that Gods power will bee manifested in my weaknesse that God may have all the glory I received your Rejoynder upon Munday that day I was forced to goe out of Town to speake with a Gentleman I was to preach yesterday morning and to performe some exercise in the afternoon for the satisfaction of some that are much seduced this Friday morning I return you what I can and hope it will give you some satisfaction Sir your messenger forgot your charge and never told mee that you expected an answer when I was at leasure and therefore I scribled somewhat in haste as now I doe for I have not one houre in a day free from disturbance Your errors were more solidly refuted by two of my Reverend Brethren that are both of them Seniors to you they would have been able to have given you better satisfaction You desire to know what I said at Carfax I tooke notice of that passage page 243. of your last edition where you speake to this effect That the holy Ghost was our advocate in setling a Ministery to pray and intercede for their severall Congregations and enabling them in the very Apostles time to forme a Liturgy to continue in the Church to that end and thereby helping our infirmities and teaching us to pray as wee ought I said I should bee glad to see that Liturgy which you say was then formed And 2 was to bee continued in the Church 3 To know whether the Holy Ghost doth help our infirmities by any other Liturgy or not 4 Whether they doe not pray as they ought who know not where to procure that very Liturgy which you say was formed in the Apostles times and to bee continued in the Church 5 Whether the Common-prayer-book be that very Liturgy Sir Mr. Reynolds told mee you wanted direction about your first fruits if your brother will procure L. Gen. Cromwell to speak to Sir H. Vane junior it is in his power to relieve you Forgive the abruptnesse of Your faithfull Servant Francis Cheynell In this outer Paper was inclosed as follows SIR I Was not much taken with your notion of Justice but I shall gratifie your desire being now invited to charity by your serious promise and preparation of minde to entertaine the truth if God be pleased to discover it to you by so weake an instrument as I confesse my selfe to bee You have changed and mollified your phrase you did not stoope so low in your Letter as you doe in your Rejoynder as you are pleased to terme it to beg an account Truly Sir I did stumble at those hard words exact account considering that you have exercised jurisdiction heretofore in a Countrey where I am now seated by the Parliament You complaine of false suggestions I pray God forgive them that suggested so many false accusations against mee to you who have as I perceive more worth in you then to beleeve them 1. It is reported that I complained of you to my Auditory because you did not handle the Trinity in your Catechisme nay that there was not a word of the Trinity in that Catechisme I beleeve Mr. Digle will bee so candid as to assure you that this is a false suggestion But give me leave Doctor to deale plainely with you there is an accusation framed against you by your owne Apology for you speake in the language of you know whom when you tell mee that I need not wonder if the speculative mystery of the Trinity bee not handled in a Practicall Catechisme Beleeve it the Doctrine of the Trinity is a Practicall mystery the very foundation and ground-worke of the mystery of godlinesse The blessed Trinity is not onely the object of our faith but of our Worship too nay the Doctrine of the Trinity hath by Gods blessing a comfortable and quickning influence into the maine passages of the life and conversation of all Orthodox and judicious Christians I hope I need not remember you of your Baptisme or tell you that a Sacramentall Covenant is Practicall Sir rectifie that mistake and I will forgive the suggester Your next reason concernes the Church-Catechisme I suppose you meane that Catechisme in the Common-prayer-book now truly Sir I must confesse that I like that Catechisme farre better then your Practicall Catechisme and your Friends will tell you that you might have contented your selfe with that Catechisme unlesse you could have made a better To your third reason I answer that I did once in London shew that passage which you cite out of your prayer to assure a friend of yours that you did acknowledge the Trinity though you maintaine many errours broached by them that deny the coeternall Trinity in unity I hasten to your second report 2. Concerning your exposition of the third Commandement I said the youths c. had learnt the Art of swearing as perfect as their Catechisme and added that I did not wonder at it when I read such a passage in a Practicall Catechisme printed at Oxford as you may also read if you begin at the eighth Section of the second Booke I adde these words now because I have sent home the Oxford edition and cite it according to the last edition where the eloquent Author to whom for parts gifts learning I acknowledge my selfe farre inferiour being desired by his Scholar to weed out the vice of swearing lest it should take too deep root in young men and get into fashion doth assure his Scholar that after this Preface Ye have heard c. the first part of the Precept Matth. 5. 