the Doctrine but the Book till I had Corrected it and did disown it as too unmeet an Expression of my Mind which I had more fully exprest in other Books And is not this plain English Doth this warrant a Wise and Righteous Man to intimate that I accuse him of writing against that Doctrine of Justification which I Recanted and to call for the What and Where and When Yea and tell me that I refer you to a small Book when instead of referring you to it I only blame you for referring to that alone when I had said as before When many Divines have published the first Edition of their Works imperfectly and greatly corrected and enlarged them in a Second as Beza his Annotations Polanus his Syntagma and many such all Men take it for an Injury for a Neighbour twenty years after to select the first Edition to confute as the Author's Judgment Much more might I when I published to the World that I Suspended the whole Book and have these twenty four years hindred the Printing of it professing that I have in many larger Books more intelligibly and fully opened the same things Yea you fear not pag. 23. to say That I tell you of about 60 Books of Retractations in part at least which I have Written when never such a word fell from me If I say That one that hath published his Suspension of a small Book written in Youth not for the Doctrine of it but some unfit Expressions and hath since in al-most thirty Years time written about sixty Books in many or most of which is somewhat of the same Subject and in some of them he fullier openeth his Mind should be dealt with by an Adversary according to some of his later and larger Explications and not according to the Mode and Wording of that one Suspended Book alone Shall such a Man as you say that I tel you of about sixty Books of Retractations Or will it not abate Mens reverence of your disputing Accurateness to find you so untrusty in the Recitation of a Man's words The truth is it is this great Defect of Heed and Accurateness by hasty Temerity which also spoileth your Disputations But pag. 7. the Aphorisms must be The most Schollar-like and Elaborate though Erroneous Book in Controversie you ever Composed Answ 1. Your Memory is faulty Why say you in the next that I appeal to my Disputation of Justification and some others but you cannot Trudg up and down to every place I would send you your Legs are too weak Either you had read all the sixty Books which you mention the Controversal at least or not If not How can you tell that the Aphorisms is the most Elaborate If yea Why do you excuse your Trudging and why would you select a Suspended Book and touch none that were Written at large on the same Subject 2. By this I suâ—pose to make your Nibble to seem a Triumph you tell your Reader again how to value your Judgment Is it like that any Dunce that is diligent should Write no more Schollar-like at Sixty years of Age than at Thirty And do you think you know better what of mine is Elaborate than I do Sure that Word might have been spared When I know that one printed Leaf of Paper hath cost me more Labour than all that Book and perhaps one Scheme of the Distinctions of Justification which you deride If indeed you are a competent Judg of your own Writings Experience assureth me that you are not so of mine And pag. 25. you say You desire not to be preferred before your Betters least of all when you are singular as here I think you are § III. Pag. 9. You are offended for being put in the Cub with divers mean and contemptible Malefactors Answ O for Justice 1. Was not Bellarmin or some of the Papists and the Socinians as great Malefactors with whom as you phrase it you put me in the Cub 2. Are they Malefactors so far as they agree with you in Doctrine and are you Innocent What is the Difference between your Treatise in the part that toucheth me and that of Mr. Eyres Mr. Crandon and some others such Dr. Owen and Dr. Kendale indeed differed from you the latter seeking by Bishop Vsher an amicable Closure and the former if I understand his Book on the Hebrews less differing from me in Doctrine than once he either did or seemed to do And if any of us all grow no Wiser in thirty years Study we may be ashamed But to give you your due Honour I will name you with your Equals as far as I can judg viz. Maccovius Cluto Coccejus and Cloppenburgius I mean but in the Point in Question it 's no Dishonour to you to give some of them Precedencie in other things It may be also Spanhemius was near you But if I may presume to liken my Betters no Men seem to me to have been so like you as Guilielmus Rivet not Andrew Mr. George Walker and Mr. Roborough I hope this Company is no Dishonour to you And very unlike you are Le Blank Camero Davenant Dr. Hammond Mr. Gataker Mr. Anthony Wotton and in Complexion Scotus and Ockam and such as they If yet I have not Chosen you pleasing Company I pray you choo se so your self But you say on Had you not in your Memory many Scores of greatest Eminence and Repute in the Christian World of the same Judgment with me Know you not I speak the same thing with all the Reformed Churches c. For shame let it be the Church of England with all the rest of the Reformed c. Answ 1. I know not what you hold even when I read what you write I must hope as well as I can that you know your self How then should I know who are of the same Judgment with you 2. Yet I am very confident that all they whom you mention are of the same in some thing or other and in particular that we are Justified by Faith and not by the Works of the Law or any Works in the sence denied by St. Paul c. 3. Do not I with as great Confidence as you lay Claim to the same Company and Concord And if one of us be mistaken must your bare Word determine which it is Which of us hath brought the fuller Proofs I subscribe to the Doctrine of the Church of England as well as you and my Condition these thirteen or fourteen years giveth as much Evidence that I am loth to subscribe to what I believe not as yours doth of you And you that know which of my Books is the most Elaborate sure know that in that Book which I Wrote to explain those Aphorisms called my Confession I cite the Words of above an Hundred Protestant Witnesses that give as much to Works as I do And that of this Hundred one is the Augustine Confession one the Westminster Synod one the Synod of Dort one the Church of England
