A COPY OF SOME PAPERS PAST AT OXFORD, BETWIXT The Author of the Practical Catechism, AND Mr. Ch. The second Edition 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 St. Basil. Epist. 63. LONDON, Printed by Ja. Flesher for Richard Royston at the Angel in Ivy-lane, 1650. For Mr Cheynell. SIR, AT my return from London late last night, I met with some scattered reports of your dealing with the Author of the Practical Catechism, in a late Sermon or Sermons of yours in this City; within a few days after, I met you at Col. Hammonds lodgings, and signified my intentions to go out of Town the next day. Now though the care I have of the reputation of that Author be not so great or passionate, as to put me upon the least thought or design of working any proportionable revenge on him, that endeavoured publicly to defame him; or to make you any return, save only of my prayers to God for you, that he will forgive you all the trespasses that either this, or any other dealing of yours hath been guilty of, and that he will give you a right Judgement in all things; yet because I would not be in danger to believe any thing of you causlessly, I thought myself obliged in Justice to you, to desire from you (who know best what you said) an exact account in writing (as far as your memory will serve) of all that you said in public, either at St. Mary's, or Carfax, wherein the Author of that Catechism was concerned. I do much abuse myself in the notion I have of Christian Justice, if that do not oblige you to answer this request of Octob. 10. 1646. Your Servant H. Hammond. I shall reinforce my request, that you will send me the sum of what you said, with as little alteration as is possible. SIR, I Return you thanks, and am beforehand with you for Prayers, the Lord pardon, and lead you into all truth and holiness. Truly Sir, I had said as much of the Practical Catechism as I did say, though you had been in Town, nay, had been (where you might learn something of my brethren) at Church. What I said of the Author of that Catechism, was (your Friends being Judges) as such as he deserved: some think I spoke too highly in his commendations: But to the point; first you say you are obliged in Justice to me to desire an exact account of my Sermons: Sure this is somewhat more than equal Justice to me, it is to exercise Jurisdiction over me. Secondly, you do much abuse yourself in the notion of Christian justice, if you conceive me obliged in Christian justice to give you an account this night (being to preach to morrow) of what I preached about ten days ago. I will deal plainly with you, I have not said all that I intent to say of that Catechism, because it seems to evacuate the moral Law, under pretence of filling up its vacuities, and it doth in effect overthrow the sum and substance of the Gospel. Sir, this is more than I said in either Sermon; But you shall (in due time, place, and manner, as soon as my weighty occasions will permit) receive the reasons of this assertion. From your humble Servant Fr. Cheynell. Saturday, Octob. 10. 1646. about 4 of the clock in the afternoon. Sir, What I said of the Practical Catechism. SIR, I Am sorry I was so mistaken in you, as to make a request to which you do not by your answer return me one word, nor are so favourable as to promise me any at your greater leisure. Having had this experience of you, I shall make no more new questions (to which the former part of your Letter might tempt one that were curious) as who of my Friends they were, which were so well satisfied with what you said of the Author of that Catechism; or, who again, that envied him the elegy which you affirm yourself to have bestowed upon him. I shall rather take occasion from these two affirmations of yours, to enforce my one former Petition, that you will commit to paper what you said, and give me leave to pass a judgement whether the Author be obliged to thank you for civilities, or (as my present intelligence goes) to clear himself from your accusations I am willing to flatter myself by the second leaf of your Letter (begun with a [Sir, what I said of the practical Catechism] and so abruptly broke off) that you were once in so good humour, as to design me the favour I petitioned for; and if I am deceived, yet have I now more reason to importune it; because, first, by your present mistaking of my few Lines: and secondly, returning an answer very distant from the particular proposed by me, I am inclined to believe it possible that your exceptions to the Author of the Catechism might be mistakes also, (and then I would hope I might rectify, and you retract those mistakes;) Or else, secondly, that your answers might be somewhat from the matter, and the showing you that might to you be useful also. And if neither of these should prove true, I shall farther invite you to that charity by a serious promise, that whatever you to my apprehension justly object against, or confute in that Author, shall by God's grace tend to my edification. And having that preparation of mind, I hope your prayer will be heard, that God will pardon, and lead me into all truth and holiness. That you may not think I have been unjust in mentioning such blemishes in your Letter (and that I may perform to you, what I desire of you) I shall first mention the mistakes in it. The first is, your interpreting my desire to you for an exercise of jurisdiction over you, which that it may appear probable, you say, I desire an exact account of your Sermons. Where first, Sir, to desire an account, is not to exercise jurisdiction: Secondly, the account I desired, was not of your Sermons, or of any part of them, saving only of that wherein the Author of the Catechism was concerned, and that I then told you I was obliged (in Justice to you) to desire, and I still conceive I am so, it being but just, to use this obvious conducible means to keep me from believing you to have said any thing but what you did say, when perhaps the relations of others may be unjust to you, (and tempt me to be so also) and no body can well assure me of either, but yourself. What you mean by [more than an equal justice to you] I shall not demand, because I would make haste to conclude this paper: yet because I suppose you would intimate by that phrase, that it was not Justice to you (for if it were more than equal on your side, you would not complain; and besides you say, it is exercising jurisdiction over you, which for me to do over you, were I confess injustice) I must further evidence it were not, by naming you the particulars which are reported to me from your Sermon, which are such false suggestions, that nothing but your saying, and saying truly that you said them not, can clear you from a great fault, of which that I may not charge you untruly, I had no sure way, but to make that request to you. The particulars are four: First, That you told your Auditory that there was a Catechism, and never a word of the Trinity in it. Of this I desire you to inform me whether you said it or no. For if you did, there was great injustice in it. For 1▪ if you had mentioned the full title of the Book, not a Catechism (to which it may seem proper to treat of the Trinity) but a Catechism with a restriction to one kind of matter a Practical Catechism, there had then been no great matter of wonder or complaint, that that speculative mystery had not been handled. But then 2, the very first lines of that Book would farther have prevented that objection. For the Scholar there professing himself to have attained in some measure to the understanding of the principles of Religion proposed by our Church Catechism (and that by this very Catechists care, who had often done it in his Parish, and at this time chose to do somewhat else) and the belief of the Trinity being part of that Catechism, and of those instructions, there is a clear reason why in the subsequent discourse the Doctrine of the Trinity is not handled, because it is supposed as a praecognitum before it. 3 This speech if it were yours, would seem to have some design in it, and (whether meant by you, or not) be thought by others to affix on the Author either denying of the Trinity, or being guilty of some error in that point, which he was willing to conceal: and that this Author is guilty of neither, I believe any man will be convinced by that Catechism, viz. in the last lines of it, where there is express mention of, and prayer directed to the blessed Trinity coaeternall, to which one infinite Majesty, etc. In which few words are disclaimed (though not confuted) as many of the errors of the Antitrinitarian and Socinian as could be well expected in that matter, I mean the words Trinity, and Unity, eternity of each Person, and coaeternity. The second thing that I heard of, was in the matter of Oaths, that the Catechism had trained up youth very ill, in giving licence to vain Oaths, which you are said to have concluded from these words in the Catechism, where in answer to this question, Is the third Commandment in Exod. [Thou shalt not take the name of God in vain] no more than Thou shalt not forswear thyself? It is answered, No more undoubtedly— for