recantation so oft repeated recantation O that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might bee changed into that of the Apostles of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 get mee but some Expedient that lying shall bee no sinne and that no other sinne in you or others shall bee consequent to it in this and for the other part of it if it can delight you more then the calling for it hath done already you shall have my most willing consent towards it For the latter end of the sheet of deceiving the Kingdome of seduction c. and what followes in the next to the end of the report I am sensible of it and I thanke God I have received grace from him to pray that I may make the same use of it that David doth in the story of Shimei's reviling 2 Sam. 16. 10. I pray also and desire the prayers of all good men that God would shew me the sin which hath now brought this portion of calumny upon mee and that is all I would say to it And yet after this resolved silence to that part I shall againe answer to you some few things 1 That when in your fourth consideration you say meant in a Commandement you should say signified by the words of a Commandement 2 That which you call taking in a latitude I call reduction 3 That my explications were designed by mee to bee as remarkable nay much more then the first edition was for I designed a full impression and many other things to make them so 4 I never had any thing to doe not so much as the knowledge at that time with the setting out any edition of that book save onely of those additions and of printing the first few copies at Oxford for the use of those that were more willing to bee at that charge then at a greater in transcribing it 5 I say most distinctly that every emendation in that Booke that to my utmost remembrance I can speak of was intended long before ever the Towne was neare taking and for danger of being called to an account of any thing said in it God knows my simplicity I was never neare dreaming or thinking of it and am now in courage enough to feare neither men nor Angels in that particular 6 That I know not that ever I have made you a solemne poofession under my hand to give you satisfaction and my most carefull recollecting what I have wrote cannot bring it to my remembrance certainly you dreamt of that together with the round recantation If it were any thing above endeavouring it certainly it was a very rash promise and if so I beseech you remit it to mee for I would not willingly take any more paines about it For other men I am more secure and if you once be satisfied I shall suppose all men that know it will thinke it time for them to give over quarrelling 7 That by would I did in effect meane were forbidden also by God when Moses published the Law and have oft told you how I meant so 8 I have already told you that you came not into my heart when I thought or spake of submission to the meanest and wonder as much that you should thinke the alterations were made in submission to you as that you should now rank your selfe with the meanest who have not supererogated in humility since I met with you Truly Sir I doe not thinke meannesse is the cause of your mis-understandings nor did I ever from any friend at London heare of any particular you disliked in it or if I had by any such message I would have found out some way to have offered you or any man living a friendly debate about it For your respects I finde little signes of them now and by the subjects doe beleeve that there were little exprest in those letters of yours ten yeares agoe about mee I can and doe freely forgive you all but know not that I am bound to thanke you till some body else tell mee so 9 If any learned men ever told me of that opinion about Christ improving the Law and exprest themselves to thinke it were an error I am confident I have given them such a state of my opinion in that matter that no good Christian can finde fault with or lay any charge on it of hurt or danger to any mans manners if it were supposed false And besides you may know that as Learned as any this age now hath both of Ancients and others are fully of my opinion And let me tell you that ten yeares agoe I had no objection against my opinion but that it was by some men fathered on Socinus but knowing that I beleeved it long before I ever saw one word I thinke had heard the name of Socinus and that the Scripture and Fathers and other the like means which taught me all my other Divinity taught me that too and saw that if it were a mistake it could make no man live worse as the contrary opinion might doe if it were so I resolved to deny my selfe in that phantasie rather then objection and speak what I thought might edifie what diminution of credit soever it brought after it I shall adde my thanks for your counsell which I would faine thinke to bee in great earnest but that I suppose you cannot beleeve that I looke upon Criticismes as a kinde of heaven nor that you would thinke fit to send out in the same breath true Christian earnest for above all things I account admonitions so and Sarcasmes I shall only desire that I may study the Morall Law as I finde it delivered from that second Mount and I will obey you in all other motions and as you desire not censure you for this part of your Sermon how bitter soever it is but thank you for all the good you meant by it But whatever you say of the Morall Lawes perfection I hope it must not so bee understood as to deny that Christ as hee gave more grace then was ever allowed in the state of nature or by the Law so might if he pleased improve the obligations which either the naturall Law or that given by God through Moses had laid on men and whether by new precepts or new lights call us to a higher degree of perfection and oblige us to it then others had by any particular precept thought themselves obliged to As for the imaginary super additions you talk of you will I hope consider that 't is as dangerous to detract from the World of God as to adde to it and to deny Christ to have added if he have as to affirme him if he have not I am sure the consequences may be more dangerous As for your stile of perfect and spirituall Law I shall in the plain word acknowledge it that it was both perfect in respect of the state of men to whom it was given whether by Moses to the Jewes or by the God of nature to all men and spirituall also extending to the