faedere Hoc fac et vives debeatur Mr. Bradshaw I say attempted a Conciliatory middle way which indeed is the same in the main with Mr. Wotton's He honoureth the Learned Godly persons on each side but maintaineth that the Active and Passive Righteousness are both Imputed but not in the rigid sence of Imputation denying both these Propositions 1. That Christ by the Merits of his Passive Obedience only hath freed us from the guilt of all sin both Actual and Original of Omission and Commission 2. That in the Imputation of Christs Obedience both Active and Passive God doth so behold and consider a sinner in Christ as if the sinner himself had done and suffered those very particulars which Christ did and suffered for him And he wrote a small book with great accurateness in English first and Latin after opening the nature of Justification which hath been deservedly applauded ever since His bosom-Friend Mr. Tho. Gataker a man of rare Learning and Humility next set in to defend Mr. Bradshaw's way and wrote in Latin Animadversions on Lucius who opposed Piscator and erred on one side for rigid Imputation and on Piscator who on the other side was for Justification by the Passive Righteousness only and other things he wrote with great Learning and Judgment in that cause About that time the Doctrine of personal Imputation in the rigid sence began to be fully improved in England by the Sect of the Antinomians trulyer called Libertines of whom Dr. Crispe was the most eminent Ring-leader whose books took wonderfully with ignorant Professors under the pretence of extolling Christ and free-Grace After him rose Mr. Randal and Mr. John Simpson and then Mr. Town and at last in the Armies of the Parliament Saltmarsh and so many more as that it seemed to be likely to have carried most of the Professors in the Army and abundance in the City and Country that way But that suddenly one Novelty being set up against another the opinions called Arminianism rose up against it and gave it a check and carryed many in the Army and City the clean contrary way And these two Parties divided a great part of the raw injudicious sort of the professors between them which usually are the greatest part but especially in the Army which was like to become a Law and example to others Before this John Goodwin not yet turned Arminian preached and wrote with great diligence about Justification against the rigid sence of Imputation who being answered by Mr. Walker and Mr. Robourough with far inferiour strength his book had the greater success for such answerers The Antinomians then swarming in London Mr. Anthony Burges a very worthy Divine was employed to Preach and Print against them which he did in several books but had he been acquainted with the men as I was he would have found more need to have vindicated the Gospel against them than the Law Being daily conversant my self with the Antinomian and Arminian Souldiers and hearing their daily contests I thought it pitty that nothing but one extreme should be used to beat down that other and I found the Antinomian party far the stronger higher and more fierce and working towards greater changes and subversions And I found that they were just falling in with Saltmarsh that Christ hath repented and believed for us and that we must no more question our Faith and Repentance than Christ This awakened me better to study these points And being young and not furnished with sufficient reading of the Controversie and also being where were no libraries I was put to study only the naked matter in it self Whereupon I shortly wrote a small book called Aphorisms of Justification c. Which contained that Doctrine in substance which I judg sound but being the first that I wrote it had several expressions in it which needed correction which made me suspend or retract it till I had time to reform them Mens judgments of it were various some for it and some against it I had before been a great esteemer of two books of one name Vindiciae Gratiae Mr. Pembles and Dr. Twisses above most other books And from them I had taken in the opinion of a double Justification one in foro Dei as an Immanent eternal Act of God and another in foro Conscientiae the Knowledg of that and I knew no other But now I saw that neither of those was the Justification which the Scripture spake of But some half Antinomians which were for the Justification before Faith which I wrote against were most angry with my book And Mr. Crandon wrote against it which I answered in an Apologie and fullyer wrote my judgment in my Confession and yet more fully in some Disputations of Justification against Mr. Burges who had in a book of Justification made some exceptions and pag. 346. had defended that As in Christ's suffering we were looked upon by God as suffering in him so by Christs obeying of the Law we were beheld as fulfilling the Law in him To those Disputations I never had any answer And sinâ—â— then in my Life of Faith I have opened the Libertine errours about Justification and stated the sence of Imputation Divers writers were then employed on these subjects Mr. Eyers for Justification before Faith that is of elect Infidels and Mr. Benjamin Woodbridg Mr. Tho. Warren against it Mr. Hotchkis wrote a considerable Book of Forgiveness of sin defending the sounder way Mr. George Hopkins wrote to prove that Justification and Sanctification are equally carryed on together Mr. Warton Mr. Graile Mr. Jessop clearing the sence of Dr. Twisse and many others wrote against Antinomianism But no man more clearly opened the whole doctrine of Justification than Learned and Pious Mr. Gibbons Minister at Black-Fryers in a Sermon Printed in the Lectures at St. Giles in the Fields By such endeavours the before-prevailing Antinomianism was suddenly and somewhat marvelously suppressed so that there was no great noise made by it About Imputation that which I asserted was against the two fore-described extremes in short That we are Justified by Christ's whole Righteousness Passive Active and Habitual yea the Divine so far included as by Vnion advancing the rest to a valuable sufficiency That the Passive that is Christ's whole Humiliation is satisfactory first and so meritorious and the Active and Habitual meritorious primarily That as God the Father did appoint to Christ as Mediator his Duty for our Redemption by a Law or Covenant so Christ's whole fulfilling that Law or performance of his Covenant-Conditions as such by Habitual and Actual perfection and by Suffering made up one Meritorious Cause of our Justification not distinguishing with Mr. Gataker of the pure moral and the servile part of Christ's Obedience save only as one is more a part of Humiliation than the other but in point of Merit taking in all That as Christ suffered in our stead that we might not suffer and obeyed in our nature that perfection of Obedience