there, I am told, you stopped, and from thence fell into some expressions against the Doctrine and Book. If this were so, then were you very unjust to your Auditory, in withholding from them the consequents, which would certainly have kept them in charity with the Author. I beseech you, Sir, read on, and you shall find that there is there as severe an interdiction of all kind of swearing in a Christian (and sure such are all to whom this Catechism was meant) as can be imagined: in plain words, a total universal prohibition of swearing itself, making that as unlawful now, as perjury was before, and a great deal more, so extremely strict, that I have by learned men been asked whether that Author were not too severe against all kind of swearing, but (I thank God) never heard it fancied, that there was any ground or appearance of liberty to be drawn thence. All that that Author can differ from you in, is his opinion, that the words of the third Commandment belong expressly to perjury only; and for that opinion he brings the plain words of Christ, which reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, thou shalt not forswear, etc. Secondly, the importance of the word in the original, where to lift up (or take) the name of God, signifies to swear, and [vainly] signifies [falsely,] and so the very word used in Exod. and there rendered [vain] is Deut. 5. in the ninth commandment rendered [false.] To these Arguments, if you can give a satisfactory answer, he may chance to change his opinion in that. But however, the insisting on Christ's direct punctual prohibition will sure prove it a sufficient calumny in him that shall hence conclude the Author to have given youth any liberty in this kind. I would no man were more guilty of vain Oaths, in himself or others, then that Catechist is, and resolves to be. Having said thus much, I shall add ex abundanti, that in kindness and submission to the meanest, the Author thought fit to add in a last edition (intended above a year since, but sold in this Town above a month ago) after these words [no more undoubtedly] these words, by way of explication of what before he meant [In the primary intention of the phrase] for to that only he professes to have designed that speech, never thinking to deny or doubt, but that vain Oaths (though not swearing simply taken i. e. all kind of swearing) would there be forbidden also though not primarily, yet by way of reduction; which you may guess to have been his meaning, because he adds▪ that perhaps foolish, wanton using of God's name (though not in oaths, for one may use God's name and not swear) surely profane using of it, is forbidden by that reduction. And (I pray) do you guess whether it be likely that he which said, perhaps foolish using of God's name was in the law forbidden, and all kind of voluntary swearing under the Gospel, could justly be charged as a friend to young men, in giving them any of that liberty. If you can think it possible, yet read on to the end of that matter, and I will be bound you shall think otherwise. Your next exception (I am told) was, that in the matter of repentance, the Author makes inclination to sin an infelicity, not a sin. This, if you said, you are much to blame. For in the place whereto that refers, 'tis clear that under the general words, of [All kinds and sorts of sins] the first kind named is weaknesses, frailties, pollutions of our natures, our proneness and inclination to sin. Which being positively said, would, in the judgement of any ingenuous man have helped to interpret that which follows [as infelicities, if not as sins] thus not to deny them to be sins, within two lines after it had been affirmed they were, but that even in their opinion that took them to be only infelicities, not sins, (as sure some do, when they are not consented to) they were yet to be to them matter of humiliation, true sorrow and grief, as the words are clear, no where so much as intimating that they are not sins, unless when he saith they are no actual sins, which I hope you will not say they are, when not consented to. Your next exception, (I am told) was about justification, but my relations differ in the particular. Some say your quarrel was, that he makes faith a condition, no instrument. If that were it, I pray tell me whether you think faith a physical instrument of justification, (as for a moral instrument, that he in terms acknowledges) or when justification is only an act of Gods through Christ pardoning of sin, and accounting just, you can imagine that faith hath any kind of real though instrumental efficiency in that work, i. e. whether faith in any such sense can pardon sin, or pronounce just, or whether it be not sufficient to acknowledge it an instrument in receiving of Christ, and all other acts of the man as Christian, and only a condition or capacity in the subject to make capable of God's act upon him in justification? this is the sum of what the Author saith in that point, and shall be farther cleared to you, if that were your exception. Others tell me it was concerning the priority of sanctification before justification. Which point, as it is there stated, can be no matter of quarrel to any that affirms the receiving of Christ to be pre-required to justification. For as that is no more than that faith is pre-required (in the true notion of faith, and that wherein Dr. Preston acknowledges it) so is it by that Author said, that only that sanctification is precedent to justification, which is the cordial assent to Christ's commands and promises, giving up the heart to him, resolution of obedience; not the actual performance and practice of those vows, for that is acknowledged there to be after justification. These are the particulars I have heard of, and have now reason to believe, that of all them you are not guilty, especially of the first, though 'twas (even at London) positively told me from you. And therefore I do by these presents acquit you of that, but yet think it not amiss to have mentioned that report, that by it you may see (what alone I have now in hand to prove) how truly I told you, that to avoid the danger of believing any thing of you causelessly, I thought myself obliged in justice to you, to beg an exact account of what you said. I have been too long on the evidencing your first mistake, I would you had answered my request, and then you had taken away all excuse of that prolixity. Your second mistake was, that you conceived me to have said that 'twas a piece of Christian justice in you to have given me an account this night, etc. wherein you were fain to add to my words [this night] whereas I only mentioned an answer, but assigned you no time for it, but punctually required the Messenger to desire to know, when it would be seasonable, and he should call for it; and accordingly, though I have this evening written this rejoinder, yet that I may not trouble you, I mean to respite the sending it till Monday. And yet by the way, I conceive it had been as easy for you to have given me what I desired, as that Letter in stead of it, unless it be easier for you to write out of your invention then your memory. I am sure it had been the savingst way, for than you had escaped this importunity. The distance of your answer from my proposition I shall not need to put you in mind of. That which you mean to add more of the Catechism, is not all, nor (if my intelligence fail me not) any part of what you have said already: and 'tis but diversion to tell me you will say more, and give me reason of that more, when as yet much less is desired of you, and cannot be obtained. I shall when you are at leisure, desire all your heap of exceptions against that poor creature, that (I will be deposed for it) meant no man any greater malice, then to land him safe at heaven the nearest and surest way that the Author could imagine. But I will not yet importune you for any more than you have yet delivered publicly in this City. By granting me this uprightly and candidly, you will make me really rejoice to hear that you shall have taken any further notice of me; but if you shall persist to deny me this first request, you will utterly discourage Your Servant H. Hammond. Octob. 20. 