that Christ came to fill up the Law say you first hee rehearses the old Law and thereby confirmes it and then annexes his new Law to it What say you who is blindfold now is not this undeniable 4 You speak too doubtfully page 95. when you say that Christ under the Gospel gives higher or plainer promises you should speak with more resolution in a Practicall Catechisme 1 There was Gospel under the Law and the Spirit was ministred to all the elect then during the time of legall administrations divers Jewes were penitent beleevers and therefore under the second Covenant before Christ came in the flesh 2 The promises were plaine enough to them that were endued with the Spirit as is evident by the Apostles discourse in the 11 Chap. to the Hebrewes they were so plaine that they saw them were perswaded of them and embraced them though the thing promised the Incarnation of Christ was farre off yet their light was so cleare and eye of faith so strong that they beheld Christ afarre off 3 Wee have no higher promise then that of being heires and co-heires with Christ in glory and they had the promise of eternall life the promise of being blessed for ever in Jesus Christ. 4 The ceremonies which you say had nothing good in them did direct to Christ and therefore there was this good in them that they did by Gods ordinance and blessing direct the elect of God under that dispensation unto Christ in whom they were to enjoy all-sufficient and everlasting good things in glory 5 No sinne was able actually to damne penitent beleevers during the time of legall administrations And therefore I wonder at your discourse in the 95 page Pray Sir is there any veniall sinne 6 You speake too faintly when you call the Evangelicall discoveries before Christ glimmerings of light and insert the scepticall perhaps page 95. of your Pract. Catech. Sir there is no perhaps no hap-hazard in this businesse Jesus Christ was sufficiently discovered during the time of Leviticall administrations to all the elect for their everlasting salvation 7 When you speake of the glimmerings of the Gospel you say these things were not universally commanded to all under threat of eternall punishment but onely recommended to them that will doe that which is best and so see good dayes c. Observe 1 That you doe here by consequence assert that there were counsells of perfection under the Law I will not say workes of supererogation but the Jewes were it seems encouraged to doe somewhat more then was commanded 2 Will you say that to beleeve in the promised seed to circumcise their hearts mortifie their lusts reforme their lives walke in new obedience was more then was commanded in the time of the Leviticall dispensation 3 Will you say that the Jewes were not obliged to beleeve in the promised seed circumcise their hearts and the like under threat of eternall punishment I might enlarge but by your answer to these few proposalls I shall be able to understand your obscure Catechisme doe not say that there is a Sarcasme in the Epithet I hope you will now confesse that you did contend for new precepts and therefore you recant once more if you will bee satisfied with new light Sir counsells give new light but you say the superadditions in the fifth of Matthew are all commands and not counsells onely and you endeavour to prove it ex professe page 96. Surely the same things were commanded of old then these are but imaginary superadditions as I called them but if they bee superadditions and not onely counsells but commands they are new precepts and therefore you did not contend for new light onely but for new precepts By this little that hath been said it is cleare that you had some weighty superstructure to lay upon this ample foundation of new precepts or else you did but sweat and toyle in laying the foundation that you might have your labour for your paines which you are too wise to doe Sicnotus Vlysses All that I desire is that you would alter from worse to better for I joyne with you in professing that such an alteration doth declare amiable and imitable qualities Finally if you contend not for new precepts then acknowledge that the super-additions you dreamt of were as I said imaginary and I must remember you that the third Commandement which is out of question the command of God and Christ and the holy Ghost will by Gods blessing bee most prevalent to restraine men from foolish or wanton using of the name of God in assertory oaths or any other idle using of Gods name when they doe not sweare What I said of Criticismes was no Sarcasme I did but remember you that Critiques are apt to thinke themselves so farre above other men that they doe usually contemne the serious admonitions of poore Countrey Preachers But as high as the Critiques thinke themselves I hoped that you would not thinke them mounted to the highest heaven and therefore called it a lower heaven You tell mee That you doe onely desire to study the morall Law as you finde it delivered from the second Mount in your last return page 14. So say the men whom you cry out upon the Antinomians and they give this for a reason because the Law of God published on mount Sinai doth not in their opinion oblige beleevers But