SECTION VI.
The Charge of Ranterism refuted and retorted.
Pass we, now, to a slander against the Calvinistic doctrines, drawn from a very different topic. "Antinomianism and Ranterism are," according to my adversary, "the genuine effects of absolute predestination." As to Antinomianism, I have, elsewhere,1 shewn what it is, and demonstrated that it no more follows from Calvinism, than midnight from the sun. But, as the charge of Ranterism may carry a new appearance to those who are unacquainted with the scurrilities of the superannuated Arminians, from whose quiver Mr. Sellon has borrowed his shafts, I will not dismiss it without some examination.
The sect who, in the reign of Charles I., justly went by the name of Ranters, were no other than the spawn, or continuation, of the2 Familists, who made so much noise under the administration of Elizabeth. To judge, therefore, of the branch, we must review the parent-tree. To trace the rise, and ascertain the principles of the Ranters, we must follow the stream to the spring, by carrying up our enquiries to the Familists themselves.
The learned Camden, in his history of Queen Elizabeth, informs us, under the year 1580, that "not only perfidious subjects, but also foreigners, out of Holland, a country3 fruitful of heretics, began, at this time, to trouble the peace of the Church and commonwealth in England. Under a shew of singular integrity and sanctity, they insinuated themselves into the affection of the ignorant, common people; and then instilled into their minds several damnable heresies, manifestly repugnant to the Christian faith: using uncouth and strange kind of expressions. These named themselves of the Family of Love, or House of Charity. They persuaded their followers, that those only were elected, and should be saved, who were admitted into that family; and all the rest, reprobates, and to be damned: and that it was lawful for them to deny, upon their oath, before a magistrate, whatsoever they pleased; or before any other, who was not of their family." He adds, that their leader, Henry Nicholas, "with a blasphemous mouth, gave out, that he partook of God, and God [partook] of his humanity."
King James I. has given us a miniature drawing of these people, sketched with his own hand: "That vile sect," says his Majesty, "called the Familie of Love, think themselves only pure, and, in a manner, without sinne; the only true church, and only worthie to be participant of the sacraments; and all the rest of the world to he but abomination in the sight of God."4
Hence it appears, that these wretched fanatics (like some others I could easily name) held, 1. That men's election or reprobation was conditional: and that the condition was, their joining, or not joining, themselves to this pretended family of love: consequently, 2. That salvation did not extend beyond the purlieus of their own sect: 3. That faith was not to be kept with any but themselves: and, 4. That men might, in the present life, be in a manner without sin."5 Their tenets, therefore, appear to have been a farrago of Pelagianism, Popery, and enthusiasm.
Henry Nicholas, a native of Amsterdam, and the founder of this sect, had, it seems, began to sow his tares in England, many years before the era assigned by Camden: though it was not perhaps, until about the year 1580, that the Familists were sufficiently numerous and daring to alarm the vigilance of government. But the enthusiast had before taken a voyage hither, in the reign of king Edward VI., and, joining himself, at first, to a Dutch church in London, perverted "a number of artificers and silly women."6
From a paper, subscribed by one of these sectarians, and published by Mr. Strype, we may derive still stronger light into some of their distinguishing principles. It seems, in the year 1581, Dr. Wolton, bishop of Exeter, deprived the rector of Lidford, in Devonshire, for being a Familist, or Ranter. This ranter's name was Anthony Randal: who, among other heterodoxies, held, that the Mosaic history of Adam's Temptation and Fall was a mere allegory: "moreover, that as many as receive Jesus Christ and his doctrine, did fully keep all the moral law, and lived pure without sinning."7 In the summary of assertions, which the said Anthony Randal acknowledged under his own hand, I find the following passages: - "He saith, that he cannot put down" [i.e. safely commit to writing] "what he bath learned of predestination, or Providence, without speaking, or at least seeming to speak, against the law of the realm. He saith, he hath taught openly, and will teach, during his life (being not forbidden by the prince,) that as many as receive Jesus Christ and his doctrine, do fulfil, keep, and do, all the moral law given by God to Moses: and so to live clean and clear without sinning, or the act of sin. And moreover, that every one that preacheth any doctrine contrary to this, neither knoweth God, nor his Christ, nor yet the power and strength of the Holy Spirit.''8 Let me make a short stricture on these two paragraphs. It is sufficiently plain, 1. That the ranter denied predestination, and had (at best) but a very lax idea of divine Providence: yet, 2. He was honest enough to grant, that the doctrines of Predestination and Providence were a part of the national belief, established by "the law of the realm." Hence, 3. He would not venture to blaspheme those doctrines under his hand-writing, for fear of the consequences that might follow. Herein, the ranter acted discreetly enough. 4. He was an avowed perfectionist: and, 5. Was a most uncharitable bigot; else he had never affirmed, that every one, who preaches against his ranting doctrine of sinless perfection, knows nothing of God, or of Christ, or of the Holy Spirit. Who, on this occasion, can help thinking on Messieurs John Wesley and Walter Sellon? I mean, so far as concerns the tenet of perfection. For, on the articles of predestination and providence, even ranting Randal himself would not venture to fly so openly in the face of the "law of the realm," as have his ranting successors, the two adventurers above mentioned.