1646. POSTSCRIPT. YOu are pleased to mention your design of further severity against that Author in the matter of the moral law, which (say you) it seems to evacuate under pretence of filling up its vacuities; and add, that it doth in effect overthrow the sum and substance of the Gospel. The latter of these (I confess) would be a little strange to me, that he that labours to elevate the Gospel-precepts (as you think, too much) above the Law, should overthrow the sum or substance of the Gospel. I must profess to believe that whatever charge can be affixed to that Doctrine, that would not be it, but rather that it labours to raise the Gospel to a greater height than it would bear, or indeed to lessen the Law, not to alter any thing in the Gospel. In this particular I must profess myself posed, and utterly unable to conjecture what you mean, till you are so kind as to add your reasons. One thing only I meant to serve you in by this Postscript (because I see that, unless others have deceived me, you may possibly be deceived in passing judgement on that Book) and that is, to tell you, that you have a hard task to prove that that Author doth at all evacuate the Law moral (unless you guard yourself by that cautious word, that it seems to evacuate it, and that it may, and not do it really.) For you may please to mark from me, (who know the sense and spirit of that Author better than you) that he saith not positively that Christ added to the Law new precepts, but one of these two, either new precepts, or new light; and concludes that either of these two will serve his turn, and enhance the Christians obligation; and adds, that he that will acknowledge that Christ requires more of his Disciples or Christians now, than the Jews by any clear revelation had been convinced to be necessary before, did grant as much in effect as he desired to be granted. And yet farther, in the close, that if any will contend, and show as universal plain obliging precepts under the Law, as there are in the fifth of St. Matthew, he shall be glad to see them, and not contend with him, so that he will bring the Jews up to us, and not us down to the Jews; professing that the only danger which he had used all his diligence to prevent. Now I have told you this, use your discretion, and let me hear the worst you can say in this particular also. For Dr. Hammond. SIR, I Was not the first, no nor the last, that endeavoured to confute the dangerous errors of your much admired Catechism, yet I do not hear that you have fallen foul upon any but on myself. I acknowledge myself the weakest, and yet am confident that God's power will be manifested in my weakness, that God may have all the glory. I received your rejoinder upon Monday: that day I was forced to go out of Town to speak with a Gentleman; I was to preach yesterday morning, and to perform some exercise in the afternoon for the satisfaction of some that are much seduced, this Friday morning I return you what I can, and hope it will give you some satisfaction. Sir, your messenger forgot your charge, and never told me that you expected an answer when I was at leisure, and therefore I scribbled somewhat in haste, as now I do, for I have not one hour in a day free from disturbance. Your errors were more solidly refuted by two of my Reverend Brethren, that are both of them Seniors to you: they would have been able to have given you better satisfaction. You desire to know what I said at Carfax. I took notice of that passage page 243. of your last edition, where you speak to this effect [That the holy Ghost was our advocate in settling a Ministry to pray and intercede for their several Congregations (and enabling them in the very Apostles time to form a Liturgy to continue in the Church to that end) and thereby helping our infirmities, and teaching us to pray as we ought.] I said, I should be glad to see that Liturgy which you say was then form; And 2 was to be continued in the Church. 3 To know whether the Holy Ghost doth help our infirmities by any other Liturgy or not. 4 Whether they do not pray as they ought, who know not where to procure that very Liturgy, which you say was form in the Apostles times, and to be continued in the Church. 5 Whether the Common-prayer-book be that very Liturgy. Sir, Mr. Reynolds told me you wanted direction about your first fruits, if your brother will procure L. Gen. Cromwell to speak to Sir H. Vane junior, it is in his power to relieve you. Forgive the abruptness of Your faithful Servant Francis Cheynell. In this outer Paper was enclosed as follows. SIR, I Was not much taken with your notion of Justice, but I shall gratify your desire, being now invited to charity by your serious promise and preparation of mind to entertain the truth, if God be pleased to discover it to you by so weak an instrument as I confess myself to be. You have changed and mollified your phrase, you did not stoop so low in your Letter, as you do in your rejoinder (as you are pleased to term it) to beg an account: Truly Sir, I did stumble at those hard words, exact account, considering that you have exercised jurisdiction heretofore in a Country, where I am now seated by the Parliament. You complain of false suggestions, I pray God forgive them that suggested so many false accusations against me to you, who have (as I perceive) more worth in you, then to believe them. 1. It is reported that I complained of you to my Auditory, because you did not handle the Trinity in your Catechism, nay, that there was not a word of the Trinity in that Catechism: I believe Mr. Digle will be so candid, as to assure you that this is a false suggestion. But give me leave, Doctor, to deal plainly with you, there is an accusation framed against you by your own Apology, for you speak in the language of you know whom, when you tell me, that I need not wonder if the speculative mystery of the Trinity be not handled in a Practical Catechism. Believe it, the Doctrine of the Trinity is a Practical mystery, the very foundation and groundwork of the mystery of godliness. The blessed Trinity is not only the object of our faith, but of our Worship too; nay, the Doctrine of the Trinity hath by God's blessing a comfortable and quickening influence into the main passages of the life and conversation of all Orthodox and judicious Christians. I hope, I need not remember you of your Baptism, or tell you that a Sacramental Covenant is Practical. Sir, rectify that mistake, and I will forgive the suggester. Your next reason concerns the Church-Catechisme, I suppose you mean that Catechism in the Common-prayer-book: now truly Sir, I must confess that I like that Catechism far better than your Practical Catechism: and your Friends will tell you, that you might have contented yourself with that Catechism, unless you could have made a better. To your third reason I answer, that I did once in London show that passage, which you cite out of your prayer, to assure a friend of yours, that you did acknowledge the Trinity, though you maintain many errors, broached by them that deny the coeternal Trinity in unity. I hasten to your second report. 2. Concerning your exposition of the third Commandment, I said, the youths, etc. had learned the Art of swearing as perfect as their Catechism; and added, that I did not wonder at it, when I read such a passage in a Practical Catechism printed at Oxford; as you may also read, if you begin at the eighth Section of the second Book (I add these words now, because I have sent home the Oxford edition, and cite it according to the last edition,) where the eloquent Author (to whom for parts, gifts, learning, I acknowledge myself far inferior) being desired by his Scholar to weed out the vice of swearing, lest it should take too deep root in young men, and get into fashion, doth assure his Scholar that after this Preface, Ye have heard, etc. the first part of the Precept, Matth. 5. 33. [Thou shalt not forswear thyself] is clearly the third Commandment: but the latter part [But shalt perform, etc.] is taken out of other places of the Law to explain the meaning of the former, and to express it to be (as literally it sounds) against perjury or non-performance of promissory oaths: where note, there's liberty enough for assertory oaths, for the third Commandment is not meant of assertory oaths, as is plainly said afterwards. But lest the Scholar should think that this was not the full meaning of the Law sent by Moses, he is prompted to put the question home, whether there be no more meant in the third Commandment than [Thou shalt not forswear thyself?] The Catechist answers sadly and peremptorily [No more undoubtedly.] This is a flat denial indeed, which requires full assurance of belief in the Scholar, as it doth note confidence in the Teacher, no more, and undoubtedly no more. I fear that the doubtful [perhaps] and imaginary superaddition following (of which I may have fair opportunity to speak more hereafter) will not be so effectual to restrain the Youths or Doctors from swearing, as the unquestionable command of God. I hope, this exposition of the third Commandment is not generally received in this University, and doubt not but some will be so ingenuous as to protest against it. Sat, I have no more than this in my notes concerning that passage in your Catechism, though I was sufficiently prepared by meditation to have discoursed at large upon that Argument: whether the clock struck, or what other diversion there was, I know not; I believe I said not much more, but whether I delivered more or less at that time, I am not able to give you an exact account, it was not a business worth a design to pass over such excuses as you allege for yourself. 