of a name of your own introduction for illustration If we were playing at a Game of Tropes I could tell you that the Healing of Mens Vnbelief is applicatory for the healing of their Guilt And the healing of Men's Ignorance Pride and Wrangling about words and frightning Men into a Conceit that it is about Life and Death is applicatory as to the healing of the Churches Wounds and Shame But I rather chuse to ask you Whether it was never heard that a particular subordinate personal Righteousness even Faith and Repentance was made by God the Condition of our Right to Pardon and Life by Christ's Righteousness Did you never teach your Sholars this in what words you thought best And yet even our Faith is a Fruit of Christ's Righteousness but nevertheless the Condition of other Fruits If you say that our Faith or Performance is not to be called Righteousness I refer you to my Answer to Mr. Cartwright And if the word Righteousness be not ofter ten to one used in Scripture for somewhat Personal than for Christ's Righteousness imputed then think that you have said something If you say But it justifieth not as a Righteousness but as an Instrument I Answer 1. I have said elsewhere so much of its Instrumentality that I am ashamed to repeat it 2. It justifieth not at all for that signifieth efficiency but only maketh us capable Recipients 3. We are justified by it as a medium and that is a Condition performed as aforesaid And when that Condition by a Law is made both a Duty and a Condition of Life the performance is by necessary resultancy a Righteousness But we are not justified by it as it is a Righteousness in genere nor as a mere moral Virtue or Obedience to the Law of Nature but as it is the performance of the Condition of the Law of Grace and so as it is this particular Righteousness and no other § 13. In Legal Justification saith he taken precisely either there is Remission of sin or not If not What Justification is that If yea then Evangelical Justification is not necessary to the application of it because the Application is supposed c. Answ 1. What I usually call Evangelical Righteousness he supposeth me to call Justification which yet is true and sound but such as is before explained 2. This is but the same again and needeth no new answer The performance of the Condition is strangely here supposed to follow the Right or Benefit of the Gift or Covenant If he would have the Reader think I said so he may as ingeniously tell that I deny all Justification If not what meaneth he CHAP. VII Dr. Tullies Quarrel about Imputation of Christ's Righteousness considered § 1. CAp. 8. pag. 79. he saith Because no Man out of Socinus School hath by his Dictates more sharply exagitated this Imputation of Righteousness than the Author of the Aphorisms and it is in all mens hands we think meet to bring into a clearer Light the things objected by him or more truly his Sophistical Cavils whence the fitter Prospect may be taken of almost the whole Controversie Answ That the Reader may see by what Weapons Theological Warriours wound the Churches Peace and profligate brotherly Love let him consider how many palpable Untruths are in these few Lines even in matter of Fact 1. Let him read Dr. Gell Mr. Thorndike and by his own confession the Papists a multitude of them and tell me true that No Man out of Socinus School hath c. To say nothing of many late Writings near us 2. If I have 1. never written one word against Imputation of Righteousness there or elsewhere 2. Yea have oft written for it 3. And if those very Pages be for it which he accuseth 4. Yea if there and elsewhere I write more for it than Olevian Vrsine Paraeus Scultetus Wendeline Piscator and all the rest of those great Divines who are for the Imputation only of the Passive Righteousness of Christ when I profess there and often to concur with Mr. Bradshaw Grotius and others that take in the Active also yea and the Habitual yea and Divine respectively as advancing the Merits of the Humane If all this be notoriously true what Epithets will you give to this Academical Doctors notorious Untruth 3. When that Book of Aphorisms was suspended or retracted between twenty and thirty years ago publickly because of many crude Passages and unapt Words and many Books since written by me purposely fully opening my mind of the same things all which he passeth wholly by save a late Epistle what credit is to be given to that Man's ingenuity who pretendeth that this being in all mens hands the answering it will so far clear all the Controversie § 2. Dr. T. He hence assaulteth the Sentence of the Reformed because it supposeth as he saith that we were in Christ at least legally before we believed or were born But what proof of the consequence doth he bring The rest are but his Reasons against the Consequences and his talk against me as pouring out Oracles c. Answ 1. Is this the mode of our present Academical Disputers To pass by the stating of the Controversie yea to silence the state of it as laid down by the Author whom he opposeth in that very place and more fully elsewhere often Reader the Author of the Aphorisms pag. 45. and forward distinguishing as Mr. Bradshaw doth of the several senses of Imputation and how Christ's Righteousness is made ours 1. Beginneth with their Opinion who hold That Christ did so obey in our stead as that in God's esteem and in point of Law we were in Christ dying and suffering and so in him we did both perfectly fulfil the Commands of the Law by Obedience and the Threatnings of it by bearing the Penalty and thus say they is Christ's Righteousness imputed to us viz. His Passive Righteousness for the pardon of our sins and deliverance from the Penalty His Active Righteousness for the making of us Righteous and giving us title to the Kingdom And some say the Habitual Righteousness of his Humane Nature instead of our own Habitual Righteousness Yea some add the Righteousness of the Divine Nature The second Opinion which he reciteth is this That God the Father accepteth the sufferings and merits of his Son as a valuable consideration on which he will wholly forgive and acquit the Offenders and receive them into his favour and give them the addition of a more excellent happiness so they will but receive his Son on the terms expressed in the Gospel And as distinct from theirs who would thus have the Passive Righteousness only imputed he professeth himself to hold with Bradshaw Grotius c. that the Active also is so imputed being Justitia Meriti as well as Personae and endeavoureth to prove it But not imputed in the first rigid sense as if God esteemed us to have been and done and suffered our selves in and by Christ and merited
