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
nature mortall that that is all one with this other proposition All sinnes which are by the Law prohibited under paine of damnation are by that Law damning sinnes and noneveniall this being so I aske the opposite party that disputed even now what he thinks of this proposition All sinnes which by the Law or first Covenant were prohibited under paine of damnation are by the tenure of that Law all damning sinnes none veniall I am verily perswaded hee will consent to it too And having done so what hinders now but that this controversie may bee accommodated between disputers being once rightly explained and understood For that under the Law or first Covenant every the least sinne was sufficient to forbid a mans justification and consequently to damne is apparently the words of Scripture Gal. 3. 9. Cursed is every one that continues not in all As for the Gospel or state of Christianity or second Covenant stricken with us in Christ wee know there is pardon for sinne by the very tenure of the Covenant and every sin is not now such as that it shall either damne hereafter or exclude every one that commits it from the present favour of God but may bee competible with a justified estate and a hope of heaven Gospel-obedience is not perfect exact without sinning at all but onely faithfull sincere impartiall without hypocrisie or indulgence in any known sin not the righteousnesse of him that never sinned but of him that beleeveth on Christ that repenteth and amendeth his life that of the new creature Hee that confesseth and forsaketh shall have mercy and the like This was so farre seene and acknowledged by some Papists of the Learneder sort Gerson Almain and Io. Ep. Roffensis that they have left their opinion in those words to which no moderate Protestant will refuse to subscribe The two former thus Peccatum mortale veniale in esse tali non distinguuntur intrinsece essentialiter sed solum per respectum ad divinam gratiam que peccatum istud imputat c. The third Peccatum veniale solum ex Dei misericordia veniale est I have now need to adde no more but this that if this do not prove acceptable to you I have lost my labour especially if it should be matter of any new contention thus to have been willing to pacifie contenders As for your sixth of the glimmerings and the perhaps it was a little unlucky not onely because 't is said of Christ in Scripture in terminis that hee was the day-spring to give light to them which sit in darknesse which is certainly as much as the glimmerings or the perhaps can be imagined to import but also because those glimmerings are mentioned by that Author clearely in order to the commands in that place as appeares by the question that induced that answer and you talke of the discovering of Christ to all the elect for their everlasting salvation which seemes to mee still to respect the promises or if it doe also referre to the commands sufficiently discovered under the Law c. yet that is nothing against our doctrine which supposes the former light for precepts sufficient pro statu and that men were then saved non obstante this want of greater light and onely require higher obediences now from those that are allowed higher light To your seventh which againe breakes asunder into three under-charges or examinations there will bee little scruple to tell you that though the things you mention were required of the Jewes sub periculo animae Viz. beleefe mortifying lusts c. yet some other things viz. some of the things proposed by Iob in his speeches to his friends by David in his Psalmes especially by the Wiseman in his Proverbs c. might bee but glimmerings of the Gospel-precepts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and being 1 Not so strictly and manifestly required of all as the commands of the Decalogue c. 2 Not delivered by these as Law-givers but as wise men And 3 being not by way of particular precept proposed to all they might then not oblige them to whom they were not manifest or not delivered sub praecepto under those hazards under which now the knowledge of our Fathers will by Christ involves us Besides I suppose 't is no newes to you that there were voluntary oblations among the Jewes in Moses his time and many acts of strictnesse after wherein they that obliged all men to performe them were said to dogmatize and though for so doing the Pharisees that did impose them as necessary were condemned yet the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Asidaei that practised them and yet not conceived them necessary and so never so imposed them on others were never condemned but thought fit to be commended and rewarded and though the Jews were encouraged to the performance of these 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet is nothing of the doctrine of super-erogation inferr'd by this neither But 't is now impertinent to enlarge on this subject when all other difficulties that now depend are satisfied I may chance bee able to give you a justifiable account of that also And so how farre soever the Author of the Cat. contended for new precepts yet having exprest what he would bee content with in that matter by way of composition rather then contend and saying the very words that I have in that matter transcribed thence I must bee no more said to recant this second time then that Author did even at the first edition Who by that one willingnesse to live peaceably with you and all men must it seems be condemned to that reproach of having recanted and be triumpht over onely because he would not quarrell with every man that is contentious And to goe on with you what if counsells give new light may not commands doe so too or must I bee reprehended because I am no Papist I meane because I conceive these in St. Matthew to bee no counsells but precepts I hope that which I have said will sufficiently rescue mee from any more of your jealousies concerning my weighty superstructures I have told you my whole heart you need not use any optick glasse of your own providing to see that which is so naked and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before you For the second page of your sixth leafe where you are pleased to mention the All that you desire it is too wanton for mee to returne any thing to it I have no leisure to bee playsome or to consider how poore you are or how the Critiques have offended you or what lower heaven they converse in Onely I hope I shall not now at last bee condemned for an Antinomian because I onely think the whole Law of the Jewes doth not now oblige us much lesse to goe beyond them to bee a hyper-Antinomian for no more then these two plaine assertions that Christ hath rid us from the sad yoke of ceremonies
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