1 A total universal prohibition of swearing itself, and making it is as unlawful now as perjury was before, Christus persecit tertium mandatum, nec in rebus veris nomen Domini invocare permittit, nisi talc quid a nobis exigat dei gloria. Vide Smalcium de Divinit. Christi, & Catechism. Racoviens. is a doctrine which you cannot prove, unless you mince your total and universal with so many qualifications, that at last you lose the total in a cipher. You say, as Smalcius and the rest do, that I must not take an oath but for God's glory and the public good; now this is not to forbid swearing itself, Non assumes nomen Domini dei tui gratis, frustra, temere, in ullum vanum, uti viri diffusissimae eruditionis passim. Mendacium prohibetur hoc in loco, quia mendacium est gratis dictum, vanum, nihil. but unnecessary swearing: what's become of your total now? Did the perfect Law of God give men leave to to take vain oaths, so vain as that God should have no glory, nor men any good by them? Why, sure, it was by this Argument lawful to lift up the soul to vanity in a sense intolerably bad. 2 Concerning our difference, it is this: you undertook to prove that by the third Commandment, there was no more meant, then that a man should not forswear himself. Can you conclude this out of all your premises in the Catechism? your ingenuity would not permit you to frame such a conclusion, and therefore you conclude that answer of yours which begins C. No more undoubtedly, The last edition at London, pag. 120. etc. thus, [By all which it is clear, that to take God's name in vain is to forswear one's self.] You do not add, [and no more] which was the point in question, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Aleph est loco He, literae radicalis; est proprie vanitas, tam verborum quam rerum; saepe adverbialiter sumitur pro frustrà, temerè. between the Scholar and the Catechist, and therefore that should have been proved, and in the conclusion inferred. 3 You appeal to Christ the best Judge. Christ saith; that whatsoever oath is unnecessarily taken (so you must say, as I have proved before) cometh of evil, Matth. 5. 37. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, if you will, of the evil one, Omne mendacium est vanum, sed omne vanum non est mendacium. or of the Devil. Now Sir, did not the third Commandment forbid all evil; or all devilish oaths? 4 That the word is rendered [false] sometimes, I grant; that it is as properly, if not more properly, rendered [vain] you cannot deny; and if you consult Aben-Ezra, R. Selomo, etc. they will assure you that we are not to lift up or take the name of God vainly: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 expount per Kinnom & Hebel. R. Sclomo, etc. I need not go about to prove that the Jews saw this truth as clearly as we do, but I can prove that they saw and acknowledged it, and that is sufficient for me to prove against your assertion. 5 Consult the Septuagint, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. LXX. and see how they render the word, Exod. 20. 7. Deut. 5. 11. 6 You know, that the primary and principal signification of the word is not [false] but [vaine,] and every man that hath looked into the Hebrew, Vide Stegman, Photin. gives you instances enough. 7 You know, that others tell you, that if the primary intention had been to forbid forswearing, Non assumes nomen Domini gratis sive frustra, ut si non jures in ejus nomine nisi ob necessitatem; etiam veritas non est juranda nisi ob necessitatem. Vide Pagnini thesaurum, curâ Merceri editum, pag. 2186. divers other words or phrases would have been used in all probability, such as the holy Ghost uses in other places; learned men are bold to name divers, but I am not so bold. I might say a great deal more, if I had a mind to wrangle with you about the primary intention: but that is not the question between you and me; only, you have acknowledged in a manner that the edition of your book printed at Oxford, had in the judgement of Learned men somewhat questionable. You tell me of the last edition of your Book at London. I answer, 1 That I saw one edition printed at London, and compared it with the Oxford edition; what difference there is between them, it is your part to show. 2 As for that edition you talk of, sold in Oxford about a month ago, that was a fortnight before I preached; truly I bought that edition also. You see I was at some cost and pains to know your mind. 3 I read this last edition, and saw no difference between that and the other in this point about the meaning of the third Commandment. 4 I asked others, and they told me that there were some additions at the end of this last edition. I perused those additions, and then concluded that I might take it for granted that was your opinion which was to be found in all three editions. 5 You now refer me to that last edition, and tell me that you have added somewhat to those words [No more undoubtedly] by way of explication; good Sir, say, Retractation. 6. I have looked over those additions once again, with the best eyes I have, and find nothing about the primary intention of the phrase; You say, you added it; and where should I look for an addition, but amongst your additions? you see how hard it is to find your explication. Your Printer and you may well make a confessing apology; for the additions to the 120 page, concern nothing but perjury or sacrilege. 7 I looked on, to see whether it was not inserted afterwards, till I came to the end of your additions, and there I found some alterations, your last reserve, which (I confess) I did not peruse, before I preached: my reason was, because you call them [Less remarkable alterations] and therefore I thought very innocently, that you had only corrected some literal mistakes; but contrary to my conjecture, I there find not only some alteration, but (what I bless God for) a direct recantation of sundry particulars, and I hope you will see cause to recant much more. I will continue my prayers for you, and do what I can to help you to some new light to discern old spiritual rules which were given by God in the time of Moses. Sir, seriously consider the carriage of this business, and tell me whether your patience or mine hath been more exercised? Take another Commandment, the sixth if you please, will you say there is no more, undoubtedly no more meant by that, but the actual taking away the life of a man? no, you answer more fairly, pag. 99 and why then could you not have interpreted the third Commandement as clearly? 3 Consider that there are three editions of your Book abroad, every man will not be at the same cost and pains that I have been; do you make the sad and woeful inference. 4 Look into the Treatises of Learned men; do any say that there is no more, undoubtedly no more meant in a Commandment but what is directly primâ fancy presented? is that which is to be reduced to a command, not meant in that Commandment, to which it is properly reduced? 5 In these X words or Commandments, words should not be too much restrained, but taken in their latitude. 6 Is it proper for a man that hath said, No more undoubtedly no more is meant, to come in with a doubtful perhaps afterwards, and say perhaps there is more meant? 7 Your less remarkable addition is a plain recantation. 8 It is more for God's honour and yours, to make a free, noble, solemn recantation, and (now you have deceived the Kingdom with three editions) to do all things like yourself, ingenuously: a worthy action loses its grace, and our brethren lose their share of benefit by it, when done with so much reservedness, that others cannot well take notice of it for their edification. Pray Sir, let your recantation be as remarkable as your seduction; do not put it at the fag-end of some less remarkable alterations, acknowledge that you were seduced by— into this opinion, and recant with observation, lest others be seduced by so many hundred Catechisms as are dispersed throughout the Kingdom. But it may be that you will deny that you have made a recantation. Truly Sir, first the addition of those words [in the primary intention of the phrase.] 2 The putting in of [Idle] and blotting out of [perhaps] which did much affront your [No more undoubtedly.] 3 The change of these words [the particular matter of Moses his Law was of Promissory (nor Assertory) oaths] for these [The matter was peculiarly of promissory, not only of assertory oaths,] all these three together will amount to a round recantation, considering that in three editions you had said, there was No more, and undoubtedly no more forbidden in the third Commandment, than the breach of promissory oaths. Ninthly, consider, that if this amendment had been before Oxford had been taken, or if you would say that it (as well as another edition of your Book) was intended, before you were in danger to be called to an account for this and many things of worse consequence, your recantation would be more satisfactory. I spoke to you as a friend, and speak not out of my own breast, for I do but repeat the censures of other men. For my own prart, you have made a solemn profession under your hand to give me satisfaction, but how will you satisfy other men? 10. Yet I must profess, that I do not like that expression of yours [Neverthinking to deny or doubt, but that vain oaths would be forbidden there also.] Do you mean that they were forbidden by God when Moses published the Law, or would be forbidden afterwards by a superaddition? Would be is not so clear an expression as is desired. 