him hereafter to use it in no other sense than the Scripture useth it 3. If that will not serve if the Masters of Language will agree yea to pass by our Lexicons if the Doctors of that University will give it us under their hands that the word ORIGINAL is unaptly and dangerously applyed to that sinful Guilt and Pravity which is in us ab Origine Nostrae existentiae and is the internal Radix vel Origo of all our Actual Sin in part of Causality I will use that Epithete so no more 4. If all this will not serve if he himself will give me a fitter Epithete I will use it And now we over-agree in Doctrine a word shall not divide us unless he will be angry because we are agreed as Jonas was that the Ninivites were spared because it seemed to disgrace his Word § II. pag. 4 5 c. You invite me to a full entire retractation of my Doctrine of Justification you add By Works and the secondary Original Sin 1. Will you take it well if I retract that which you profess now to hold and know none that denyeth then there is no pleasing you If I must be thought to wrong you for seeming to differ from you and yet must retract all What yours and all Mens 2. Do you mean the words or the sense of Justification as you call it by Works For the words I take you for a subscriber to the 39 Articles and therefore that you reject not the Epistle of St. James And for the sense I confess it is a motion suitable to the Interest of your Treatise though not of the Truth He that cannot confute the Truth would more easily do his Work if he could perswade the Defenders of it to an Entire Retractation Hereupon pag. 5. you recite my words of the difficulty of bringing some Militant Divines to yield Your Admonition for Self-Application of them is useful and I thank you for it But is it not a streight that such as I am in between two contrary sorts of Accusers When Mr. Danvers and Multitudes on that side Reproach me daily for Retractations and you for want of them How natural is it now to Mankind to desire to be the Oracles of the World and that all should be Silenced or Retracted which is against their Minds How many call on me for Retractation Mr. Tombes and Mr. Danvers for what I have Written for Infants-Baptism The Papists for what I have Written against them And how many more And as to what I have Retracted One reproached me for it and another either knoweth not of it or perswadeth others that it is not done You say pag. 6. A great out-cry you have made of me as charging you with things you have Retracted And pag. 7. What 's the reason you have not hitherto directed us to the particulars of your Recantation what when where You direct one indeed to a small Book above Twenty years a-go retracted All I can pick up of any seeming Retractation is that you say that Works are necessary at least to the continuation of our Justification Answ Either this is Written by a Wilful or a Heedless mistaking of my words The first I will not suspect it must therefore be the second for I must not judg you Vnable to understand plain English And is it any wonder if you have many such Mistakes in your disputes of Justification when you are so heedless about a matter of Fact Where did I ever say that I had Recanted Or that I Retracted any of the Doctrine of Justification which I had laid down Cannot you distinguish between Suspending or Revoking or Retracting a particular Book for the sake of several Crude and Incongruous Expressions and Retracting or Recanting that Doctrine of Justification Or can you not understand words that plainly thus Distinguish Why talk you of what and when and where and conjecture at the words as if you would make the Reader believe that indeed it is some confessed Errors of mine which you Confuted and that I take it for an Injury because I Retracted them And so you think you salve your Confutation whatever you do by your Candour and Justice But you have not so much as Fig-leaves for either It was the Aphorisms or Book that I said was above Twenty years a go Revoked When in my Treatise of Infant-Baptism I had craved Animadversions on it and promised a better Edition if I Published it any more I forbad the Reprinting it till I had time to Correct it and when many called for it I still deny'd them And when the Cambridg Printer Printed it a second time he did it by Stealth pretending it was done beyond Sea In my Confession Twenty years ago I gave the Reasons Preface pag. 35. I find that there are some Incautelous Passages in my Aphorisms not fitted to their Reading that come to suck Poyson and seek for a Word to be Matter of Accusation and Food for their Censuring opinionative Zeal And pag. 42. If any Brother understand not any word in my Aphorisms which is here Interpreted or mistake my sense about the Matter of that Book which is here more fully opened I must expect that they interpret that by this And if any one have so little to do as to write against that Book which is not unlikely if he take the Sense contrary to what I have here and else-where since then Published I shall but neglect him as a Contentious Vain Wrangler if not a Calumniator I Wrote this sharply to forwarn the Contentious not knowing then that above Twenty years after Dr. Tully would be the Man Pag. 43. If any will needs take any thing in this Book to be rather a Retractation than an Explication of what I have before said though I should best know my own Meaning yet do such commend me while they seem to blame me I never look to write that which shall have no need of Correction And Cap. 1. pag. 2. Lest I should prove a further Offence to my Brethren and a Wrong to the Church I desired those who thought it worth their Labour to vouchsafe me their Animadversions which I have spent much of these Three last years in considering that I might Correct what-ever was discovered to be Erroneous and give them an account of my Reasons of the rest I have not only since SVPPRESSED that Book which did offend them but also laid by those Papers of Vniversal Redemption which I had written lest I should be further offensive c. In my Apologie else-where I have such-like Passages ever telling Men that It was the first Book I wrote in my Vnexperienced Youth that I take the Doctrines of it to be sound and needful save that in divers places they are unskilfully and incautelously worded As the Word Covenant is oft put for Law c. And that I wrote my Confession and Disputes of Justification as an Exposition of it and that I Retracted or Suspended or Revoked not