33. Thou shalt not forsweare thy selfe is clearely the third Commandement but the latter part But shalt performe c. is taken out of other places of the Law to explaine the meaning of the former and to expresse it to bee as literally it sounds against perjury or non-performance of promissory oaths where note there 's liberty enough for assertory oaths for the third Commandement is not meant of assertory oaths as is plainly said afterwards But lest the Scholar should thinke that this was not the full meaning of the Law sent by Moses hee is prompted to put the question home whether there bee no more meant in the third Commandement then Thou shalt not forsweare thy selfe The Catechist answers sadly and peremptorily No more undoubtedly This is a flat deniall indeed which requires full assurance of belief in the Scholar as it doth note confidence in the Teacher no more and undoubtedly no more I feare that the doubtfull perhaps and imaginary superaddition following of which I may have faire opportunity to speake more hereafter will not bee so effectuall to restraine the Youths or Doctors from swearing as the unquestionable command of God I hope this exposition of the third Commandement is not generally received in this University and doubt not but some will be so ingenuous as to protest against it Sit I have no more then this in my notes concerning that passage in your Catechisme though I was sufficiently prepared
hee makes faith a condition no instrument If that were it I pray tell me whether you thinke faith a physicall instrument of justification as for a morall instrument that he in termes acknowledges or when justification is onely an act of Gods through Christ pardoning of sin and accounting just you can imagine that faith hath any kinde of reall though instrumentall efficiency in that worke i. e. whether faith in any such sense can pardon sin or pronounce just or whether it bee not sufficient to acknowledge it an instrument in receiving of Christ and all other acts of the man as Christian and onely a condition or capacity in the subject to make capable of Gods act upon him in justification this is the sum of what the Author saith in that point and shal be farther cleared to you if that were your exception Others tell mee it was concerning the priority of sanctification before justification Which point as it is there stated can bee no matter of quarrell to any that affirmes the receiving of Christ to bee pre-required to justification For as that is no more then that faith is pre-required in the true notion of faith and that wherein Dr. Preston acknowledges it so is it by that Author said that onely that sanctification is precedent to justification which is the cordiall assent to Christs commands and promises giving up the heart to him resolution of obedience not the actuall performance and practice of those vowes for that is acknowledged there to bee after justification These are the particulars I have heard of and have now reason to beleeve that of all them you are not guilty especially of the first though 't was even at London positively told mee from you And therefore I doe by these presents acquit you of that but yet thinke it not amisse to have mentioned that report that by it you may see what alone I have now in hand to prove how truly I told you that to avoid the danger of beleeving any thing of you causlesly I thought my self obliged in justice to you to beg an exact account of what you said I have been too long on the evidencing your first mistake I would you had answered my request and then you had taken away all excuse of that prolixity Your second mistake was that you conceived mee to have said that 't was a piece of Christian justice in you to have given mee an account this night c. wherein you were faine to adde to my words this night whereas I onely mentioned an answer but assigned you no time for it but punctually required the Messenger to desire to know when it would bee seasonable and hee should call for it and accordingly though I have this evening written this rejoynder yet that I may not trouble you I meane to respite the sending it till Munday And yet by the way I conceive it had been as easie for you to have given mee what I desired as that Letter in stead of it unlesse it be easier for you to write out of your invention then your memory I am sure it had been the savingst way for then you had escaped this importunity The distance of your answer from my proposition I shall not need to put you in minde of That which you meane to adde more of the Catechisme is not all nor if my intelligence faile me not any part of what you have said already and 't is but diversion to tell mee you will say more and give mee reason of that more when as yet much lesse is desired of you and cannot bee obtained I shall when you are at leisure desire all your heape of exceptions against that poore creature that I will bee deposed for it meant no man any greater malice then to land him safe at heaven the nearest and surest way that the Author could imagin But I will not yet importune you for any more then you have yet delivered publikely in this City By granting me this uprightly and candidly you will make me really rejoyce to hear that you shall have taken any further notice of me but if you shall persist to deny me this first request you will utterly discourage Your Servant H. Hammond Octob. 20. 1646. POSTSCRIPT YOu are pleased to mention your designe of further severity against that Authour in the matter of the morall law which say you it seemes to evacuate under pretence of filling up its vacuities and adde that it doth in effect overthrow the summe and substance of the Gospel The latter of these I confesse would be a little strange to me that he that labours to elevate the Gospel-precepts as you think too much above the Law should overthrow the summe or substance of the Gospell I must professe to beleeve that whatever charge can be affixt to that Doctrine that would not bee it but rather that it labours to raise the Gospell to a greater height then it would bear or indeed to lessen the Law not to alter any thing in the Gospell In this particular I must professe my self posed and utterly unable to conjecture what you mean till you are so kind as to adde your reasons One thing onely I meant to serve you in by this Postscript because I see that