In the second year of James I. the Ranters or Familists (call them which you please,) presented a very long petition to that monarch; in which they had, at last, the courage to own their firm belief of universal redemption, and, not obscurely, hinted their attachment to the doctrine of free-will. The whole petition may be read in Fuller.9 I shall content myself with transcribing two or three paragraphs. They term themselves "The Family of Love, or of God;" and disclaim all affinity to the Puritans, whom they brand with the epithets of disobedient, brain-sick, proud-minded, heady, and hypocritical: whose malice," add the Ranters, "hath, for five and twenty years past, and upwards, and ever since, with many untrue suggestions, and most foul errors and odious crimes (the which we could then, if need were, prove,) sought our utter overthrow and destruction." The Puritans, I dare believe, deemed themselves to be, as indeed they were, honoured by the low slanders of these wild and extravagant sectarists. But, would we think it possible? this very Family of Love, (or of Lust rather, says Fuller,) these identical Ranters, pretended, with as much confidence and as little truth as Messieurs John and Walter do at this day, to be very sound and zealous members of the Church of England! "If," continue the petitioners, "we do vary, or swerve, from the established religion in this land, either in service, ceremonies, sermons, or sacraments; then let us be rejected for sectaries, and never receive the benefit of subjects." We may learn, from this astonishing instance of impudence and falsehood, that it is no new thing, with schismatics, to lay the brats of their own invention at the door of the Church. Mr. Wesley, among others, seeks much to avail himself of this audacious artifice. As if the Church of England was the common receptacle of error, and looked ninety-nine ways at once!
But to resume the petition. I shall not, here, stay to enquire into the merits of the question concerning the universality of redemption and grace. I shall only shew, from the very words of the Ranters themselves, that they held the universality of both. They tell the King that the writings of Henry Nicholas were written and published, "To the end that all people, when they hear or read his writings, might endeavour to bring forth the fruits of repentance, according as all the holy scripture doth likewise require the same of every one: and that they might, in that sort, become saved, through Jesus Christ the Saviour of all the world." They add, that Nicholas's books were written by an immediate impulse from Heaven: or, to use their own phraseology, that his productions did "proceed out of the great grace and love of God and Christ towards all kings, princes, rulers, and people, upon the universal earth, to their salvation, unity, peace, and con- cord, in the same godly love."
"This Family of Love," says merry old "Fuller, who shut their doors before, now" [i.e. about A. D. 1655] keep open house: yea, Family is too narrow a name for them; they are grown so numerous. Formerly by their own confession in this petition, they had three qualities few, poor, and unlearned. For the last, billa vera: their lack of learning they still retain: being otherwise many, and some rich; but all under the name of Ranters. And thus," adds the facetious historian, "I fairly leave them, on condition they will fairly leave me, that I may hear no more of them for delivering truth and my own conscience, in what I have written concerning their opinions."10
By this time, the reader must clearly see with how little reason and justice Mr. Sellon pronounces Ranterism to be the genuine effect of the doctrine of predestination. So far from being an effect of it, it is totally and diametrically the reverse of that doctrine, in every point of view. Mr. Sellon is the ranter, both in the speculative and practical sense of the term. Speculatively: for he avowedly holds, with his ranting brethren of the two last centuries, that our Lord is the intentional Saviour of all the world, without any exception; and that the grace of God extends "to all people upon the universal earth." Nay, on the article of sinful perfection, this modern Arminian exceeds the madness of his ancient brethren. For, some of them only asserted that people may be in a manner without sin: whereas, the still more illuminated Mr. Sellon affirms, with the hottest of the elder sect, that people may be totally without sin. In which respect, he outrants many of the old Ranters themselves. But what is empty speculation, if unproductive of substantial practice? herein, likewise, my worthy assailant comes not a jot behind the foremost of the primitive Ranters. For, what are his written works, but one continued series of ranting against the sovereignty and grace of God, and against all who affirm with the Church (art. xvii.) that predestination to life is the everlasting purpose of God, whereby, before the foundations of the world were laid, he bath constantly decreed, by his counsel, secret to us, to deliver from curse and damnation those whom he hath chosen in Christ out of mankind? And yet (so exactly does he tread in the footsteps of the "Family of Love,") Mr. Sellon would, like them, fain cajole his readers into an opinion that he is no sectary, nor doth vary, nor swerve, from the established religion of this land!" Thus, though he has reason enough to be ashamed of his relations, the Ranters, he can hardly, I imagine, have the assurance to disown them. Should he, however, be sufficiently case-hardened, to deny the consanguinity; he bears the family-likeness so strongly, that in vain would he attempt to shuffle off the name, while every feature and line of his doctrinal physiognomy compels us to write Ranter upon his forehead.
Endnotes: