John Owen · 66 of 73

Chapter XVI. The bearing of the doctrine of the saints’ apostasy on their consolation. · Part 3

“Suppose that these two suppositions be granted to the inference makers, first, that this phrase, ‘To go out from us,’ signifies voluntarily to forsake the society and communion of Christians; and, secondly, that this expression, ‘To be of us,’ signifies true and inward communion with those from whom they went out; yet will not these contributions suffice for the firm building of the said inference. The reason is, because the apostle expressly saith that ‘They would have continued with us;’ not that they would have continued such as they were, in respect of the truth or essence of their faith. And if the apostle’s scope in this place were to prove or affirm that they who are once true Christians, or believers, always continue such, then, when he saith ‘They would have continued with us,’ he must of necessity mean either that ‘They would have continued faithful as we continue faithful,’ or else that ‘They would have continued always in our society, or in the profession of Christianity.’ But that neither of these senses is of any tolerable consistency is evident by the light of this consideration, namely, that the apostle then must have known that the persons he speaks of, and who went out from them, neither were nor ever had been true Christian believers, when they went thus from them. Now, if he had this knowledge of them, it must be supposed either that he had it by extraordinary revelation (but this is very improbable, and howsoever cannot be proved), or else that he gained and obtained it by their departure or going out from them: but that this could be no sufficient argument or ground to beget any such knowledge in the apostle concerning them is evident from hence, because it may very easily, and doth very frequently, come to pass that they who are true Christians do not always continue in the society to which they have joined themselves, no, nor yet in the external profession of Christianity itself; yea, our opposers themselves frequently, and without scruple, teach that even true believers themselves may, through fear, or shame, or extremity of sufferings, be brought to deny Christ, and, without any danger of being shipwrecked of their faith, forbear making a profession of the name of Christ afterward.”

Ans. 1. What is meant and intended by these expressions, “Went out from us,” and “To be of us,” hath been declared. We are not to teach the Holy Ghost to speak. Whatever conceit we may have of our own abilities, when we deal with worms of the earth like ourselves, to his will, to his expressions, we must vail and submit. He is pleased to phrase their continuance in the faith, their “Continuance with us;” that is, with the saints in the fellowship and communion of the gospel, which they had with God in Christ. The expression is clear and evident to the purpose in hand, and there is no contending against it.

2. We do not say that it is the direct scope and intent of the apostle in this place to prove that those who are tree believers cannot fall away and depart from the faith, — which he afterward doth to the purpose, chap. iii. 9; but his mind and intendment was, to manifest that those who forsake the society of Christians, and become antichrists and seducers, were indeed never true believers, using the other hypothesis as a medium for the confirmation of this assertion.

3. By that phrase, “They would have continued with us,” the apostle intends their continuance in the society and fellowship of the faithful, by the profession of Jesus Christ, whom now they opposed, denying him to be come in the flesh; that is, They would not have so fallen off as they have done, upon the account of the estate and condition of true believers and real saints, who are kept by the power of God to salvation.

4. The apostle did know, and professed himself to know, that they were not, nor ever had been, true believers, when they were once so gone out from them as they went; as our Saviour Christ professed them not to have been true believers who followed him for a while, and were called and accounted his disciples, when they fell in an hour of temptation. Neither have we the least reason to suppose that the apostle had this knowledge by revelation, seeing the thing itself, in reference and proportion to the principles he lays down of the continuance of believers, did openly proclaim it.

5. That true Christians, or believers, can so fall away from the society of the saints as those here mentioned did, is denied, and a grant of it ought not to be begged at our hands. It is true that (as was before granted) a true believer may for a season desert the communion or fellowship of a church wherein he hath walked, and that causelessly; yea, he may be surprised through infirmity to deny, under mighty temptations, in words, for a moment, the Lord Christ, whom yet his heart loves and honours, as in the case of Peter was too evident: but that such an one may forsake the external profession of Christianity, or cease profession-making, and betake himself to a contrary interest, opposing Christ and his ways, as those here insisted on did, that is denied, and not the least attempt of proof made to the contrary.