unlesse others have deceived mee you may possibly bee deceived in passing judgement on that Book and that is to tell you that you have a hard taske to prove that that Authour doth at all evacuate the Law morall unlesse you guard your selfe by that cautious word that it seemes to evacuate it and that it may and not doe it really For you may please to marke from mee who know the sense and spirit of that Author better then you that hee saith not positively that Christ added to the Law new precepts but one of these two either new precepts or new light and concludes that either of these two will serve his turne and enhance the Christians obligation and addes that hee that will acknowledge that Christ requires more of his Disciples or Christians now then the Jewes by any cleare revelation had been convinced to be necessary before did grant as much in effect as he desired to bee granted And yet farther in the close that if any will contend and shew as universall plain obliging precepts under the Law as there are in the fifth of St. Matthew he shall bee glad to see them and not contend with him so that hee will bring the Jews up to us and not us downe to the Jewes professing that the onely danger which hee had used all his diligence to prevent Now I have told you this use your discretion and let mee heare the worst you can say in this particular also For Dr. Hammond SIR I Was not the first no nor the last that endevoured to confute the dangerous errors of your much admired Catechisme yet I doe not hear that you have fallen foule upon any but on my selfe I acknowledge my selfe the weakest and yet am confident
without it And that is all my answer to your second quaere And for your first I say that speech concludes mee no undertaker nor obliges mee to shew you that Liturgy any more then my telling you that as Christ taught his Disciples to pray so Iohn Baptist before him taught his will oblige mee to tell you what the Baptists forme was The Disciples tell mee the Baptist did teach his Disciples to pray and 't is possible they could not I am sure they did not help you to the sight of that prayer and the Authors meannesse or his being so farre lesse authenticall then those Disciples though it may make it more fit for you to dis-beleeve his report that they formed a Liturgy yet will it not to thinke him more obliged to give you a copy of it or to acknowledge it temerarious to have said that they did forme one because hee hath it not ready to shew Other reasons beside that of cleare ocular demonstration may bee thought worthy our heeding in matters of fact the testimony of men nearer those times then wee are And under that head I conceive there are many things to be produced for whether the Liturgies that goe now under the name of St. Marke and St. Iames are the very Copies compiled by them or no it is to mee no improbable argument that that age which first acknowledged them to bee theirs had been taught by Story that there were some written by them upon which they thought fit to father those upon them Besides this you have been shewed in another place from 1 Cor. 14. 26. that in the Apostles times some of the Psalmes of David or Asaph were used ordinarily in their devotions and that St. Paul found fault that they did not all joyne in the same Psalme at the same time which would saith hee bee best for edification and if it were mended upon St. Pauls admonition the use of those very Psalmes were at least a part of a publique divine service which is the English of Liturgy Secondly that if wee beleeve Stories St. Iames made choice of some speciall prayers most frequently used by the Apostles shortned againe by St. Basil and Saint Chrysostome all which the Greeke Church which is fitter to judge in this matter done among them then wee doe still retaine and make no doubt of the Authors of them Thirdly that there is famous mention of a short forme of St. Peter's used alone they say for a great while in the Roman Church Fourthly that 't is cleare that St. Augustine speaking of Sursum corda c. saith that they are verba ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus petita and so the compiler of the Apostles Constitutions which imitates that antiquity and makes use of that forme must be thought to have beleeved or else he had been much mistaken in his imitation and had put off his disguise even by putting it on 5 That the same words with those in out Liturgy are not only in the Liturgy which is said to be St. Iames's and those other of St. Basill and St. Chrysostome but are recited by St. Cyrill of Ierusalem in his Catechisme one of the Ancientest Authors we have If it may be with your leasure though as I said I undertake not to demonstrate yet to offer to your judgment not to breed you more controversies or disturbances I shall not onely refer you to Cassander to prove that to Christs words in the Lords Supper the Apostles added the use of the Lords prayer which though it were not much is more then nothing of set forme or Liturgy and might doubtlesse have been accompanied with much more though I am not able to shew it you but also goe a little farther with you upon occasion of that last mentioned forme and that Father The forme of doxology following those versicles of sursum corda c. in our Book is you may remember this therefore with Angels c. of which there is little question but that it is the form which was called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by the Latines Praeparatio viz. of the Sacrament as 't is stil in our Church that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which saith Iust. Mar. precedeth the Eucharist or blessing of the elements i. e. prayer of consecration 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by Cyrill of Ierusalem which as it is there placed after