwithstanding the high Character justly belonging to him, I ought not to look on his Principles as Oracles, as though he could not miss it, as well as Nathan himself in his Conjecture about building the House of God; Nay, surely that I am, even to be commended, for examining his Practice, and judging for myself; That it would ill become me, to do otherwise; That this would be no Manifestation of Humility, but rather show a Baseness of Spirit; That if I am not capable to judge for myself in these Matters, I am by no Means fit to open the Mysteries of the Gospel; That if I should believe his Principles, because he advanced them, I should be guilty of making him an Idol. Also he tells his and my Flock, with all others, that it ill becomes them, so to indulge their Ease, as to neglect examining of received Principles and Practices; and that it is fit, Mistakes in any Particulars be rejected: That if in some Things I differ in my Judgment from him, it would be very unreasonable, on this Account to make a great Noise, as though I were bringing in Innovations, and departing from the old Way; That I may see Cause to alter some Practices of my Grandfather and Predecessor, without despising Him, without priding myself in my Wisdom, without Apostacy, without despising the Advantages God has given me, without Inclination to Superstition, and without making Disturbance in the Church of God; In short, that it is beyond him, to find out wherein the Iniquity of my so doing lies; and that there is no Reason why it should be turned as a Reproach upon me. Thus, I think, he sufficiently vindicates my Conduct in the present Case, and warns all with whom I am concerned, not to be at all displeased with me, or to find the least Fault with me, merely because I examine for myself, have a Judgment of my own, and am for practising in some Particulars different from him, how positive soever he was that his Judgment and Practice were right. It is reasonably hoped and expected, that they who have a great Regard to his Judgment, will impartially regard his Judgment, and hearken to his Admonition in these Things.

I can seriously declare, that an Affectation of making a Show as if I were something wiser than that excellent Person, is exceeding distant from me, and very far from having the least Influence in my appearing to oppose, in this Way of the Press, an Opinion which he so earnestly maintained and promoted. Sure I am, I have not affected to vary from his Judgment, nor in the least been governed by a Spirit of Contradiction, neither indulged a cavilling Humour, in remarking on any of his Arguments or Expressions.

I have formerly been of his Opinion, which I imbibed from his Books, even from my Childhood, and have in my Proceedings conformed to his Practice; though never without some Difficulties in my View, which I could not solve: Yet, however, a Distrust of my own Understanding, and Deference to the Authority of so venerable a Man, the seeming Strength of some of his Arguments, together with the Success he had in his Ministry, and his great Reputation and Influence, prevailed for a long Time to bear down my Scruples. But the Difficulties and Uneasiness on my Mind increasing, as I became more studied in Divinity, and as I improved in Experience; this brought me to closer Diligence and Care to search the Scriptures, and more impartially to examine and weigh the Arguments of my Grandfather, and such other Authors as I could get on his Side of the Question. By which Means, after long searching, pondering, viewing and reviewing, I gained Satisfaction, became fully settled in the Opinion I now maintain, as in the Discourse here offered to public View; and dared to proceed no further in a Practice and Administration inconsistent there with: Which brought me into peculiar Circumstances, laying me under an inevitable Necessity publicly to declare and maintain the Opinion I was thus established in; as also to do it from the Press, and to do it at this Time without Delay. It is far from a pleasing Circumstance of this Publication, that it is against what my honoured Grandfather strenuously maintained, both from the Pulpit and Press. I can truly say, on Account of this and some other Considerations, it is what I engage in with the greatest Reluctance, that ever I undertook any public Service in my Life. But the State of Things with me is so ordered, by the Sovereign Disposal of the great Governor of the World, that my doing this appeared to me very necessary and altogether unavoidable. I am persuaded the Interest of Religion is concerned in this Affair, but my own Reputation, future Usefulness, and my very Subsistence, all seem to depend on my freely opening and defending myself, as to my Principles, and agreeable Conduct in my Pastoral Charge; and on my doing it from the Press: In which Way alone am I able to state and justify my Opinion, to any Purpose, before the Country (which is full of Noise, Misrepresentations, and many Censures concerning this Affair) or even before my own People, as all would be fully sensible, if they knew the exact State of the Case.

I have been brought to this Necessity in divine Providence, by such a Situation of Affairs and Coincidence of Circumstances and Events, as I choose at present to be silent about; and which it is not needful, nor perhaps expedient for me to publish to the World.