Whilst I was upon consideration of these exceptions of Mr Goodwin’s to our testimony from this text of Scripture by us insisted on, there came to my hands his exposition on the 9th chapter to the Romans; in the epistle whereof to the reader he is pleased, sect. 6, studiously to waive the imputation of having borrowed this exposition from Arminius and his followers, — an apology perhaps unworthy his prudence and great abilities; which testimony yet, I fear, by having cast an eye on the body of the discourse, will scarcely be received by his reader without the help of that vulgar proverb, “Good wits jump.” But yet on this occasion I cannot but say, however he hath dealt in that treatise, this discourse I have under consideration is purely translated from them, — the condition of very much of what hath been already considered being the same; which I had then thought to have manifested by placing their Latin against his English in the margin. But these things are personal, not belonging to the cause in hand. Mr Goodwin is sufficiently known to have abilities of his own, such as wherewith he hath done, in sundry particulars, considerable service to the truth, — as sometimes they have been unhappily engaged in ways of a contrary nature and tendency.

It being evident, from these considerations, that our author is not able in the least to take off this witness from speaking home to the very heart of the cause in hand, that it may not seem to be weakened and impaired by him in the least, I shall farther consider that diversion which he would entice the words unto from their proper channel and intendment, and so leave the apostasy of the saints dead at the foot of it. He gives us, then, sect. 23, 24, an exposition of this place of Scripture, upon the rack whereof it seems not to speak what formerly we received from its mouth. For the occasion of the words, he says, —

“For the true meaning of this place, it is to be considered that the apostle’s intent in the words was, to prevent or heal an offence that weak Christians might take by the doctrine which was taught and spread abroad by those antichrists or antichristian teachers spoken of in the former verse (and they are said to have been many); and that especially because they had sometimes lived and conversed with the apostles themselves in Christian churches, and had professed the same faith and doctrine with them. By reason hereof, some Christians, not so considerate or judicious as others, might possibly think or conceive that surely all things were not well with the apostles and those Christian societies with which they consorted, — that there was something not as it ought to have been, either in doctrine or manners, or both, which ministered an occasion to these men to break communion with them and to leave them.”

Ans. 1. The intendment of the apostle in the context is evidently to caution believers against seducers; acquainting them also with the sweet and gracious provision that God had made for their preservation, in the abiding, teaching, anointing, bestowed on them. In the verse under present consideration he gives them a description of the persons that did seduce them, in respect of their present state and condition. They were apostates, who, though they had some time made profession of the faith, yet indeed were never true believers, nor had had any fellowship with Jesus Christ, as he and the saints had; which also they had abundantly manifested by their open apostasy, and ensuing opposition to the doctrine of the gospel and the eternal life manifested therein.

2. That any Christians whatsoever, from the consideration of these seducers falling away, did entertain any suspicion that all things were not well in that society of which the apostle speaks (not with the “apostles,” which were all dead, himself only excepted, when John wrote this epistle), either as to doctrine or manners, so supposing them to take part with the apostates in their departure, is a surmise whereunto there is not any thing in the least contributed in the text or context, nor any thing like to it, being a mere invention of our author, found out to serve his turn, and confidently, without any induction looking that way or attempt of proof, imposed upon his credulous reader. If men may assume to themselves a liberty of creating occasions of words, discourses, or expressions in the Scripture, no manner of way insinuated nor suggested therein, they may wrest it to what they please, and confirm whatever they have a mind unto.

This false foundation being laid, he proceeds to build upon it; and, suitably thereunto, feigns the apostle to speak what never entered into his heart, and unto that whereof he had no occasion administered:—

“To this,” saith he, “the apostle answereth partly by concession, partly by exception. First, by concession, in these words, ‘They went out from us;’ which words do not so much import their utter declining or forsaking the apostles’ communion, as the advantage or opportunity which they had to gain credit and respect both to their doctrine and persons among professors of Christianity in the world, inasmuch as they came forth from the apostles themselves, as men sent and commissioned by them to teach. The same phrase is used in this sense, and with the same import, where the apostles write thus to the brethren of the Gentiles: Acts xv. 24, ‘Forasmuch as we have heard, that certain which went out from us have troubled you with words, subverting your souls, saying, Ye must be circumcised, and keep the law: to whom we gave no such commandment.’ So that in this clause, ‘They went out from us,’ the apostle grants, first, That those antichristian teachers had indeed for a time held communion with them; and secondly, That hereby they had the greater opportunity of doing harm in the world by their false doctrines. But secondly, he answers farther by way of exception, ‘But they were not of us;’ — ‘Whilst yet they conversed with us, they were not men of the same spirit and principles with us. We walked in the profession of the gospel with single and upright hearts, not aiming at any singular greatness or worldly accommodations in one kind or other; these men loved this present world, and when they found the simplicity of the gospel would not accommodate them to their minds, they brake with us and with the truth of the gospel itself at Once.”