you goe beyond them in the next page pag. 15. and imply that no unbeleever is obliged under paine of damnation to observe the morall Law Your words are to this effect That Christ who gives more grace then was brought into the world by the Law of Moses or nature hath disburdened all men of that sad yoke that lay on the Iewes and is content to accept of sincere without not-sinning obedience 1 I desire to know what grace was brought into the world by the Law of Moses Doth not the Apostle say that grace came not by Moses but by Christ onely 2 How doe you prove that all men I meane every one of mankinde is put under the second Covenant I suppose that is your meaning because in your Pract. Catech. page 5. you affirme That Christ did satisfie for all the sinnes of all mankinde and that all other parts of the second Covenant are consequent and dependent on that And therefore I conceive that in your opinion there is a revelation of the Law of faith made a pardon granted and sufficient grace given to every one of mankinde to performe what is necessary now under the second Covenant because you acknowledge that these are mercies made over in Christ by the second Covenant in the selfe same page and to whom are the mercies made over but to them for whose sinnes Christ hath satisfied 3 I desire to know how Christ could disburthen any man or satisfie for the sinnes of any one according to your opinion if he did onely exercise the office of an Aaronicall Priest by his sacrifice For it is certain
spirit or soule of man and not onely to the outward actions But this I am perswaded hinders not but that Christ that gives more grace then was brought into the world by the Law of Moses or Nature and that disburdned all men of that sad yoke that lay on the Jews and that is content to accept of sincere without not-sinning obedience may have leave to advance his disciples to an higher pitch of spirituall perfection whether by new laws or new light then the Law in the former delivery of it had advanced them And to set up this pitch whatever it is as a precept not only a counsell of perfection to us Christians was the utmost of my designe and endeavours in that Sermon you speake of 10 yeares agoe and is of this Author now and I never imagined it possible that this doctrine could give any man liberty to thinke worse of the Law of God or practise lesse of it but have reason to think and could give an experimentall account of what I say that the not teaching it might flatter men ignorantly to beleeve that there was lesse required of them then I conceive and desire they should conceive there is And doe you consider also that hee which is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and most cunningly resists all the restraints that obstruct or undermine his temptations is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also can plead against accuse and calumniate any man or doctrines that are contrary to him And so I humbly take leave of the second report the Lord forgive you for it In the third report it seemes I was not mistaken neither nor in my expectation that plaine positive affirming the things you would have affirmed would not satisfie you I told you that the Author under the generall phrase of all kinds and sorts of sinne sets in the front the weaknesse frailties and pollutions of our nature our pronenesse and inclination to sinne This your Sermon said was speaking with irresolution as if he doubted c. I tell you once againe this is no irresolution and he doth not doubt but that this aptnesse to fall into all sinne is a sinne to wit an aversion of our faculties from God which ought wholly to be converted to him will this satisfie you I have reason from your former carriage not to bee over confident that yet it will for if it doth you ought in all reason to have beene satisfied before where it was set downe as a first species of sinne You say my expression is inexcusable of as infelicities if not as sinnes you it seemes are resolv'd it shall not bee excused to you and therefore will not interpret it by the words that went next before it or so as it may bee reconciled with them but will force it to a sense directly contradictory to what went just before it and so must suppose mee mad for so is hee that can affirme contradictions at once onely because you will not be just any thing that is most irrationall must bee beleeved of another man rather then an expression bee excused by you But Sir I doe not yet thinke it inexcusable if I desired to bring all those men on their knees in humiliation and godly sorrow for their inclinations to evill which doe not beleeve them when they are not consented to to bee other then infelicities Men that will not bee of my opinion in all things I can bee content to serve and minister unto and labour to doe them good upon their owne if they will not permit mee upon my principles But then 1 it seemes I must not say pollutions of nature I said of our nature and you seldome leave out the least word by chance or but when you have some designe in it or if I doe that expression is more proper to denote actuall sinnes then originall sinne which is one entire c. I shall put it to the question whether pollutions of our nature bee at all proper to denote actuall sinnes which are pollutions of our persons whether not most proper to our naturall aversions from God or inclinations to evill If the wisest or meanest would have that better exprest I desire to heare from them and it shall bee considered against another edition which will againe after all your triumph on that occasion stoop to serve the meanest in explaining 2 For him that as you say hath consented to the corruption of his nature that hath cherished and been pleased with it I shall suppose him to have committed an actuall sinne and