One Thing among others that caused me to go about this Business with so much Backwardness, was the Fear of a bad Improvement some ill-minded People might be ready, at this Day, to make of the Doctrine here defended: particularly that wild enthusiastical Sort of People, who have of late gone into unjustifiable Separations, even renouncing the Ministers and Churches of the Land in general, under Pretence of setting up a pure Church. It is well known, that I have heretofore publicly remonstrated, both from the Pulpit and Press, against very many of the Notions and Practices of this Kind of People: and shall be very sorry if what I now offer to the Public, should be any Occasion of their encouraging or strengthening themselves in those Notions and Practices of theirs. To prevent which, I would now take Occasion to declare, I am still of the same Mind concerning them, that I have formerly manifested. I have the same Opinion concerning the Religion and inward Experiences chiefly in Vogue among them, as I had when I wrote my Treatise on religious Affections, and when I wrote my Observations and Reflections on Mister Brainerd's Life. I have no better Opinion of their Notion of a pure Church by Means of a Spirit of discerning, their censorious Outcries against the standing Ministers and Churches in general, their Lay-Ordinations, their Lay-Preachings, and public Exhortings, and administering Sacraments; their assuming, self-confident, contentious, uncharitable separating Spirit; their going about the Country, as sent by the Lord, to make Proselytes; with their many other extravagant and wicked Ways. My holding the Doctrine that is defended in this Discourse, is no Argument of any Change of my Opinion concerning them; for when I wrote those two Books before mentioned, I was of the same Mind concerning the Qualifications of Communicants at the Lord's Table, that I am of now.

However, it is not unlikely, that some will still exclaim against my Principles, as being of the same pernicious Tendency with those of the Separatists: To such I can only by a solemn Protestation aver the Sincerity of my Aims, and the great Care I have exercised to avoid whatsoever is erroneous, or might be in any Respect mischievous. But as to my Success in these my upright Aims and Endeavours, I must leave it to every Reader to judge for himself, after he has carefully perused, and impartially considered the following Discourse: which, considering the Nature and Importance of the Subject, I hope, all serious Readers will accompany with their earnest Prayers to the Father of Lights, for his gracious Direction and Influence. And, to Him be Glory in the Churches by Christ Jesus. AMEN.

J. E.

The Author's Preface.

My public appearance on this side of the question, which I defend in the following pages, will probably surprise many people. It is well known that Mr. Stoddard, a great and distinguished minister and my respected predecessor as pastor of the church in Northampton -- as well as my own grandfather -- publicly and forcefully opposed the doctrine I now maintain.

However, I hope no one will hold it against me that I think as I do, simply because I differ from him, even though he was so far above me and someone whose name and memory I am deeply obligated to treat with great respect and honor. I especially expect that no one will consider it a crime for me to disagree with him on every point, since no one more than he himself insisted on this scriptural and Protestant principle: that we should call no man on earth Master, or make the authority of the greatest and holiest of mere men the foundation of our belief in any religious doctrine. We are certainly not obligated to consider any man infallible when he himself completely rejected the idea of infallibility. Mr. Stoddard rightly states in his Appeal to the Learned (page 97): All Protestants agree that there is no infallibility at Rome, and I know of no one else who has claimed any since the days of the apostles. He also insists in his Preface to his Sermon on the same subject that it shows no lack of proper respect for our forefathers for us to examine their opinions. Some of his words in that Preface serve as a good defense for me and are worth repeating here. They are as follows:

It may possibly be a fault (says Mr. Stoddard) to depart from the ways of our fathers, but it may also be a virtue and an outstanding act of obedience to depart from them in some things. People tend to make a great fuss that we are introducing innovations and departing from the old way. But I cannot see where the wrong in this lies. We may find reason to change some practices of our fathers without despising them, without taking pride in our own wisdom, without abandoning the faith, without misusing the advantages God has given us, without a spirit of compromise with corrupt people, without leaning toward superstition, and without causing disturbance in the church of God. There is no reason this should be turned into a reproach against us. Surely it is praiseworthy for us to examine the practices of our fathers when we have no good reason to accept them on trust alone. Let them have as high a reputation as they deserve, yet we must not treat their principles as oracles. Nathan himself was wrong in his assumptions about building the house of God. Anyone who believes principles simply because they affirm them makes idols of them. And it would not be humility but cowardice for us to consider ourselves unable to examine the principles handed down to us. If we are by any means fit to explain the mysteries of the Gospel, we are capable of judging these matters. It would poorly suit us to give in to laziness and neglect examining received principles. If the practices of our fathers in any particular areas were mistaken, it is right that they should be rejected. If they are not mistaken, they will stand up to examination. If we are forbidden to examine their practices, that will cut off all hope of reformation.

In these very timely and fitting words, Mr. Stoddard, though dead, yet speaks. And here, applying them to my own case, he tells me that I am not at all to blame for refusing to accept his principles on trust. He says that despite the high reputation rightly belonging to him, I should not treat his principles as oracles, as though he could not make mistakes, any more than Nathan himself could in his assumptions about building the house of God. In fact, I am even to be praised for examining his practice and judging for myself. He says it would poorly suit me to do otherwise, and that this would not show humility but rather reveal a cowardice of spirit. He declares that if I am not capable of judging for myself in these matters, I am by no means fit to explain the mysteries of the Gospel, and that if I should believe his principles simply because he taught them, I would be guilty of making him an idol. He also tells his and my congregation, along with everyone else, that it poorly suits them to give in to laziness and neglect examining received principles and practices, and that it is right for mistakes in any particular areas to be rejected. He says that if I differ from him in my judgment on some things, it would be very unreasonable to make a great fuss, as though I were introducing innovations and departing from the old way. He says I may find reason to change some practices of my grandfather and predecessor without despising him, without taking pride in my own wisdom, without abandoning the faith, without misusing the advantages God has given me, without leaning toward superstition, and without causing disturbance in the church of God. In short, he says it is beyond him to find out where the wrong in my doing so lies, and that there is no reason it should be turned as a reproach against me. In this way, I believe he sufficiently defends my conduct in the present situation and warns everyone concerned not to be displeased with me or find any fault with me, simply because I examine things for myself, have my own judgment, and practice differently from him in some areas -- however confident he was that his own judgment and practice were correct. It is reasonably hoped and expected that those who greatly respect his judgment will impartially consider his judgment and listen to his advice in these things.