11. I do not understand that expression of yours, when you say, [That in kindness and submission to the meanest, the Author thought fit to add.] If you mean it of me, I take it kindly, for I did speak to your friends at London about you, and they promised to tell you positively of it, and I spoke for that end; for I do respect you more than you think I do: and some worthy friends both of yours and mine know, that near upon ten years ago we did exchange some Letters about your opinion concerning certain vacuities in the moral Law of God. 12. But Sir, you should consider that Learned men have told you of this error, and therefore say, in submission to better Judgements. 13. Say, in submission to the greatest, even to jehovah, the God of glory, I will abase myself, recant my errors, and acknowledge the perfection of his moral spiritual Law. Surely it is meet to be said to God, etc. job 34. 31, 32. I beseech, that you will weep over those two Verses, and then read that passage, john 6. 38. Christ came down from heaven to do the will of God, etc. Oh, do you come down from your Criticisms, come down from your notions, your imaginary superadditions; which you look upon as a kind of heaven, and endeavour to do the will of your Father, revealed in his perfect and spiritual Law, and I'll warrant you you'll find it so perfect, without any superadditions, that your Evangelicall obedience shall not excel or transcend that excellent rule; nay, you will confess that you cannot see an end of its perfection, and you will hate every false way. Pardon me, if I seem to preach to you; the Lord set it home upon your heart. 3. The next report is, that you made inclination to sin an infelicity, not a sin: I said, that the Author of that Catechism did acknowledge that godly sorrow was to be conceived for all kinds and sorts of sin: but when he descends to particulars, he speaks with so much irresolution, as if he doubted whether our aptness to fall into all sin, were an infelicity only or a sin. Sir, your expression is inexcusable, and your apology doth no way satisfy. Truly Sir, you must fall down at a Throne of grace, and beg pardon of God, and you must speak more positively, or else you will not be able to give satisfaction to impartial men. 1 You speak of pollutions of nature: sure that expression is more proper to denote actual sins, then original sin, which is one entire, universal, and natural pollution. 2 Every one that is of age to conceive godly sorrow, hath actually consented to the corruption of his nature, he hath cherished it, and been pleased with it. 3 You seem to imply, that there must needs be some consent given to every actual sin; Sir, that is yet to be proved on your part; for you are too magisterial, and so much given to dictates, that you may well stand to be perpetual Dictator in Divinity; every point of a Catechism should be exactly proved. 4 You seem either to recant what you said before, or at least to doubt whether these pollutions be infelicities only, or sin. 5 The danger is the greater, because you express such a grand point Sceptically; there are indeed too many that say, The corruption of our nature is rather an infelicity than a sin; do you express yourself thus doubtfully, that you may comply with them? indeed if you were composing such a Liturgy as some have wished for, that Protestants, etc. might join together, I confess you have sufficiently served that design: but sure it was your duty, especially in a Practical Catechism, to have declared yourself freely and fully against that dangerous error. 6 If you are of their mind who maintain the corruption of our nature to be only an infelicity, not a sin; it was not fairly done to blind your Reader with an Orthodox expression in the beginning of your answer, that you might afterwards tempt him into a dangerous error. 7 It is absurd to say, that godly sorrow is to be conceived for an infelicity quà sic, merely as an infelicity. 8 There is no doubt but that every sin should be wailed quà sic, as a sin: an inconformity to a spiritual Law, and a proneness to actual rebellion against God, and all the commands of God, aught to be bewailed even with tears of blood; you need not speak timorously or doubtfully in so weighty and clear a point. 9 I found the more fault with this doubtful expression, because you write a Practical Catechism, and you know that the corruption of our nature hath great influence into our practice, and therefore you should have been most clear and express in this point, that by God's grace this proneness to sin might be both bewailed and mortified. I need not tell you, how many dangerous consequences have been inferred from some doubtful expressions in Catechisms or confessions about original sin, but I hasten to your last report, which is about justification. 4 It seems you are most to seek here, you desire me to help you out. Sir, I never said that faith was a Physical Instrument of justification; sure justification is no Physical thing. You do grant▪ at lest in terms, that faith is a Moral instrument of justification; but if you deny it to be a Real instrument in receiving Christ, then sure what you grant in terms, you deny in deed. No man ever dreamt that faith doth pardon sin, but a sinner doth by faith receive a pardon: 1 Faith doth receive Christ really, but spiritually, not corporally, or physically. 2 That which you call a sufficient acknowledgement, is not sufficiently clear, be pleased to explain what you mean, when you say [that faith is an instrument in receiving of Christ, and all other acts of the man as Christian, and only a condition or capacity in the subject to make capable of God's act upon him in justification.] 3 You should distinguish, as the Apostle doth, between receiving of Christ, and walking in him. 4 If you mean, that all other acts of a Christian, namely acts of repentance, charity, and in a word, all acts of Evangelicall or new obedience, are Moral instruments of justification, I desire a proof of that. 5 Doth my receiving of Christ make me capable of Christ, or rather make me possessed of Christ? 6 I think you will not deny that God's act in giving Christ, giving a pardon, etc. is in order of nature before my receiving of Christ, and a pardon. 7 You have not yet clearly expressed, what is the true notion of faith in your opinion, and what Dr. Preston saith to confirm you in it, and where he saith it. 8. If you conceive that a cordial assent to Christ's commands hath any influence into our justification, be pleased to unfold that riddle: you know, it is confessed by all, that the true believer doth give a cordial assent to Christ's commands; but is he justified by that assent? 9 How do you prove, that any soul whilst it remains un justified doth cordially and wholly give up itself to be ruled by Christ? I confess it to be a good evidence of justification, but not an antecedent to (much less a Condition to make us capable of) justification. 10 If a cordial assent to Christ's commands, and a resolution of obedience, are moral instruments of justification, be pleased to show what efficiency these instruments have in justification; whether the Terminus of that efficiency be a capacity in the soul, which doth formally make the soul capable of God's act in pardoning sin, and pronouncing the person just and righteous? 11 If a resolution or vow of obedience be sufficient unto justification, without the actual performance of the vow, why do you wind in all other acts of a man as Christian, into a discourse of the very first act of faith, in receiving Christ, and forgiveness of sins? 12 If, on the other side, God justifies the ungodly, how doth a constellation of Gospel-graces, and all the acts of grace put a capacity into the subject to make a man capable of justification? Sir, that which I took exception at, was your confounding of faith and works in a discourse of justification. 2 That you do frequently imply, that we are justified by faithful actions, acts of sincerity and obedience, Your last Edition, pag. 28. that they are the Condition of justification, and that God doth absolutely require them as the only things by which a man is justified, p. 28. you say, the condition which makes us capable of pardon of sins, is positively the new creature, or renewed, etc. obedience to the whole Gospel, the performing, etc.