then sure his evill inclination was not the thing which could bee capable of the title of infelicity in any mans sense for that title supposes positively that they are not consented to And though every man that is of age hath sometimes so consented yet sometimes and in some one act I shall by Gods grace suppose it possible that he hath not and then that his act of non-consenting will bee a peece of Christian victory over that sinfull inclination and the sinfull inclination though it shall still continue a sinne and bee matter of humiliation yet sure will not passe with you for a sinne cherished at that time and consented to Your third quarrell grounded on the conceit that I seeme to imply that there must needs bee some consent given to every actuall sinne did make a very hard shift to bee a quarrell and in stead of being managed with blowes stands still and falls out into contumelies and concludes that I should prove but it selfe ventures not to disprove any thing otherwise if I saw your grounds of scruple it may possibly bee beleeved that this Divinity might bee cleared to you without pretending as you say to Dictatorships 4 I doe neither recant what was said before nor doubt whether inclinations to sinne bee sinnes i. e. aversions from God and then it matters not what you say I seeme to doe I said this before and so I say still and how humble soever the dislike of your behaviours towards mee may by Gods grace helpe mee to bee this is not recanting 5 For the danger I shall acknowledg it when I acknowledge the thing but to set downe inclinations to sinne in the front of the species of the generall phrase all sorts of sinne is not to speak sceptically How many soever there be that teach otherwise you see I am not one of them And why that Author used the word if not you have been told so oft already that you could have no excuse to aske the reason of it againe but your desire to lay a new accusation on mee of complying with the Socinians Which Sir is as your accusation so your calumnie againe if you meant any other thing by compliance then the desiring more to bring all to humble themselves before God for their inclinations to sinne on what principles soever they went then at that time in the midst of a Practicall Catechisme in the matter of Repentance to fall
what was oft said before particularly in the first and second and ninth and there you will find it answered Your 11 is no faire passage for though the proving perjury to bee forbidden in the third Commandement bee the proving a thing that you never denyed yet the inference of the argument there used being this that to take Gods name in vaine is no more in the prime sense or propriety of speech then to forswear that you know was the onely thing denyed by you and therefore the argument in any reason ought to have beene taken notice of In the 12 I pray bee not too confident that other men are mistaken 't is in this more possible that you may bee For when the incredulity of another man is the onely thing that calls for my oath from me in a matter which is not materia legitima juramenti there the Devill having to do in the incredulousnesse the oath may be said to come from the Devill also 13 My honour will sufficiently bee provided for in this particular also after all your scoffes for which soever the superaddition is of new precept or of new light the super-addition i. e. the thing thus inferred by Christ But I say unto you or Christ superadding these words Sweare not at all either of which is a frequent ordinary meaning of the word superaddition is a command of Christ without question And therefore your simile of the Tridentine Canons must lye upon your hands for this is not a place for you to put it off upon your Reader or your servant that takes all this paines and drudgery for you for no other pay but of reproachfull simile's the Author of the Catechisme But O that this so slight an occasion should in the midst of another engagement give you hint or excuse to breake out from hence into that other large field concerning that whole matter of Christs adding to the Law I wish you could have satisfied your selfe with 13 degrees of confutation which sure you would have done if any one of them had beene solid and if number had not been necessary to supply for weight and not have thought it necessary thus to expatiate But Sir I must not neglect you or let you passe unattended in any your most casuall notions But clearly tell you to that whole matter that I do produce the authorities of and reasons out of the Fathers and confesse my selfe so weake as to be inclined if not convinced by them to confirme Christ to have improved the Law and shall not count this to be imitating a Father in a dangerous expression but a full current of Fathers for many yeares in a cleare pronouncing And whensoever I shall understand that those testimonies or those reasons may bee likely to perswade with you I shall out of a very ill topicall memory being farre distant from my Bookes be ready to produce you some of them But then thongh in the Catechisme this be done yet 't is as clearely there said that no man shall bee contended with in this matter a little practise of piety with peace being valuable above a great deale of this kinde of disputing so hee acknowledge that Christ brought more light and clearely convinced men of the unlawfulnesse of some things which by nature or Moses men had not been convinced to be unlawfull Thus much for the Doctrine once againe As for the superstructure that the Author meant to lay upon it I shall satisfie your importunity if it bee but to get you into ordinary charity with him 'T is plainely and briefly this A serious and hearty desire that the utmost that Christs words in that Sermon can safely and properly extend to may bee now thought