the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. not the Sacrament but the giving of thanks as with us it is after the Let us give thanks to our Lord God so it is before the prayer of consecratiō which other where as even now in Iustin is called by that title and the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as with us also and is the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which saith that ancient Author under the Apostolical disguise of Dionysius the whole Church profest before the Sacrament All this I have said to shew you if you delight in it some part of that Liturgy being in our book you may yet see it which was by those Ancients used And to bring it yet nearer home to the point in hand 't is that ancient Cyrills affirmation of this very form that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which words in the use of those Ancients most commonly note the thing they speak of to be delivered them from the Apostles or Apostolicall men and being spoken by Cyrill who was not long after those times and S. August saying expresly of sursum corda which may very probably extend to this whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after it that they were delivered down from the very Apostles times I conceive this with the other precedent testimonies of it may amount to a proof tolerably sufficient to perswade a prudent man that they were so I will prevent a mistake in this matter of Cyrills words which I do not think probable you would fal into but yet am willing to serve you by preventing it that the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 imports not as I conceive that it was delivered by the Seraphim for then it would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and though that were more then an Apostolicall even an Angelical tradition yet it would rather look to the Glory to God on high c. but that it is an hymne taking in the Angels to joyn in lauds with us to which I conceive S. Chrysostome referred in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the Greekes that call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Amalarius when hee stiles it hymnus refertus laudibus Angelorum and this hymne delivered downe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by our i. e. that Cyrills ancestors at least which who they were likely to bee I before gave you reason to conjecture That this thus mentioned by St. Cyrill is that very part of our Liturgy which I noted it to bee is cleare enough by the words that follow in him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 compared with our With all the the company of heaven wee
so I have no need to answer you with that but plainly confesse that all evill and devillish oaths are forbidden in the third Commandement 4 I need not deny but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may sometimes be rendred vaine and so sometimes 't is even when it signifies a Lye as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Bible hath a peculiarity sometimes to denote Idols those greatest lyes in the world All that I was to conclude was that Christ having exprest it by a word which St. Matthew here reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 there was nothing in that Hebrew phrase but what was agreeable to this and that is true though it should bee granted to signifie vanum because it doth falsum also But you say you need not goe about to prove that the Iewes saw this truth as clearely as wee doe but you can prove that they saw and acknowledged it and that that is sufficient for you and then let mee tell you you have fought blind all this while and now you may see if you will that forasmuch as concerns this Author unlesse you will fight on when you say you need not your great quarrell is at an end for hee that said in generall of all this Sermon in the mount that Christ added either new precepts or new light promised to bee satisfied with either of them and though hee conceives the Greek Fathers to have generally affirmed the former and the Latin also for the first 400 yeares particularly in this matter of swearing Theophylact 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expressing his opinion to bee that some swearing was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under Christ which had not been so before yet hee hath obliged himselfe to bee content with the latter which now you say you need not deny I would you had never needed to oppose one so violently that asserted no more then what you need not to deny and therefore I will now adde onely thus much that 1 This is the meaning and effect of affirming it forbidden there not by the primary intention of the word for from thence it is that the clearnesse arises that which is forbidden by reduction only being not so cleare nor consequently so deeply obliging those to whom it is not supposing still that it is not their fault that it is not so cleare 2 That if it were granted that Christ gave a new precept here it would not yet follow that all unlawfull swearing by Gods name was not forbidden before because there is another thing which he may have added to the third Commandement the not swearing by any thing else as well as not by God But you see I need not now affirme this I will give you leave to thinke that I am so awed by you that I am not willing to spring you any new game of controversies I confesse I like not the sport so well as to sollicite your company any further For the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I gave you an hint by the way that that will gaine you but little For my knowledge of the primary signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you must not judge for hee that shall but looke into Schindler as venerable an Author sure as Pagnin will finde that hee saith 't is used