consider whether the Calumny be not notoriously yours I heartily desire any judicious person to help me to see that I am here guilty if it be so But you add You know not what the Event of all this may be For suppose now being drag'd in my Scarlet a habit more suitable for him that Triumphs at the Wheel of your Chariot in the view of all men I should happen to be degraded and turned out of my literate Society would it not trouble you no doubt but then it might happen to be too late Answ 1. It would trouble me because though I know you not our fame here saith that you are an honest and very modest man and those that are Nicknamed Calvinists prefer you before most others of your rank But alas what is Man and what may Temptation do 2. did you think that your Scarlet or Mastership did allow you to write copiously as you did against your Neighbour who never medled with you and made it a crime in him whom you accuse to defend himself and a righteous cause I see in this age we deal on hard unequal terms with some Men that can but get into Scarlet 3. You would make your Reader believe by these words that you are really Melancholly and fear where no fear is A Reverend Doctor whose Book hath the Patronage of one of the greatest Bps. of England writeth against one of no Academical degree who hath these 13. years and more been judged unworthy to preach to the most ignorant Congregation in the Land and by the Contrived distinction of Nonconformists from Conformists goeth under the scorn and hatred of such as you pretend to be in danger of and hath himself no security for his liberty in the open Air that this Learned man in his honour should conceit that an Answer from this hated person might endanger his degradation and turning out of his place is so strange a fancie as will make your Readers wonder 4. But whether you are Melancholly or no I know not but if you are not unrighteous I know not what unrighteousness is Will you bear with the diversion of a story When the Moors were sentenced to ruin in Spain one of the Disciples of Valdesso a Scholar fell into the displeasure of the Bp. of Toledo A Neighbour Doctor knowing that the Bps. favour might bestead him whether accidentally or contrivedly I know not hit upon this happy course The Scholar and he being together in a solemn Convention the Scholar was taking Tobacco and the Dr. seeing the smok threw first a Glass of Beer in his face and cryed Fire Fire The Scholar wiped his face and went on The Doctor next threw an Ink-bottle in his Face crying still Fire Fire The Scholar being thus blackt perceived that he was like to be taken for a Moor and ruined and he went out and carefully wash'd his face the Doctor charged him openly for affronting him yea and injuriously calumniating him by the fact For saith he there was necessary Cause for what I did There is no smoak without some fire that which fired you might next have fired the House and that the next House and so have burnt down all the City and your action intimateth as if I had done causelesly what I did and done you wrong The Scholar answered him I knew not Sir that it was unlawful to wash me but I will take no more Tobacco that I may no more offend you But if in this frosty weather the thickness of my breath should be called smoak may I not wash my face if you again cast your Ink upon it No saith the Doctor It is not you nor any private man that must be judg whether you are on Fire or not in a publick danger Must the City be hazarded if you say that it is not Fire The Scholar asketh may I not refer the case to the standers-by and wash my face if they say It was no Fire No saith the Dr. that is but to call in your Associates to your help and to add Rebellion and Schism to your disobedience I perceive what principles you are of Why then saith the Scholar if I must needs be a Moor my face and I are at your mercy But pardon this digression and let you and I stand to the judgment of any righteous and competent Judge whether you deal not with me in notorious injustice so be it the Case be truly stated The person whom you assaulted is one that attempted with success the subversion of Antinomianism and the clearing of truth their Ignorance of which was the Cause of their other Errours But having let fall for want of use in writing some incongruous words as Covenant for Law c. and that somewhat often and some excepting against the Book he craved their animaversions and promised to suspend the Book till it were corrected and purposely wrote a far greater Volumn in explication of what was dark and defence of what was wrongfully accused and many other Volumns of full defence No man answereth any of these but after twenty years or thereabout though I protested in print against any that would write against the Aphorisms without regard to the said Explications you publish your Confutation of part of those Aphorisms and that with most notorious untruth charging me to deny all Imputation of Christs Righteousness when I had there profest the Contrary and taking no notice of any after-explication or defence and parallelling me with Bellarmine if not with Hereticks or Infidels for I suppose you take the denyers of all Imputation to be little better This Book you publish without the least provocation with other quarrels dedicating it to that R. Rd. B. who first silenced me as if I must go write over again all the Explications and Defences I had before written because you that are bound to accuse me are not bound to read them and this you do against one that at that time had been about 13 years silenced ejected and deprived of all Ministerial maintenance and of almost all his own personal Estate desiring no greater preferment than leave to have preached for nothing where is notorious necessity could I have obtained it sometimes laid in the common Jail among Malefactors for preaching in my own house and dwelling within five miles of it after fined at forty pound a Sermon for preaching for nothing looking when my Books and Bed are taken from me by distress though I live in constant pain and langour the Constable but yesterday coming to have distrained for sixty pound for two Sermons hunted and hurryed about to Justices at the will of any ignorant Agent of that will be an Informer and even fain to keep my doors daily lockt if it may be to save my Books a while Yet the exciting of wroth by publick Calumny against one so low already and under the persecuting wrath of your friends was no fault no injustice in you at all nor indeed did I much feel it But for me