by men the duty of every Christian and that it may not either bee put off as a counsell of perfection or a precept for Clergy-men onely under the stile of Disciples or bee brought downe againe to the old Law of Moses or the fundamentall of nature and being then either not conceived or not found to bee so severely prescribed there bee thought fit to bee removed from the Christians shoulders or else bee taken with some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by reconciling it with the latitude thought to be allowed under Moses may take it off from all strictnesse and so from that height which I conceive now to bee required and which I desired very earnestly that all men would looke on as their necessary duty and so try by Gods helpe and the force of the old pythagorean hemistichium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether they might not possibly bee able to performe it This was the utmost of the superstructure by that Author designed or thought on and that made mee so wonder from knowledg of my owne sense and conscience of my innocent intentions that any man should say That this Doctrine could destroy the summe and substance of the Gospel and yet I confesse I have heard of one other man that hath said that and perhaps from him you may remember it and not have ponder'd the truth of it And so by my honest saying which you call for you see what spirit of jealousie possest you when you fancied such an aereall superstructure for me which I professe never to have dreamt of and to wonder at the sharpnesse of your invention that could bee so prompt for mee I plainely confesse That Christ and his merits is the onely cause on which I depend and expect to bee justified without the righteousnesse of the Law and the most obedient submission to his most elevated precepts can no more contribute toward justifying mee then the like obedience to the law of nature of Moses would have done if Christ were not conceived to have heightned that Law When we have done the highest that Christ requires of us wee are but unprofitable servants and by our new obedience have been farre from doing more then was required of us or making expiation thereby for that which we have not done In your third Section of that matter I grant that which you would inferre from page 94. that the Author there produces arguments to confirme that part of the opinion for new precepts and therefore I shall spare reviewing your proofes that hee doth so but in stead of it tell you that after hee hath confirmed it both by a remarkable Scripture and the reasons given for it by the Fathers which concludes their opinion also yet hee confesses to be content with the acknowledgement of more light and that hee will not contend with any that is contrary minded so hee will bring the Jewes up to us and not us downe to the Jewes Which that it is the expresse doctrine of that Book you have oft enough been admonished and can never perswade any man to the contrary that shall after the places cited by you have patience to proceed to the rest of that matter But now Sir you begin againe and would seem to say somewhat against that doctrine As 1
that there was Gospel under the Law and the Spirit c. and divers Iewes penitent beleevers and therefore under the second Covenant Sir all this is granted most willingly and yet Christs comming in the flesh did bring more light more plentifull effusions of the Spirit and so might possibly be allowed to give new precepts also 2 For the promises how plaine they were to the Jews needed not to bee disputed by him who speaks onely of precepts save onely as the height or plainnesse of the promises is amongst other arguments apt to make higher precepts more seasonable and yet that the promises might be cleared by Christ and made more universally knowne you will hardly deny or disprove also For though they were so plaine that they saw them yet 't was afarre off in your owne citation of Hebrewes 11 and they that were present to Christ who was one of the promises might sure have a clearer sight of them The same will bee answer to your third argument for that concernes the promises againe and in that respect 't is sufficient to adde that the promises were they never so high before were now sure clearer under Christ and that is all that is affirmed by that Author and will suffice to inferre his concluded obligation to higher obedience And so likewise the fourth will be answered concerning the Ceremonies which I acknowledge to have had some good in them in order to Christ whom they prefigured but yet many of them had none in themselves I am sure none when Christ is come and hath removed the obligation of them and so may bee allowed to have added some new precepts in lieu of them and I am as sure they have not so much of goodnesse or easinesse the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as now is in the very highest and strictest precepts that are given us under Christ and therefore there is nothing like unreasonable in the change In your fifth sure 't is not so strange that I should mention the pardoning of sinne now under Christ for though that was to bee had for the penitent beleever under the time of the Law of Moses yet was it 1. Not by the power or purport of the Law but onely by Christ And 2 't was not at all to bee had in the state of nature or first Covenant which required unsinning obedience and to the Law of nature that law of Christ was said to super-add as well as to the Law of Moses and therefore that particular in the 95 page was not impertinent neither or capable of your sad wonder But how I am obliged to thinke your question Whether there is any veniall sinne tolerably pertinent or fit to expect any returne from mee at this time I cannot guesse yet shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and