— and Constellation of Gospel-graces, etc. I need not transcribe your words, in your last edition they are to be found, in the 8 page. 3 You say, that faith without the addition of such works, such obedience Evangelicall would be unsufficient to justification, etc. The words following are as bad or worse, page 35, 36. and the like you have page 44, 45 Sir, I proved that faith was sufficient to be an instrument of justification, without the addition of Evangelicall works unto that purpose, and in that act; and that we were not justified by a righteousness inherent in us, or any acts of repentance, charity, or new obedience performed by us. I am not ashamed, yet am not now at leisure to repeat my arguments to prove that we are justified by the obedience of Christ alone, freely imputed by God, applied and rested on by faith only. For Mr. Cheynell. SIR, I Received your returns, and the Letter that enclosed them; and shall (as briefly as I can) give you my sense of both. And first to your letter, I shall tell you truly that you are the only man in the world that ever I knew to have endeavoured the confuting one syllable of that Catechism; and therefore the address I made to you, I acknowledge to have made to you only. If by your reverend brethren you mean those which are here with you employed at this time, I suppose your periphrasis hath told me who they are, and then I am confident they are persons which would have communicated to me any such advertisements, wherein I am so nearly concerned (to discern whether their dislikes were causeless or no) before they had publicly accused me for them: which because they have not done, I must not yet believe that refutation was public, or such as could be capable of my notice; though I must acknowledge to expect from either of them that which is, as you say, much more solid than yours, and heartily wish it were either of those to whom I am now writing: for than I should make no question, but the satisfaction (mutually) would be much greater. But as it is, I must undergo my fate, and cannot be deceived in the success of this paper, more than I now find myself to have been in the reception of my former, which when I had kept myself within those limits, which I suppose far from all motion toward distemper, and only asked (and as you say begged) an exact account of what you had said of that Author, and given you the plain reasons of my request, is yet charged by you to have fallen foully on you: To this reproach of yours I reply not one word (being not so much in love with that part of your spirit as to imitate it; which yet both here and hereafter I beseech you not to mistake for a no-sense of it) but conceive it as true that I have done so, as that the errors, so styled by you, are either errors, or dangerous. I will not doubt of your employments or disturbances, nor think your returns are too slow, I wish you had more leisure, and more perfect tranquillity of thoughts at all times, especially when I have the luck to discourse with you. In the mean, I beseech you to believe, that what question soever may depend concerning the Messengers delivering his errand (whom yet, upon his asseveration that he did it aright, I must believe) there can be none of the words in my letter, or consequently of the addition in yours, viz. of the [this night] wherein I conceived you obliged to give me that account, when you have my paper by you to assure you, that I did not. The words which you affirm to have taken notice of in your Carfax-Sermon, I acknowledge to be in the Catechism, and must set them down again in this paper, that you may judge, while I advise with you, whether you mistook them, or no. [The holy Ghost was our advocate in settling a Ministry to pray and intercede for their several congregations (and enabling them in the very Apostles times to form a Liturgy to continue in the Church to that end) and thereby helping our infirmities, and teaching us to pray as we ought.] You see Sir, and must acknowledge, the parenthesis in the midst of the sentence; and (I suppose) know the meaning of that, that it is so set, that it may unite the words after to the words before it, not pretend to join them to itself; So that the sentence without the parenthesis is this (and not altered by it) That the holy Ghost was our advocate in settling a Ministry to pray and intercede for their several congregations, and thereby helping our infirmities, and teaching us to pray as we ought. Only 'tis added by the by, that the holy Ghost that thus settled that Ministry, enabled them in the Apostles times to form a Liturgy to continue in the Church to that end, viz. of praying and interceding for their several congregations. To either of these thus set (as only these words can be set in construction) your questions are wholly impertinent, i. e. do no way engage him that had said these words, to satisfy your severals, (and I am not over willing now to engage myself to answer any more than the matter requires of me.) For first, the saying that the holy Ghost enabled the Ministry in the very Apostles times to form a Liturgy to continue in the Church, doth not conclude that that very Liturgy was to be continued, as in the second and fourth question you change the words, which you needed not have done, unless you meant to get advantage by it, and from thence to conclude it my opinion, that there was some necessity, that that Liturgy form in the Apostles times should be continued in the Church, as I am told you collected thence: but, you see, I said not, and profess not to have meant in those words [to continue] but only that it might continue (i. e. if the Church thought good) either so as it was, or with such additions or alterations as the Church should think sit; as he that leaves lands to continue to his heirs, obliges not them from ever alienating them, or exchanging. You see, the utmost that these words [to continue] on which all the weight of your exceptions lie, can be extended. And that comes not home to your [was to be continued,] nor to your questions, which are built upon it. I need say no more to your second quaere; And yet if I thought you sought for any thing but exceptions in my Papers, I would add freely, as to a Scholar, or friend, my whole sense of this matter, as a little conversation with ancient Writers hath made it up to me. For once, 'tis this; That the Apostles, and those that were by the holy Ghost consecrated to the planting of the Church, had the gifts of miracles; not every one all, but one one, another another, poured on them; that, among these, in those first times, there was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the gift of prayer, (that gift a miracle, as the gift of healing, prophesying, etc.) that this was bestowed 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that did pray for the rest, and ask those things that were useful for them, and teach others how to pray; that some of the prayers thus conceived by them, which were fit for the common perpetual uses of all Christians, were received and kept by those whom they thus taught; that those are they which the Ancients mean by Liturgies of St. james, St. Mark, etc. Though I believe not, that either all these are in those Liturgies which now we have under their names, nor that all that are under their names are those, That in the celebration of the Sacrament, which they daily used, some forms were constantly observed by them, no new occasion making it fit to alter them: Of which sort I little doubt of the Lords prayer, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 anon mentioned, from [lift up your hearts,] to [therefore with Angels, etc.] inclusiuè; after that a prayer, called * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, after which, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. ●yr. Cat. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; then the words of consecration, taken from the Gospel: These, I suppose, I have good authority to think constantly used among them, and the blessing of God hath brought them down to us. Beside these, I make no question but variety of other prayers according to the exercise of that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 were poured out by him that was so endowed, and those I call not (as I would do the other, and whatever else there was of that nature) set forms in the Apostles times, but plainly exercises of that gift. But then as those forms were preserved and continued, so when those extraordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ceased, there was need of somewhat else to supply that place; and that would not be in any reason to permit every man to pray as he would (for that was the thing for the preventing of which, and the unhappinesses consequent to it, the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 had before been given, which but in that respect had not before been useful) but set prepared forms for the daily constant wants, and those provided by the Governors of the Church, Apostolical men, which had so benefitted under the prayers of those that had the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or perhaps remembered some forms of theirs, at least the method and manner used by them, that their forms might well deserve to be heeded by, and so continue in the Church, at least were likely to be fitter for the turn then the unpremeditated effusions of them that now had not the extraordinary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and of all whom it cannot be presumed that they have the ordinary wisdom to pray always as they ought. I conceive, I can satisfy any reasonable man for the main of what I have now said, upon those grounds that are fit for a matter of this kind. I mean it not for a new ball of contention between us; I shall satisfy your exceptions to the Author without it▪ And that is all my answer to your second quaere. And for your first, I