de re falsâ vanâ First falsâ but if you had pleased my argument of the use of the word in the ninth Commandement as fit to expound the Second as any might have been thought as fit to bee considered as what you have insisted on in stead of it You doe well to abstaine from the negative argument of hee might but did not But then it is not true that the question betwixt you and mee is not about the primary intention of the phrase for whosoever reads that Catechisme these letters or even many of your arguments will know it is or if not I make no scruple to pronounce what I have done so oft that I have no other quarrell to you in this matter save onely the injuries you did mee at St. Maries and every one that beleeved ought of it from you But sure Sir I have not acknowledged in any manner that the first edition of that Booke had any thing in it questionable in the judgement of learned men I told you it was in kindnesse and submission to the meanest and that kindenesse and submission intimates no more acknowledgement of questionablenesse then the word meanest intimates the learnedst I would now adde that I might have done it to prevent causelesse quarrelling but that I now see that it will not doe that neither As for your long deduction and magnifying of your cost and travaile through the additions c. of that Catechism you might have been lesse Playsome in re seriâ If you doe not already know that you have prevaricated herein you may read and remember the Printers Postscript which I think you cite also and so have read I shall now but advise you to remember it and you cannot chuse but see and I hope acknowledge that all your Fable vanishes and your History ends in this plaine briefe that will bring no scorne on the Authour viz. that he prepared a new edition of the Catechisme added a third part more and to serve the meanest explained every thing that by any advice or hint hee observed to need explaining call it altering if you will for to alter from worse to better hee professes himselfe to thinke an amiable imitable quality and will never bee ashamed of it yet must not now assume it to himselfe having I assure you no right to it any further then it signifies explaining This edition had long since been Printed in Oxford could the Printer have gotten downe so much paper When the City was rendred t was carryed to London to that end where against the Authors will or knowledge three editions had been made by the first Copy one of which was just then ended and by that meanes the Printer had been at greater losse then I was willing to bee cause of to an enemy if another new impression had been then made of it This God knows was the cause it is now set out so troubledly the Printer being willing to put out the additions thus rather then not at all and to put this inconvenience on the Reader then losse upon himselfe for which though I was very sorry yet I never foresaw that I should bee thus chid and reproacht and triumpht over for it I hope some of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christs Sermon may bee the portion of them that suffer without a cause though it bee not upon that excellent stile for righteousnesse sake I am sure this of mine is not for unrighteousnesse And now as seriously you shall judge of the thing called exercising of patience and never expect to be thankt for your charges unlesse it had brought in to mee more justice I need not say charity from you And if after this nothing will satisfie you but
bee more expresly cleared I could not divine and had liberty to use my own method This onely I know that inclinations to sin are there exprest to bee sins and that clearely enough that hee may discerne it who hath so much leisure from quarrelling as to bewaile them And indeed you need not tell me what dangerous consequences have been inferred from doubtfull expressions in Catechismes c. For I have an example before mine eyes of one that will inferre those consequences from one word in such a Booke that the whole sense of the place contradicts directly as much as sin and no sin are contradictories and then 't is but reason a man were allow'd pardon and not triumph'd over presently for being willing when 't is by anothers fault become so necessary to explaine And so much for the third report The fourth that about faiths being whether a condition or instrument of Iustification I cannot observe by your words that you have at all insisted on in either assembly for though you deny it not yet also you affirme nothing as in the two former which you owne and as in the last you are pleased to doe Either then you spake to this particular and then although it bee a fault in you not to acknowledge it yet till I am sure of it and that my reputation is concerned in it I have no reason farther to importune you or else you did not speake to it and consequently did mee no injury in that particular and then I truly cannot accuse you having no authority that you did worth my depending on and that which I had contradicted by others as the other of the Trinity which proved untrue and so the rather inclines mee to beleeve that this is so also On these grounds I have no temptation to adde more to this matter because the whole businesse which brought us now together was to vindicate my selfe from and that made it necessary for me to know what had been your accusations and not to render you at this time which I can spend much more profitably to my selfe and others an account of my faith save onely where you have calumniated it Yet because it is possible that the questions here proposed by you may through some mistake or ignorance of the grounds that I goe on bee matter of some scruple to you and it may bee my duty to prevent those mistakings I have now thought fit to tell you what is the generall ground that I