Ans. 1. I suppose it is evident, at the first view, that this new gloss on the apostle’s words is inconsistent with that which was proposed for the occasion of them in the words foregoing. There, an aspersion is said to be cast upon the churches and societies whereof the apostle speaks, from the departure of these seducers from them, as though they were not sound in faith or manners; here, an insinuation quite of another tendency is suggested, — as though these persons found countenance in their teachings and seductions from the society and communion which they had had with the apostles, — as though they had pretended to come from them by commission, and so, instead of casting reproach upon them by their departure, did assume authority to themselves by their having been with them. But to the thing itself I say, —

2. That the apostle is not answering any objection, but describing the state and condition of the antichrists and seducers, concerning whom and their seduction he cautioneth believers, hath been formerly, beyond contradiction, manifested and maintained. That expression, then, “They went out from us,” is not an answer, “by concession,” to an objection, but a description of seducers by their apostasy; which words, also, in their regard to the persons as before by him described, do manifest their utter declining and forsaking the communion of the saints, they so going from them as also to go into an opposition to the doctrine of the gospel.

3. That the apostle here insinuates an advantage these antichrists had to seduce, from their former communion with him (a thing not in the least suggested, as was observed, in the occasion of the words as laid down by Mr Goodwin himself), is proved from the use of the words, “They went out from us,” Acts xv. 24; whence this undeniable argument may be educed, “Some who went out from the apostles had repute and authority in their preaching thereby; these antichrists went out from the apostle: therefore they had repute and authority thereby!” Younger men than either Mr Goodwin or myself know well enough what to make of this argument. Besides, though there be an agreement in that one expression, all the neighbouring parts of the description manifest that in the things themselves there and here pointed at there is no affinity. Those in the Acts pretended to abide still in the “communion and faith of the apostles;” these here expressly departed both from the one and the other, to an opposition of them both. The former seemed to have pretended a commission from the apostles; these, according to Mr Goodwin himself, did so far declare against them that it was “a scandal to some, fearing that all had not been well among the apostles.”

4. That which is called “an answer by way of exception,” as it lies, the expression of it so used upon the matter is as much as we urge from these words. The import of them is said to be, “ ‘They were not of us.’ Though they were with us, yet they were not such as we are, did not walk in that uprightness of heart as we do; they were not men of the same principles and spirit with us;” — that is, they were not true, thorough, sincere, and sound believers at all, no, not while they conversed with the apostle. Now, evident it is that in those words, — as is manifest by the resuming of them again for the use of an inference ensuing, “For if they had been of us, they would have continued with us,” — the apostle yields a reason and account how they came to apostatize and fall to the opposition of the gospel from the profession wherein they walked; it was because they were not men of thorough and sound principles, true believers: and consequently he supposeth and implieth that if they had been so, they would not, they could not, have so apostatized; for if they might, there had been no weight in the account given of the reason of their revolt.

In what follows, “That these words, ‘But they were not of us,’ do not necessarily imply they were believers formerly, but perhaps they had been so, and were before fallen away, being choked by the cares of the world,” an observation is insinuated directly opposite to the apostle’s design, and such as makes his whole discourse ridiculous. An account he gives of men’s falling away from the faith, and he tells them it is because, though they had been professors, yet they were never true believers. “Yea, but perhaps they were true believers and then fell away, and after that fell away;” — that is, they fell from the faith, and then fell from the faith; for that is plainly intimated in and is the sense of this doughty observation.

But to proceed with his exposition, he says, “It follows, ‘For if they had been of us, they would no doubt have continued with us.’ In these words the apostle gives a reason of his exception, telling them to whom he writes that this was a sign and argument that those antichristian teachers were not of them in the sense declared, namely, that they did not continue with them; that is, they quitted their former intimacy and converse with the apostles, refused to steer the same course, to walk by the same principles, any longer with them: ‘which,’ saith he, ‘doubtless they would not have done had they been as sincerely affected towards Jesus Christ and the gospel as we.’ By which assertion John plainly vindicated himself and the Christian churches of his communion from giving any just occasion of offence unto those men, whereby they should be any ways induced to forsake them, and resolves their unworthy departure of this kind into their own carnal and corrupt hearts, which lusted after some fleshly accommodations and contentments that were not to be obtained or enjoyed in a sincere profession of the gospel with the apostles, and those who were perfect of heart with them.”