say, that speech concludes me no undertaker, nor obliges me to show you that Liturgy, any more than my telling you, that as Christ taught his Disciples to pray; so john Baptist before him taught his, will oblige me to tell you what the Baptists form was: The Disciples tell me, the Baptist did teach his Disciples to pray, and 'tis possible they could not, I am sure they did not help you to the sight of that prayer: and the Author's meanness, or his being so far less authentical than those Disciples, though it may make it more fit for you to disbeleeve his report that they form a Liturgy; yet will it not, to think him more obliged to give you a copy of it, or to acknowledge it temerarious to have said that they did form one, because he hath it not ready to show. Other reasons, beside that of clear ocular demonstration, may be thought worthy our heeding in matters of fact; the testimony of men nearer those times than we are: And under that head I conceive there are many things to be produced; for whether the Liturgies that go now under the name of St. Mark and St. james are the very Copies compiled by them or no, it is to me no improbable argument that that age which first acknowledged them to be theirs, had been taught by Story that there were some written by them, upon which they thought fit to father those upon them. Besides this, you have been showed in another place from 1 Cor. 14. 26. that in the Apostles times some of the Psalms of David or Asaph were used ordinarily in their devotions, View of Dir. pag. 14. and that St. Paul found fault that they did not all join in the same Psalm at the same time, which would, saith he, be best for edification: and if it were mended upon St. Paul's admonition, the use of those very Psalms were (at least a part of) a public divine service, which is the English of Liturgy. Secondly, that, if we believe Stories, St. james made choice of some special prayers most frequently used by the Apostles, shortened again by St. Basil and Saint chrysostom; all which the Greek Church, which is fitter to judge (in this matter done among them) than we, do still retain, and make no doubt of the Authors of them. Thirdly, that there is famous mention of a short form of St. Peter's, used alone, they say, for a great while in the Roman Church. Fourthly, that 'tis clear, that St. Augustine speaking of Sursum corda, etc. saith, that they are verba ab ipsis Apostolorum temporibus petita, and so the compiler of the Apostles Constitutions, which imitates that antiquity, and makes use of that form, must be thought to have believed, or else he had been much mistaken in his imitation, and had put off his disguise, even by putting it on. 5 That the same words with those in out Liturgy, are not only in the Liturgy which is said to be St. James', and those other of St. Basill, and St. chrysostom, but are recited by St. Cyrill of jerusalem (in his Catechism) one of the Ancientest Authors we have. If it may be with your leisure (though, as I said, I undertake not to demonstrate, yet) to offer to your judgement; not to breed you more controversies or disturbances, I shall not only refer you to Cassander to prove that to Christ's words in the Lord's Supper, the Apostles added the use of the Lords prayer, (which though it were not much, is more than nothing of set form, or Liturgy, and might doubtless have been accompanied with much more, though I am not able to show it you) but also go a little farther with you, upon occasion of that last mentioned form, and that Father. The form of doxology, following those versicles of sursum corda, etc. in our Book, is, you may remember, this; [therefore with Angels, etc.] of which there is little question, but that it is the form which was called by the Greeks 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by the Latins Praeparatio (viz. of the Sacrament, as 'tis still in our Church) that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which, saith Iust. Mar. precedeth the Eucharist, or blessing of the elements, i. e. prayer of consecration; 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, by cyril of jerusalem, which as it is there placed after the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, i. e. (not the Sacrament, but) the giving of thanks, (as with us it is after the [Let us give thanks to our Lord God]) so it is before the prayer of consecration; (which other where, as even now in justin, is called by that title, and the Sacrament 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) as with us also, and is the very 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which, saith that ancient Author, under the Apostolical disguise of Dionysius, the whole Church professed before the Sacrament. All this I have said, to show you (if you delight in it) some part of that Liturgy (& being in our book you may yet see it) which was by those Ancients used: And to bring it yet nearer home to the point in hand, 'tis that ancient Cyrills' affirmation of this very form, that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; which words; in the use of those Ancients, most commonly note the thing they speak of to be delivered them from the Apostles, or Apostolical men; and being spoken by Cyrill who was not long after those times, and S. August. saying expressly of sursum corda (which may very probably extend to this whole 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 after it) that they were delivered down from the very Apostles times: I conceive this, with the other precedent testimonies of it, may amount to a proof tolerably sufficient to persuade a prudent man that they were so. I will prevent a mistake in this matter of Cyrills' words, which I do not think probable you would fall into, but yet am willing to serve you by preventing it, that the Greek [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] imports not, as I conceive, that it was delivered by the Seraphim, (for then it would be 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; and though that were more than an Apostolical, even an Angelical tradition; yet it would rather look to the [Glory to God on high] etc. (but that it is an hymn taking in the Angels to join in lauds with us, (to which I conceive S. chrysostom referred in his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the greeks that call it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and Amalarius, when he styles it hymnus refertus laudibus Angelorum,) and this hymn delivered down 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 by (our i. e.) that Cyril's ancestors at least, which who they were likely to be, I before gave you reason to conjecture. That this thus mentioned by St. Cyrill, is that very part of our Liturgy, which I noted it to be, is clear enough by the words that follow in him [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉,] compared with our [With all the the company of heaven we laud and praise, etc.] and that they are placed as we place them, by the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. noting this Hymn to be immediately before the * Or that Prayer that I told you was called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, wherein they prayed for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. An ancient form of which we have in St. Basils' Liturgy, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, etc. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. consecration; and to prepare men for it, which the Liturgick Writers mean by calling it praefatio actionis, & hymnatio praecedens confirmationem sacramenti, and so with us it is continued. If I should proceed to give you any more arguments, to persuade you that the Apostles did use set forms of public divine Service, and mention those forms to you, I should hope but for little thanks from you, and therefore shall abstain from that profusion, remembering that all that I am this▪ minute about to prove, is, that I am not bound to show you that Liturgy which was said to be form in the Apostles times. And having said this, I suppose you will discern what my answer would be, (if I were obliged by my former words, to give you any as you see I am not) to your other questions; or for fear you should mistake again, I will, ex abundanti, return you my opinion; To the third, that he doth; To the fourth, that they may; (I wish I could add, they always do; but I am not obliged to that;) To the fifth, that it is not, if you mean by [that very] the same without any change: but yet in the sense that Theseus his ship came home the same that it went out, and is an instance in Logic of one notion of idem numero, I conceive it, if possible, more than the very same, having some of the same ribs remaining in it (as even now I instanced, and profess to be persuaded by those Authorities,) when that is supposed to have never a one. I have no occasion to add any more in answer to the Letter, but to thank Mr. Reynolds and you for your willingness to give me directions about my first fruits; though the truth is, I am returned from London, and did speak to my Brother to ask L. Gen. Cromwel's