build on in this matter by analogy to which you may forme an answer to those questions and reconcile those seeming differences which you may have taken notice of My grounds are these 1 That justification is divine acceptation and pardon of sin 2 That the mercy of God through the satisfaction and merits of Christ is the sole cause of this justification 3 This worke of justification is of such a nature consisting meerly in Gods pronouncing us just accepting and pardoning a worke of God without us upon us concerning us but not within us that consequently nothing within us can have any reall proper efficiency in this worke for then that whatever it is must bee said to justifie i. e. to accept and pardon which nothing in us can be said to doe though but minus principaliter secundario or realiter instrumentaliter for if it had any such efficiency there might in strict speaking be some reall vertue or force in that thing and that proportionable to the effect in some measure at least it must act virtute primae causae and by the impulsion of that might immediately produce the effect which any even grace as it is in us hath not force enough to doe For either it must doe it as an inferiour meritorious cause subordinate to Christs merits or as an inferiour efficient cause subordinate to Gods pardoning and accepting and then as I said that must pardon and accept also immediately though not principally as the knife cuts immediately though the hand or the man principally 4 This work of grace in God through Christ thus justifying is not every mans portion some qualification or condition there is required in the subject in the person whose sinnes God will thus pardon in Christ or without which God that justifies the sinner will not yet justifie the impenitent infidell the promises of God though generall being yet conditionall promises and the promise of pardon being one of them as shall be proved at large if you thinke fit 5 This condition is set downe in severall phrases in the Scripture Conversion Repentance Regeneration but especially receiving of Christ faith in the heart an embracing of Christ the whole Christ taking him as our Priest whose sacrifice and whose intercession to depend on as our King whose throne to bee set up in our hearts as our Prophet to submit our understandings to his doctrines and captivate them to the obedience of faith 6 This grace of faith hath mauy excellent offices and efficiencies one principall one laying hold on the promises laying hold on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 others also of subduing the passions mortifying lusts overcomming the world In all these being workes wrought in us by God principally instrumentally by this grace Faith is an efficient But all this doth not at all conclude it to bee in any propriety of speech an efficient or any kinde of logicall proper cause in the act of justification because there is no need of any such God being ready to doe his worke to performe his promise i. e. to justifie the penitent beleever and whensoever by his grace that qualification is wrought in the heart or there but truly rooted God pronounces that man just I have out of my heart set downe my sense which I suppose you will finde every where scattered in the Booke I desire not that it may prove a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between us in case there bee any word hastily let fall which though to mee that understood my owne meaning it bee plaine to you especially if you delight to bee captious may want explication but yet I would bee glad to heare if there bee any poyson in any of these propositions and whether and wherein I am mistaken If not I suppose you will be able to answer all your twelve quaeries out of these premises or discerne that it was impertinent to aske them these grounds being thus supposed I shall I think onely need to adde that as soone as ever this new creature hath life in him at the first cordiall receiving the whole Christ in vow or resolution sincere i. e. at the first minute of conversion thus to God the person is justified not one of those in time after the other but in order of nature as naturally the condition must be undertaken before the Covenant belongs to mee but at what minute soever this is done God puts away his wickednesse c. I have sinned saith David and the Lord hath put away thy sinne saith Nathan
diverting to another matter But Sir in your speedy passage to this other field you scattered something which I shall not despise so farre as not to take up after you and tell you 1 That whatever you did you ought to have beleeved from the very nature and importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that the advantage which I made of it was very proper to bee made and why you tell mee you never thought it and neither answer my reason nor give mee any to the contrary I cannot imagine in your haste that unimportant speech of yours might have beene omitted as well as any other 2 For those speeches of mine whereon you judge my uncharitablenesse and are pleased to expresse your sorrow for it I must professe you have wholly mistaken them and I think that is done by you very unseasonably at the very minute when you had said you desire not to mistake my meaning and are so kinde as to bee sorry for mee For let mee tell you that such mistakings are least incident to them that are such lovers of truth and so sorry to see others uncharitable Now for your mistakes I conceive they will be cleare to any man that reads the words I am sure they are to mee that know my sense I said That if I thought you sought for any thing but exceptions I would adde as to a Scholar and a friend c. This no way intimates my looking on you as no Scholar or no Friend to mee much lesse as on my unlearned enemy which againe you adde supra