so to p. 80. l. 17. r. if you will sontes p. 91. l. 20. dele the. p. 94. l. 2. for but r. as l. 11. dele and. p. 102. l. 1. r. per. p. 104. l. antipen r. Albericus p. 135. l. 20. r. praeditus l. 23. r. aliquem p. 112. l. 28. r. relatione p. 116. l. 21. r. fulfillers p. 120. l. 11. r. Vasquez p. 150. l. 26. r. indebitae p. 167. l. 29. for if r. is p. 184. l. penult for as r. and. In a Cursory view of some Pages I since see these faults PReface Page 8. Line 22. for and r. as Book 1. P. 172. l. 1. r. is it true Answer to the Letter P. 93. l. ult for Conformists r. Nonconformists Book 2. Part 3. P. 16. l. 20. for tum r. tu P. 54. l. 14. for apt r. yet l. 28. for produceth r. proceedeth P. 56. l. 13. for still r. not P. 65. l. 13. for Guilt r. Gift Book 2. Part 1. P. 259. l. 8. r. Causas P. 268. l. 4. for first r. full P. 269. l. 28 fore Jure r. iu re And I must tell the Reader that it is so long since the Papers to Mr. Cartwright were written that if there be any passage which in my later Writings I correct I must desire him to take the latter as my Judgment For I am none of those that pretend my Youthful Writings to be sufficiently Accurate much less Faultless or that to avoid the Imputation of Mutability profess to be no wiser than I was between twenty and thirty Years ago I find somewhat Book 2. Part 3. P. 51 52. which needeth this Explication viz. God as Judg of lapsed Man when He was judging him added an Act of Grace which in several respects is 1. A Promise 2. A Deed of Gift 3. An Act of Oblivion or universal conditional Pardon 4. A Law 5. And as it hath respect to Christs absolutely promised and foreseen Merits it may be said to be like or Equivolent to an universal conditional Sentence But taking the word Sentence strictly as it is a Sentence of the Individuals according to the Rule of a Law as kept or broken so it is not properly a Sentence as to us as is after proved A POSTSCRIPT ABOUT Mr. DANVERS ' s Last BOOK WHen this Book was coming out of the Press I received another Book of Mr. Danvers against Infants Baptism in which he mentioneth Dr. Tullies proving what a Papist I am in his Justif Paul with Dr. Pierces former Charges and lamenting that no more yet but one Dr. Tully hath come forth to Encounter me Epist and Pag. 224. The perusal of that Book with Mr. Tombs short Reflections directeth me to say but this instead of any further Confutation That it is as the former so full of false Allegations set off with the greatest Audacity even a few Lines of my own about our meeting at Saint James's left with the Clerk grosly falsified and former falsifications partly justified and partly past over and his most passionate Charges grounded upon Mistakes and managed by Misreports sometime of Words sometime of the Sense and sometime of Matters of Fact in short it is such a bundle of Mistake Fierceness and Confidence that I take it for too useless and unpleasant a Work to give the World a particular Detection of these Evils If I had so little to do with my Time as to write it I suppose that few would find leisure to read it And I desire no more of the willing Reader then seriously to peruse my Book More Reasons for Infants Church-membership with his and to examine the Authors about whose Words or Sense we differ Or if any would be Informed at a cheaper rate he may read Mr. Barrets Fifty Queries in two sheets And if Mr. Tombes revile me for not transcribing or answering more of his Great Book when I tell the Reader that I suppose him to have the Book before him and am not bound to transcribe such a Volume already in Print and that I answer as much as I think needs an Answer leaving the rest as I found it to the Judgment of each Reader he may himself take this for a Reply but I must judg of it as it is I find but one thing in the Book that needeth any other Answer than to peruse what is already Writtâ—n And that is about Baptizing Naked My Book was written 1649. A little before common uncontrolled Fame was that not far from us in one place many of them were Baptized naked reproving the Cloathing way as Antiscriptural I never heard 〈◊〉 deny this Report I conversed with divers of 〈…〉 Church who denied it not As 〈…〉 denied it to me so I never read one that did 〈…〉 to my knowledg He now tells me Mr. Fisher Mr. Haggar and Mr. Tombes did Let any Man read Mr. Tombes Answer to me yea and that Passage by him now cited and see whether there be a word of denial Mr. Fisher or Haggar I never saw Their Books I had seen but never read two Leaves to my remembrance of Mr. Fishers though I numbered it with those that were written on that Subject as well I might I knew his Education and his Friends and I saw the Great Volume before he turned Quaker but I thought it enough to read Mr. Tombes and others that wrote before him but I read not him nor all Mr. Haggars If I had I had not taken them for competent Judges of a fact far from them and that three years after Could they say that no one ever did so The truth is that three years after mistaking my words as if I had affirmed it to be their ordinary practice as you may read in them which I never did nor thought they vehemently deny this And such heedless reading occasioneth many of Mr. Danvers Accusations I never said that no Man ever denied it for I have not read all that ever was written nor spoken with all the World But no Man ever denied it to me nor did I ever read any that denied it And in a matter of Fact if that Fame be not credible which is of things Late and Near and not Contradicted by any one of the most interessed Persons themselves no not by Mr. Tombes himself we must surcease humane Converse Yet do I not thence undertake that the same was true either of those Persons or such as other Writers beyond Sea have said it off I saw not any one Baptized by Mr. Tombes or any other in River or elsewhere by Dipping at Age If you do no such thing I am sorry that I believed it and will recant it Had I not seen a Quaker go naked through Worcester at the Assizes and read the Ranters Letters full of Oathes I could have proved neither of them And yet I know not where so long after to find my Witnesses I abhor Slanders and receiving ill Reports unwarrantably I well know that this is not their ordinary Practice The Quakers do not