Ans. First, that no aspersion was cast on John or the “churches of his communion” by the apostasy of the antichrists of whom he speaks, from which he should need to vindicate himself and them, was before declared. There was not, indeed, nor possibly could be, the least occasion for any surmise of evil concerning them from whom men departed in turning ungodly opposers of Christ. For any thing that is here offered, it is but an obscuring of the light that breaks forth from the words for the discerning of the truth in hand. It is granted that the apostle manifests that “they were not of them,” — that is, true, uptight, sound believers, that walked with a tight foot in the doctrine of the gospel, — because they forsook the communion of the saints to fall into the condition of antichristianism, wherein they were now engaged. Now, if this be an argument that a man was never a true believer, in the highest profession that he makes, because he falls from it and forsakes it, certainly those that are true believers cannot so fall from their steadfastness, or the argument will be of no evidence or conviction at all; neither is any thing here offered by Mr Goodwin but what, upon a thorough consideration, doth confirm the inferences we insist upon, and make to the work in hand. Truth will, at one time or other, lead captive those who are most skilful in their rebellion against it.

What is added, sect. 24, concerning the righteous judgment of God, and the gracious tendency of his dispensations to his church’s rise, in suffering these wretches so to discover themselves, and to manifest what they were, I oppose not. The discovery that was made was of what they had been before, — that is, not true believers, — and not what now they were; yea, by what they now showed themselves to be was made manifest what before they were. Words of the like import you have, 1 Cor. xi. 19, “For there must be also heresies among you, that they which are approved may be made manifest among you.” As here those who fall away are manifested to be corrupt, so there those who abide are to be sincere.

From what hath been occasionally spoken of the intendment and scope of this place, of the design which the apostle had in hand, of the direct sense of the words themselves, — Mr Goodwin’s exceptions to our interpretation of the words and inferences from it being wholly removed, and his exposition, which he advanceth in the room of that insisted on, manifested to be, as to the occasion and scope of the place assigned, utterly foreign unto it, and, as to explication of the particulars of it, not of any strength or consistency for the obscuring of the true sense and meaning of the place, in the eye of an intelligent reader, — it is evidently concluded, beyond all colourable contradiction, that those who are true believers indeed, having obtained communion with the Father and his Son Jesus Christ, cannot fall into a total relinquishment of Christ or of the faith of the gospel, so as to have no portion nor interest in the communion they formerly enjoyed.

To return to Mr Goodwin’s close of this 13th chapter, and “nine arguments,” as he calls them, from which he labours to evince the apostasy of believers, he shuts up the whole with a declamation against and reviling of the doctrine he opposeth, with many opprobrious and reproachful expressions, calling it “an impostor, and an appearance of Satan in the likeness of an angel of light,” with such like terms of reproach as his rhetoric at every turn is ready to furnish him withal, threatening it farther with calling it in question before I know not how many learned men of all sorts, and to disprove it by their testimony concerning it; and so all that is required for its destruction is, or shall be, speedily despatched! God knows how to defend his truth; and as he hath done this in particular against as fierce assaults as any Mr Goodwin hath made or is like to make against it, so I no way doubt he will continue to do. It is not the first time that it hath been conformable to its Author, in undergoing the contradiction of men, and being laden with reproaches, and crucified among the thievish principles of error and profaneness. Hitherto it hath not wanted, in due time, its resurrection, and that continually with a new glory and an added estimation to what before it obtained among the saints of God; and I no way doubt but that it will grow more and more until the perfect day, when those opinions and inventions of men, derogatory to the grace and covenant of God, his truth, unchangeableness, and faithfulness, which now make long their shades to eclipse the beauty and lustre of it shall consume and vanish away before its brightness; — in which persuasion I doubt not but the reader will be confirmed with me, upon the farther consideration of what Mr Goodwin’s endeavours are in opposition hereto, wherewith now, by the grace of God, contrary to my first intendment, I shall proceed.