answer that also that though no sinne have any title to pardon under the first Covenant yet under or by the purport of the second many sinnes not gotten out of infirmities c. shall be washed in Christs blood and so bee actually pardoned which is more then veniall or pardonable in that sense whereas many other shall never bee capable of that washing or that pardon without particular forsaking but bring them that lye under them impenitent unbeleevers into condemnation This were abundantly enough considering the call I have to the answering of that question at this time Yet to demonstrate to you that I am not over shy of answering you a question though it bee of some nicety when you think fit to ask it me I will goe a little farther to serve you and give you the state of this question if you please by way of supposition at large in such a manner possibily that no party will find much to object to it Thus What is the meaning of this ordinary question an aliquod peccatum sit suâ naturâ veniale will appeare by the answer that must bee given if it bee satisfactory to this argument which I shall imagine produced against it No sinne is in its owne nature mortall for that sinne should bee the cause of damning any or that punishement eternall should bee due to sinne is but an accident that the Law or Covenant of God brought in either to Adam Quo die comeder is morte morieris or after Behold I set before you life and death c. for sure had it not beene for that Law of prohibition that Covenant with that penalty on breach of conditions sinne had never damned any one and therefore those irrationall creatures to whom no such Law is made and Covenant given though they should be supposed to sinne against the Law of their creation they shall not be punished eternally for that Now it is an old rule in Logick that Accident advenit enti in actu existenti and is not de naturâ subjecti though sometimes so ingraffed into it that it becomes inseparable from it therefore this being mortall or damning being an accident that came in by Gods Covenant or Law cannot bee of the nature of sinne what ever that sinne bee For if it were so then God who cannot make contradictions true nor consequently take away the nature of the thing and preserve the thing could not take away the damningnesse of sinne from sinne any more then quantity from a body manente peccato realiter which yet wee know God can doe and ordinarily doth by pardoning of sinne for however it may be said by way of answer to that part of the Argument that Christ suffered and satisfied for sinne or else God could not pardon any not to dispute the truth of that whether hee could or no it still remaines that the damningnesse of sin is then taken from sin by what meanes it now matters not This is the Argument I meant to suppose made against that plaine granted truth and to this argument hee that had proposed the maine question and held it negative if hee will ever answer must say that the Law and Covenant of God whether that signifie the eternall Law or even the eternall will of God who wills holinesse as hee is God or in any other motion of Law is a maine ingredient in the constituting of sin the very formalis ratio that makes that which is of its selfe materially an act to become formaliter a sinfull act that makes the killing of a man which is materially murder to be also formally the sin of murther and therefore if by the Law or Covenant of God all sinne bee made mortall then may it truly bee said in this other notion or respect or for this reason that all sinne is so of its owne nature This answer must bee acknowledged to bee pertinent and satisfactory and so any Protestant will receive it and in stead of excepting against it I desire to strike in and close with both Disputer and Answerer and inferre that then it seemes this is resolved on by that party that holds all sinnes in their owne
may come 2 That the lesse the clearenesse of forbidding is the lesse deepe is the obligation to them to whom they are and 't is not their fault that they are lesse cleare yet of things forbidden by reduction some are much more clearely forbidden then others and so fornication then some other sinnes forbidden by that Commandement and I suppose you to whom it is as cleare that fornication is there forbidden as adultery are as deeply obliged to abstaine from one as other But then still in other particulars which are not by the light of the words nor by any other meanes made thus equally cleare to some men to them they are not equally or so deeply obliging Then for your moreover about Christs forbidding swearing by any creature which if you had vouchsafed to have taken notice of you might have left out much that went before you will sufficiently bee answered 1 That swearing by any creature will hardly be thought to be forbidden by the Command against taking the name of the Lord in vaine because he that sweares by the creature doth not directly any such thing but might perhaps bee better reduced to the former Commandements of not worshipping the creature 2 I do not beleeve that any command under the Law of nature or of the Jewes will be produced so cleare or bee acknowledged so convincing to those that lived before the Law or to the Jews against swearing by some creature that Ioseph which is brought in frequently in the story swearing by the life of Pharaoh without any marke of sin on that forme of speech shall bee resolved to have sinned against conscience in it And therefore it may at least be granted that this was of that nature that it might be matter of Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and of the Fathers 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And therefore 4 I must willingly acknowledge what the Author doth that a Christian may in no case sweare by the creature and have told you that that was the meaning of that Authors phrase of totall universall prohibition answerable verbatim to Christ 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 You are next pleased to proceed to the strife about the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and 1 to change Pagnin or Mercer for Grotius and tell me that he will assure mee that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprie significat vanum Where hee so saith you tell mee not nor will I deny it because I know not what in that place hee may meane by proprie but yet I must tell you that it was a litle unlucky that I should examine but one Author of your citing and that should prove so contrary For I have lookt on that Commandement in Grotius his Notes on Ex. 20. 