are offended that I perswade you that by Melancholy Phantasms you set not the Churches together by the Ears and make People believe that they differ where they do not And you ask Who began the Fray Answ 1. Do you mean that I began with you You do not sure But is it that I began with the Churches and you were necessitated to defend them Yes if Gallus Ambsdorfius Schlusselburgius and Dr. Crispe and his Followers be the Church But Sir I provoke you to try it by the just Testimony of Antiquity who began to differ from the Churches In this Treatise I have given you some Account and Vossius hath given you more which you can never answer But if my Doctrine put you upon this Necessity what hindred you from perceiving it these twenty years and more till now O Sir had you no other work to do but to Vindicate the Church and Truth I doubt you had § VIII But pag. 15. You are again incredulous that All the Difference betwixt you and me or others of the same Judgment in the Point of Justification is meerly Verbal and that in the Main we are agreed And again you complain of your weak Legs Answ 1. I do agree with very many against their wills in Judgment because the Judgment may be constrained but with none in Affection as on their part Did I ever say that I differed not from you I tell you I know not what your Judgment is nor know I who is of your Mind But I have not barely said but oft proved that though not the Antinomians the Protestants are mostly here agreed in the Main If you could not have time to read my larger Proof that short Epistle to Mr. Allen's Book of the Covenant in which I proved it might have stopt your Mouth from calling for more Proof till you had better confuted what was given But you say Are perfect Contradictions no more than a difference in Words Faith alone and not Faith alone Faith with and without Works Excuse our Dulness here Answ 1. Truly Sir it is a tedious thing when a Man hath over and over Answered such Objections yea when the full Answers have been twenty years in Print to be put still to say over all again to every Man that will come in and say that his Legs are too weak to go see what was answered before How many score times then or hundreds may I be called to repeat 2. If I must pardon your Dulness you must pardon my Christianity or chuse who believe that there is no such perfect Contradictions between Christ's By thy Words thou shalt be Justified and Paul's Justified by Faith without the Works of the Law or not of Works and James's We are justified by Works and not by Faith only Must we needs proclaim War here or cry out Heresie or Popery Are not all these Reconcileable Yea and Pauls too Rom. 2. The Doers of the Law shall be justified 3. But did I ever deny that it is by Faith alone and without Works Where and when But may it not be by Faith alone in one sense and not by Faith alone in another sense 4. But even where you are speaking of it you cannot be drawn to distinguish of Verbal and Real Differences Is it here the Words or Sense which you accuse The Words you dare not deny to be Gods own in Scripture spoken by Christ Paul and James My Sense I have opened to you at large and you take no Notice of it but as if you abhorred Explication and Distinction speak still against the Scripture Words § IX Pag. 16. But you say Let any discerning Reader compare the 48 § of this Preface with the Words in pag. 5. of your Appeal to the Light and 't is likely he will concur with me in that Melancholy Phantasm or Fear For 't is worth the noting how in that dark Appeal where you distinguish of Popish Points i. e. some-where the Difference is reconcileable others in effect but in words we have no Direction upon which Rank we must bestow Justification nothing of it at all from you Name or Thing But why next to the All-seeing God you should know best your self Answ Alas Sir that God should be in such a manner mentioned I answered this same Case at large in my Confession Apologie Dispute of Justification c. Twenty years ago or near I have at large Opened it in a Folio Cathol Theol. which you saw yea in the very part which you take Notice of and now you publish it worth the Noting that I did not also in one sheet of Paper Printed the other day against a Calumnie of some Sectarian Hearers who gave me no Occasion for such a work Had it not been a Vanity of me Should I in that sheet again have repeated how I and the Papists differ about Justification Were you bound to have read it in that sheet any more than in many former Volumns It 's no matter for me But I seriously beseech you be hereafter more sober and just than to deal with your Brethren the Church and Truth in such a manner as this But by this Talk I suspect that you will accuse me more for opening no more of the Difference in this Book But 1. It is enough for to open my own Meaning and I am not obliged to open other Mens And my own I have opened by so many Repetitions in so many Books as nothing but such Mens Importunity and obstructed Minds could have Excused 2. The Papists minds sure may be better known by their own Writings than by mine The Council of Trent telleth it you What need I recite it 3. I tell you again as I did in my Confession that I had rather all the Papists in the World agreed with us than disagreed I like a Doctrine the better and not the worse because all the Christian World consenteth to it I am not ambitious to have a Religion to my self which a Papist doth not own Where they differ I am sorry for it And it pleaseth me better to find in any Point that we are agreed than that we differ Neither you nor any such as you by crying O Popish Antichristian shall tempt me to do by the Papists as the Dominicans and Jansenists and some Oratorians do by the Calvinists I will not with Alvarez Arnoldus Gibieuf c. make the World believe that my Adversaries are much further from me than they are for fear of being censured by Faction to be one of them If I would have been of a Church-Faction and sold my Soul to please a Party I would have begun before now and taken a bigger Price for it than you can offer me if you would Pag 17. You say Pile one Distinction or Evasion on another as long as you please as many several Faiths and Works and Justifications as you can name all this will never make two Poles meet Answ And do you cry out for War in the Darkness of Confusion