computum I beseech you doe so no more for there is difference betwixt no friend and an enemy as betwixt positive hating and negative not-loving but rather that I did looke on you and meant to deale with you as both a Scholar and a Friend if that onely third thing my thought that you did not seeke for any thing but exceptions did not interpose and hinder mee From this 't is cleare that the utmost that could bee charged upon that speech was my thought that you sought not for any thing but exceptions which if I had been guilty of I doe not yet discerne it had beene uncharitable because in all the passages betweene you and mee at this time exceptions at that Author and at my words have been the whole affaire discernible by mee and so there was no ground to oblige my charity to thinke whatsoever possibility might bee on which to hope any other of you But I shall not need grant you that my former speech intimated this neither for my words taken and joyned with what follows doe not so much as intimate that I did positively thinke c. for beside that suppositio non ponit and if is but a marke of a supposition my doing the contrary to that which would have regularly beene superstructed on that thought as it is apparent I doe by my freely adding my whole sense in the words immediately following makes that if to bee farre from an intimation by which you might conclude that I did thinke what is there mentioned Hee that proposes hypothetically if a man were any better then a stone then hee would learne something and then assume not that hee learnes nothing but contrariwise within few lines affirmes that hee doth learne very aptly doth certainely not so much as intimate by that if that hee is no better then a stone but rather clearely affirmes the contrary Bee pleased to apply it to the case in hand and you will finde you were too hasty to conclude me uncharitable as before you were too willing to conclude mee angry In the next place whereas you adde That I professe not to cast up a ball of new contention but onely am pleased to referre you to another Booke the view of the Direct This I suppose was a product of your haste also for the former part of that speech was by mee delivered of one thing viz. of that account given you ex abundanti of my sense of that whole matter about Liturgy among the Apostles which therefore was not in any reason to become matter of new contention for then there would bee no end But the second thing my reference to the View of the Direct came in afterwards in my answer to your first question and that too with a besides a note of an ex abundanti also when I had before sufficiently answered your question at least so answered as that you reply not to it What you meant by making this change and mixing of things so distant you will I hope upon examination of your selfe remember And I beseech you for my sake to doe it that there may hereafter bee some few lesse materiall passages in your discourse which may bee pas't over by mee without occasion of confuting For as yet you see there hath been nothing of any deep consideration and yet nothing that deserved not some animadversion Sir I come now to the new field you desire to lead mee to the severall passages which you now newly mention in the View of the Directory and the taskes and questions that you offer mee on that new occasion without any the least temptation offered by mee to bring you to it for they are not those places which I had referr'd you to to which you make these exceptions and which is most unreasonable before you had either said one word in answer to what I had now produced on that matter or confesse your selfe satisfied with it I must leave you againe to passe sentence on your selfe for this behaviour and to consider that you have no way encouraged mee to undertake all your commands or defend at this time every part of every Booke which you shall have leisure to except against Yet Sir I am resolved to faile you in nothing that you can vouchsafe to thinke reasonable for you to expect on condition that for the future you will weigh your scruples better before you throw them into your Papers First you say the Author of that View layes downe this rule pag. 2. Nothing is necessary in the worship of God but what God hath prescribed and from thence demand how many severalls of the Common-Prayer-Booke that are purposely left out in the Directory are prescribed by God This will be very admirable to him that lookes on that 2 page of that View For first that which you say that layes downe for a rule is there produced onely as a ground of the adversary with whom the Author of the View there disputes in these plaine words I shall suppose it granted by them with whom I now dispute that nothing is necessary c. If I shall labour at any time to confute or answer you by an argumant or answer ad hominem by urging somewhat against you that you take for a principle and mention it as a thing which I suppose granted by you would you ever thinke fit to impose this principle of yours as a rule laid downe by mee If you