7. and there thus you may read In vanum i. e. falso Non peierabis Idem n. e. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ut in praecepto nono apparet collato hoc Exodi capite cum altero Deuteronomii ubi Graeci ponunt utroque loco 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 This is as plain a testimony as you could have suggested for my turne and I hope you will now pardon mee if I abstaine from examining the rest of your citations being so sure that the granting them all will not prove that Christ said any thing which I may bee ashamed to say after him when hee rendred the third Commandement 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and when I acknowledge vaine swearing by Gods name forbidden by that Commandement and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 't is sometimes rendred falsum as by the Targum Ex. 21. 1. 't is paraphras'd by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mendacii and by our English rendred false and so in other places so it is oft rendred vaine also which is the utmost can bee proved by them Whereas indeed the word even when it signifies vaine hath a peculiar notation of vanity proper to this matter viz. of a faire empty shew when in words I seeme to oblige my selfe but really doe not which fault is observable in some kinds of swearing which are therfore clearely forbidden in that Commandement As for any scorne and indignation exprest by me about this matter in my last though I wondred to see it objected yet because my memory was fraile I lookt over those papers which truly I keep for the like purposes to decide such differences that may be incident and there can I not find one word that looks that way or that I can imagine could bear that accusation For the sense of did in effect meane it I shall satisfie you it was that I did meane that which is in effect all one with that other phrase were forbidden This you are so kinde to let passe and with it some few sides more which I may therefore suppose had no greater difficulties in them but am farre from taking it ill that you let them passe but shall assure you that you might as well have past by that also of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which by saying you understand and by forgiving mee I suppose you thinke meant by mee against your selfe to fasten some strange ill character upon you This I suppose you did by occasion of the meaning of those two words which are not onely titles of the Devill but have a significancy proper to them the one to expresse a calumniator the other a plaintiffe or adversary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 The former I confesse of these you might with some reason thinke I might apply to you and perswade your selfe that I can not but beleeve you to have been guilty of calumniating mee i. e. accusing mee falsely But truly Sir whatsoever I might thinke in that matter I never meant to say any such thing to you nor to manage a discourse designed to a better end with any passion or asperity though it were in saying of truth onely And therefore let mee assure you I was farre from meaning or saying any such thing of you and was so little guilty in my owne conscience that when I found it in your paper I was a little troubled till I had somewhat satisfied my selfe with confidering that you might possibly be mistaken and then by looking on the place in my Papers where I finde the passage most cleare from looking towards you The truth is I was a speaking of the hurt that might come by teaching that Christ improv'd not the Law and told you that I could give you an experimentall account of it Truly that referr'd to a particular person that was then in my minde and is now in my memory ready to bee named to you if you please in one that by urging that doctrine and so bringing downe Christ to the perfect law of Moses became an advocate for a vile unchristian sinne This I made no question was a stratagem of the Devils accusing to him that Doctrine of Christs superadditions for a false and dangerous Doctrine and to that end calumniating all Authors
that was brought for it that it might looke the more naked and despicable Your third was discreetly order'd to scoffe at what was said for a dictate and admirable which was neither but a plaine evident truth that the impurity of our humane condition may bee matter of godly sorrow to any though not meerely quà an infelicity and you aske againe whether it bee godly sorrow to grieve for an infelicity I say againe such the infelicity may bee particularly that now spoken of that it may bee matter of Godly sorrow or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and be otherwise described in a gracious stile of loving the appearance of Christ which may rid us of our impurities and yet not bee this quà sic meerely as an infelicity which was all that was needfull there to bee inferr'd In your fourth you mention your opinion that all pollution of the soule of man hath been by sinne onely