oft enough what I mean and what he meaneth I have little to do with But if he think 1. That Adams Person did commit the sin of Cain and of all that ever were since committed and that Judas his act was Adams personal act 2. Or that Adams sin was a total or necessitating Cause of all the evil since committed so do not I nor doth he I doubt not And now I am cast by him on the strait either to accuse him of differing de re and so of Doctrinal errour or else that he knoweth not when the difference is de re and when de nomine but is so used to confusion that Names and Things do come promiscuously into the Question with him And which of these to chuse I know not The Reader may see that I mentioned Actual Sin and Guilt And I think few will doubt but Adams Actual sin and Cains were divers and that therefore the Guilt that Cains Children had of Adams sin and of Cains was not the same But that Causa causae is Causa causati and so that all following Sin was partly but partly caused by Adam's we shall soon agree He addeth that I must make good that new Original Sin for he can make use of the word New and therefore made it doth mutare naturam as the Old doth Ans And how far it changeth it I told him and he taketh no notice of it The first sin changed Nature from Innocent into Nocent the Second changeth it from Nocent into more Nocent Doth he deny this Or why must I prove any more Or doth nothing but Confusion please him 3. He saith I must prove that the Derivation of Progenitors sins is constant and necessary not uncertain and contingent Ans Of this also I fully said what I held and he dissembleth it all as if I had never done it And why must I prove more By what Law can he impose on me what to hold But really doth he deny that the Reatus culpae yea and ad Poenam the Guilt of nearer Parents sins is necessarily and certainly the Childs though Grace may pardon it If he do not why doth he call on me to prove it If he do confess the Guilt and deny it necessary when will he tell us what is the Contingent uncertain Cause For we take a Relation such as Guilt is necessarily to result a posito fundamento § 2. He next cavilleth at my Citations about which I only say either the Reader will peruse the cited words and my words which shew to what end I cited them to prove our Guilt of our nearer Parents sins or he will not If he will not I cannot expect that he will read a further Vindication If he will he needeth not § 3. His second Spark is Animadversions on a sheet of mine before mentioned which are such as I am not willing to meddle with seeing I cannot either handle them or name them as the nature of them doth require without offending him And if what is here said of Imputation and Representation be not enough I will add no more nor write over and over still the same things because a Man that will take no notice of the many Volumns which answer all his Objections long ago will call for more and will write his Animadversions upon a single Sheet that was written on another particular occasion and pretend to his discoveries of my Deceits from the Silence of that Sheet and from my naming the Antinomians I only say 1. If this Mans way of Disputing were the common way I would abhor Disputing and be ashamed of the Name 2. I do friendly desire the Author of the Friendly Debate Mr. Sherlock and all others that would fasten such Doctrines on the Non-Conformists as a Character of the Party to observe that this Doctor sufficiently confuteth their partiality and that their Academical Church-Doctors are as Confused as Vehement maintainers of such expressions as they account most unsavoury as any even of the Independants cited by them Yea that this Doctor would make us question whether there be now any Antinomians among us and so whether all the Conformists that have charged the Conformists yea or the Sectaries with having among them Men of such unsound Principles have not wronged them it being indeed the Doctrine of the Church of England which they maintain whom I and others call Antinomians and Libertines And I hope at least the sober and sound Non-Conformists are Orthodox when the vehementest Sectaries that calumniated my Sermon at Pinners Hall are vindicated by such a Doctor of the Church 3. I yet conclude that if this One Mans Writings do not convince the Reader of the Sin and Danger of Allarming Christians against one another as Adversaries to great and necessary Doctrines on the account of meer Words not understood for want of accurateness and skill in the expressive Art I take him to be utterly unexcusable Pemble Vind. Gra◠p. 25. It were somewhat if it were in Learning as it is in bearing of a Burthen where many weak Men may bear that which One or few cannot But in the search of Knowledg it fares as in discrying a thing afar off where one quick-sight will see further than a thousand clear Eyes FINIS I had not time to gather the Errata of any but the First Book Correct these Greater or you will misunderstand the Matter PAge 27. Line 2. Read self the Act. p. 54. l. 30. r. as obliging p. 58. l. 20. for of r. or p. 59. l. 1 and 2. r. who is not p. 86. l. 32. for OURS r. OUR Righteousness p. 88. l. 7. for Covenanted r. Connoted p. 97. l. 31. r. and suffering p. 103. l. 9 10. for have us Holy r. leave us unholy p. 110. l. 10. for we r. were p. 111. l. penult and p. 112. l. 5. and 10. for our r. one l. 21. for but r. must p. 115. l. 25. for raze out r. rake up p. 117. l. 18. r. personating Representation p. 118. l. 2. for Minister r. Meriter p. 119. l. 16. for are r. are not p. 140. l. 23. for if r. that p. 126. l. 23. for arrive r. arm p. 149. l. 19. r. and the. p. 153. l. 23. r. and will p. 154. l. 26. r. our own-innocency it p. 157. l. 29. r. Private but. p. 169. l. 2. r. conditional p. 177. l. 9. r. sufficiency p. 181. l. 27. for argument r. agreement The Lesser Errata PReface p. 3. l. 16. r. eternal Contents p. 2. l. 21. r. Wotton p. 11. l. 4. for no r. in l. 17. r. praetendit l. 27. r. sufficere p. 12. l. 1. r. ficantur l. 16. r. impetrando l. antipen r. Credimus p. 13. l. 2. r. praecedit p. 16. l. 26. r. Schlussel Burgius p. 22. l. 9. for that r. the p. 36. l. antipen dele by p. 55. l. 10. for no r. not p. 60. l. 15. for then r. there p. 64. l. 5. for of r. or p. 68. l. 28. r.