can pitch on for the occasion of your mistake in any part of this matter though for your affirming that this Catechism gave any Christian liberty of swearing I cannot be just if I speake so favourably To this which I conceived a new mistake in you I must adde another old one in that Section viz. that you will still talk of my severall Editions and not mean that last where the additions are set when you have been so oft assured of this truth of which I can produce the confirmation of severall oaths that I never had the least knowledge of or gave consent to any other but the first Oxford printing of those few Copies and those last additions For the second thing which is so cleare to you 't will bee acknowledged farre from being so if I againe tell you that the meaning of those words of the second question Whether the third Commandement is no more c. is most precisely this whether the literall importance or if you will the literall meaning of the third Commandement bee no more c. and that will well agree with the first question what is the meaning of the old Commandement viz. as 't is delivered by Christ in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and the consequents out of other places Thou shalt performe c. that is againe the literall meaning or the necessary importance of the words produced by Christ agreeable to which is the answer that 't is set to expresse it to be as literally it sounds against perjury c. 3 'T is not very reasonable for you to over-rule all others by saying the question is not when I have as much reason to know as you being so well knowne to him that set the question and affirm it is or because with you the intention of a phrase is a hard expression to conclude from thence that it must bee explained by the intention of the Law-giver whereas I againe tell you that the literall notation of the phrase is the thing that was meant by it and not the intention I meane the totall full intention of the Law-giver 4 For the question of what is primary and secondary in Gods intention which you would not have disputed that you ought to have spared also for againe I say 't is about the primary or secondary notation of the phrase But you by drawing in before the intention of the Law-giver found it an easie change into the intention of God but neither of those is the thing here spoken of 5 I conceive Christs rendring the third Commandement by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is as I was then confident beside others a sufficient proofe that that is the primary intention of the phrase and I have reason to continue in that opinion because you have not dropped any word of answer to it in all your tale of rejoynders 6 For the doubtfull perhaps if I had reason to blot it out you need not challenge me for doing what was rationall the truth is I was not confident that every body was perswaded or could bee convinced that all foolish wanton using of Gods name if without any kinde of swearing was forbidden in that Commandement which onely speakes of taking or lifting up Gods name which with the Hebrewes signifies swearing and if wisemen may bee beleeved nothing else and therefore I was according to my judgement more willing to put in perhaps then to venture a quarrell with any body in that matter but afterwards conceiving reduction would beare it and willing to be as strict in this matter as I could possibly any way justifie God knowes farre from any thought of being accused for giving liberty of swearing I put in idle in stead of the word perhaps and so you have you see the fate of shrifting me I am not permitted to keepe any thing from you and yet desire not to burthen you with a secret or to deliver this my confession under the restraint of any seale to you 7 I have given you grounds to discerne that 't is not so sure that foolish and wanton using of Gods name is forbidden by that Commandement in case that foolish using it bee without oaths as profane or blasphemous using it the former of which you were told I conceived to belong to oaths and those unlawfull oaths and when not to such oaths then to something else which was equivalent to them as to profane signifies to use that commonly or unworthily which is onely to bee used in holy matters and such are oaths resolved to bee and therefore called sacramenta and the using them in common talke or to any but that sacred use is to profane them and so you see that was a causelesse exception also For though some foolish and wanton using of Gods name may be profaning it i.e. profaning Gods name or using it lesse solemnly yet is it not the profaning of a sacramentum or oath which sure is greater then the former 8 Your conclusion truly is not true all that can bee justly concluded of mee from those alterations is this that I began to conceive that what I had said against assertory oaths might bee made more cleare to all though 't were to mee that knew my owne sense said clearely enough before and I ought to be thanked for this care especially by you if to you it was not clear and not so oft to bee reproacht for it And I will once more professe that to my best remembrance I made no one alteration in that Booke but onely on designe to explaine not to alter or retract any thing or to alter the words that they might more fully speak my sense I wish there were any thing would content you but speaking against my conscience I would not much care then if you still call'd it recantation 9 You still mistake foolish and wanton using of Gods name for swearing and I will bee so charitable to you as to thinke this is it makes you so hard to bee satisfied in this matter But I have oft told yon Gods name may bee used without swearing and that not using but taking or lifting up his name signifies that And then why should the perhaps which is not affixt to swearing but to something else contribute any thing toward the swearers boldnesse I beseech you discerne what is so manifest and so oft repeated to you The words there are Profane c. is surely there forbidden and that I have oft shewed you containes every unholy unlawfull oath under it For your dislike of my instance of fornication in the seventh Commandement there is no remedy you will not like any thing that comes from mee and yet 't is sure enough adultery cannot signifie fornication in the primary sense or save by reduction and besides if to the particular of fornication you had a propriety of dislike the other instance of killing would serve the turne and that you might possibly have either lik'd or confuted also Your 10 is but a recitation of