But sure Sir this doth not prove every pollution to bee a sinne but as your words import an effect or consequent of sin Next you pronounce that I am much mistaken and your proof of it is petitio principii a begging i.e. not proving yet assuming the thing before in question and prov'd on the other side by mee both before and now in the last Sect. viz. That no man grieves for a sinne after a godly manner but hee that grieves for it as a sinne against God When you know that by that one instance of the impurity of our nature mourned for by him that tooke it not for a sinne but onely a thing that rendred him 1 imperfect then 2 prone to sinne and 3 lesse amiable in Gods sight c. with an addition of wishing and praying to bee dissolved and bee with Christ as farre better the contrary was undeniably inferr'd and no answer offered by you to these premisses For the undeniable grounds of repentance I suppose they are laid in that Cat. both by requiring it for all sinne and by naming inclinations to evill in the front of sinnes without ifs or ands or any dubious expressions But yet after all your severity in giving your advice for the designing of a Catechisme I conceive your inference in the name of the Acute wretch was farre from any acutenesse for sure whatever were resolved about inclinations being no sinnes when unconsented to 't would never follow for your Client Ergo the like acts to which he is naturally inclined are not evill For sure Sir the acts may bee allow'd sinnes and not bee excused by our being naturally inclined to them whatever were conceived of the inclinations The conclusion from your premisses could onely bee this Ergo this and that act being naturall also are not evill And if you wretch should conclude so you would soone bee able to inform him that his acts are not naturall and therefore may be allow'd to be evil though he be naturally inclined to them because it is very evil not to resist and deny those inclinations You then goe off in triumph with a You know what I could adde Truly Sir I professe I doe not and yet whatever 't is if it bee like this you have allow'd mee I should consider it perhaps in obedience to you but never be much wrought on by it Yet shall I excuse this for the good news it brings with it being a transition to the fourth report another stage toward the end of my very wearisome journey In that you have begun with many little particulars which want of truth particularly that I make a second acknowledgement that I was mis-informed when I onely professe that by your discourse I cannot discerne whether I was in this mis-informed or no. It seemes you are willing to receive acknowledgements of mistakes you would otherwise thinke it more pertinent to tell mee whether in either Assembly you insisted on that particular or no. For an answer to your quaere's you sure perceive though you complaine for want of it that I gave you that whole sense of my soul in that point not onely by that meanes to bee sure to tell you my opinion of your then present quaere's but also of all others of that subject that 't were possible for you to ask And by this time I conceive you do discern that I am neither very forward to make quaere's to divert c. nor to deny answer to them when they are made About the first proposition you mention though you stand not to ask why acceptation is put for pardon 'T were no great matter if I said 't were de industriâ on this head because God first accepts the penitent person in Christ and then after in order of nature though not of time hee pardons his sinnes though indeed 't is true againe that the sinnes are pardoned in order of nature before the acceptation of the actions I meane of all the actions of the subsequent life But then there is a double acceptation of the person first and then of the actions of Abel first as the Fathers observe and then of his offerings Which yet I hope will not passe with you for the double justification but this ex abundanti also But to your maine question for I must now wholly deale in the old trade of answering questions which I have been told is the farre easiest way for him that wants other provision and yet would faine not make an end of disputing Why I speake of remission and acceptation and leave out imputation Sure 't is partly because acceptation of the person and so pardon also includes imputation of Christs righteousnesse as the formall cause of our justification God accepting of Christs 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or payment which is imputation of his sufferings by way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for us and then accepting our persons and pardoning our sinnes partly because one kinde of imputation is after our pardon of sinne in order of nature a distinct thing from it and so needed not to bee there spoken of as belonging rather to our sanctification for the completing or filling up the imperfections of that I meane now the imputation of Christs perfect obedience to that penitent beleever whose sinnes are pardoned by the sufferings of Christ for to such a one Christs perfect obeying the Law may so farre bee imputed as to give a glosse or tincture to his still imperfect obediences so farre as that they shall bee accepted by God Which imputation therefore may bee antecedent to and have to doe with that acceptation of actions but yet in order of nature bee after the acceptation of persons and forgivenesse of sinnes But the truth is I then meant to give you plaine grosser propositions to prevent mistakes and disputes and not to descend to such nicer distinctions as these But truly you were very wary when you laid such an observation on the This in the second proposition which sure was an innocent particle of reference looking back to the Antecedent justification in the