I can sincerely declare that any desire to show myself wiser than that excellent man is completely foreign to me and has not had the slightest influence on my decision to publicly oppose, through the press, an opinion he so earnestly maintained and promoted. I am certain that I have not tried to differ from his judgment, nor have I been driven in the least by a spirit of contradiction. Neither have I indulged a fault-finding attitude in responding to any of his arguments or statements.

I previously held his opinion, which I absorbed from his books even from my childhood, and I followed his practice in my own ministry -- though never without some difficulties that I could not resolve. However, my distrust of my own understanding, my deference to the authority of such a respected man, the apparent strength of some of his arguments, together with the success he had in his ministry and his great reputation and influence, were enough for a long time to override my doubts. But the difficulties and uneasiness in my mind grew as I studied theology more deeply and gained more experience. This drove me to more careful and thorough effort to search the Scriptures and to examine and weigh more impartially the arguments of my grandfather and other authors I could find on his side of the question. Through this process, after long searching, reflecting, examining, and re-examining, I reached a settled conclusion. I became fully established in the opinion I now hold, as presented in this discourse offered to the public. I could no longer continue a practice and administration inconsistent with it. This put me in a unique position, making it absolutely necessary for me to publicly declare and defend the opinion I had come to hold -- and to do it through the press, and to do it now without delay. It is far from a pleasant aspect of this publication that it goes against what my honored grandfather forcefully maintained, both from the pulpit and the press. I can honestly say that because of this and other considerations, I take on this task with greater reluctance than anything I have ever publicly undertaken in my life. But the circumstances of my situation have been ordered by the sovereign plan of the great Governor of the world in such a way that doing this seemed absolutely necessary and unavoidable. I am convinced that the cause of true religion is at stake in this matter. But my own reputation, future usefulness, and my very livelihood all seem to depend on my freely explaining and defending my principles and my corresponding conduct in my pastoral role -- and on doing it through the press. This is the only way I can properly present and justify my position before the wider community, which is full of rumors, misrepresentations, and criticisms about this matter, or even before my own congregation, as everyone would fully understand if they knew the exact details of the situation.

I have been brought to this necessity by divine providence, through a combination of circumstances and events that I choose to remain silent about for now, and which it is not necessary or perhaps wise for me to share with the public.

One thing among others that made me approach this task with such reluctance was the fear that some hostile people might misuse the doctrine defended here -- particularly that wild, fanatical group of people who have recently pursued unjustifiable separations, even rejecting the ministers and churches of the land in general, under the pretense of establishing a pure church. It is well known that I have previously spoken out publicly, both from the pulpit and in print, against many of the beliefs and practices of this kind of people. I will be very sorry if what I now offer to the public gives them any occasion to encourage or strengthen themselves in those beliefs and practices. To prevent this, I want to take this opportunity to declare that I still hold the same views about them that I have previously expressed. I hold the same opinion about the religious experiences and inner feelings chiefly popular among them as I did when I wrote my Treatise on Religious Affections and when I wrote my Observations and Reflections on Mr. Brainerd's life. I have no better opinion of their idea of a pure church achieved through a spirit of discernment, their judgmental attacks on the established ministers and churches in general, their lay ordinations, their lay preaching and public exhorting and administering of sacraments, their arrogant, self-confident, argumentative, uncharitable separating spirit, or their going about the country as if sent by the Lord to win converts -- along with their many other extreme and sinful practices. My holding the doctrine defended in this discourse is no sign of any change in my opinion about them, because when I wrote those two books I just mentioned, I already held the same view about the qualifications of communicants at the Lord's Table that I hold now.

Nevertheless, it is likely that some will still protest against my principles as having the same dangerous tendencies as those of the Separatists. To such people I can only solemnly declare the sincerity of my intentions and the great care I have taken to avoid anything erroneous or in any way harmful. But as for how well I have succeeded in these honest intentions and efforts, I must leave it to each reader to judge for himself, after he has carefully read and impartially considered the following discourse. Given the nature and importance of the subject, I hope all serious readers will accompany their reading with earnest prayers to the Father of Lights for His gracious direction and influence. And, to Him be glory in the churches by Christ Jesus. AMEN.

J. E.