assistance; but Sir Henry Vane junior is not of that Committee. Sir Henry Vane signior was in the Chair, and I delivered my case to him, and he fully consented to the justice of my request: and then your saying, Sir Henry Vane hath power to relieve me, shall be ground of hope to me that he will. NOw for the longer, and so sadder part of my task, wherein you are not so courteous to me, as you were in that concluding line of your Letter, I must proceed to that. In the entrance I must have leave to be sorry, that I have to deal with a man that will profess himself not much taken with that notion of Justice (which I said obliged me to desire an exact account in writing from you, of that wherein that Author was nearly concerned, and could no otherwise be sure not to think any thing of you causelessly.) If this were not justice to you, or may not yet be believed so by you, I despair of ever doing any thing acceptable in your presence. Our humours, or our principles, will be so contrary, that whatever I shall say, I shall have reason to suspect you will not be much taken with it; yet I shall farther adventure to give you one relation, which will not only clear my former notion of justice to you, but offer to your consideration whether there be not somewhat due from you by that notion of justice (or some other) to that Author, to others, yea and to yourself. There fell out in some Lay-company in this Town, since your Sermon forementioned, a discourse, Whether it were not lawful to swear, so that that which was sworn were exactly true; one of the company insisted rightly, that it was not, the other was confident it was, and produced for it the Authority of that Author; and to prove that again, said, that the Preacher at St. Mary's read it out of that Book. Of the truth of this he was so confident, that he presently resolved to make use of that liberty, which he believed from your citation to be the opinion of that Author, more than his carnal heart did permit him to believe the truth of what you added (if you did any thing besides the reproaching of that Author) in confutation of that Doctrine, and thereupon he swore a great Oath, that that which was before him was a candlestick, and persuaded himself that he had done no hurt in doing so. Now Sir, when I have again told you, and all the world; that that Author hath written most strictly against swearing, (and only differs from you in that question concerning the primary intention of the words of the old Commandment) and said in plain words, 1 That idle, foolish, wanton using of God's name, (which if it be not in oaths, is less than swearing) sure profane using of it, (which in all the editions was in, and absolutely belonged to all kind of unlawful oaths) might be resolved to be forbidden there by reduction: And 2 That under Christ (which again I tell you, belonged to all to whom that Catechism could speak,) there is a total universal prohibition of swearing itself, making that as unlawful now, as perjury was before. 3 That to swear in ordinary conversation is utterly unlawful. 4 That all voluntary, especially promissory oaths, are now utterly unlawful for a Christian. And 5 those voluntaries defined, to be those that have their impellent or principle from myself; when I have, I say, told you all this, then for God's sake ponder sadly with your own heart, in case that poor soul be ever tormented in hell for that vain oath, (as, without God's mercy upon repentance, undoubtedly he will) how much you have to charge upon yourself for giving him confidence that that Author had said what he learned from you: especially seeing your Sarcasme in that phrase of the much admired Catechism, might tell you that it was possible some poor, passionate, sinful creature, might thus unhappily admire it. I conjure you, not to think there is any jest in this, but believe from me, that I am able to produce the person that heard it, (and that had that care and love of piety and of truth, and that particular knowledge of my detesting all oaths, as to come in some passion to me for satisfaction,) and that I have already seriously sent to disabuse the offender, lest that sin should be laid to his charge, which you have made that Book be the occasion of; and when you have laid this to your heart, the God of all grace direct you to do your duty in this particular. I will not confute your opinion, that I have stooped lower in my rejoinder than I was in my Letter, by begging what I did before but desire, (I will be very willing to do so always, and shall yet be more vile than so, if that may persuade you to do me justice;) and yet it may be observed, that in your judgement to desire and request (which I did before) is so much lower than to beg, (which is but a nicety,) that until I did beg, as well as desire and request, and again reinforce my request, you did not think fit to grant me the least crumbe of that justice which I desired from you. At the phrase [exact account] you affirm yourself to have stumbled, and call it [those hard words.] If this be so, I cannot tell how to behave myself so cautiously, as either to speak plainly enough to you, or to keep you from stumbling. For [axact account] is so plain to be understood, and so unlike jurisdiction, unless you mistook it for exacting an account, (which you are too subtle to do, when the word desire went before it,) that if ever I had exercised jurisdiction over you, or any other, (which I never was in place to do the Office for which my first fruits are required, being without a jurisdiction annexed to it;) yet you could not have been tempted by that to this mistake. I suppose you were pleased to be merry, when you imply you were; and therefore must friendly admonish you, that there is a shrewd disease, in which Irenaeus had so much skill as to pronounce 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and therefore I shall briefly desire you, that hereafter you speak, 1 So properly as not to say desiring, is exercising jurisdiction. And 2 Seriously, (for truly I am not in jest, when I write to you,) and that would have kept you safe from stumbling. Yet because you are at such leisure as to remember I had an Office in your now Country, I shall tell you that there is a seal belonging to that Office, from which, if you had induction to that Living, you may read in your Wax, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and then you will soon discern how many men, as well as me, you have helped to make happy. I bless God, (and will never curse you,) that I am one of that number. In your next Section, you pray for them that suggested so many false accusations against you to me. But first, you affirm not above one to have been false; and that I confess to be so, and need not to be told so back again. As for your new accusation, which you are resolved to pay me in stead of that former, I desire you to know that I defy it, and know no danger or ill sound in the language of Speculative mystery, nor acknowledge any Author of it whom you can suspect; particularly, not him whose name you blotted out, so that I might read; I mean, neither Smalcius nor Socinus, whose doctrines in the business of the Trinity I do heartily disclaim; and am so far from being tainted or tempted by them, that I cannot say I ever permitted myself to read any Tract in them, or any other of that set, (unless in the Racovian Catechism) on that subject. And you will never repair the injury, if you use arts to fasten it on me, or to persuade any man, that I was ever inclined towards it. For your nicety by which you except against my calling the doctrine of the Trinity a speculative mystery, saying that it is practical, and giving your reason, [because the blessed Trinity is the object of our worship, as well as of our faith;] I shall make no scruple to acknowledge the Trinity to be the object of our worship, (and to that end I directed that concluding act of my worship to that blessed object) and every point of that which in the Catechism is made due to God, I supposed there, and now profess to be perfectly due to the Trinity. But than you might remember, that you acknowledge it the object of our faith; and of that there be many parts which will not be disparaged by being styled mysteries and depths of speculation, and in that sense, or as they are so, I then spoke, and only so, and need not acknowledge any impropriety in that speech; because though a speculative doctrine may be also practical in another respect, as the knowledge of the causes of diseases is a practical knowledge in respect of the cures it will help to work, yet as that is ordinarily called the Theory of Physic, and is presumed before Students ascend to the practical; so I told you the Author supposed the speculative understanding of that mystery in the Church-Catechisme, before he came to the Doctrines in this Book, which are the practical. You remember me, that a Sacramental Covenant is practical; and I may as well remember you that there are credenda proposed to the vower in that Sacrament, as well as facienda. On occasion of mention of the Church-Catechisme, you say, you like that better than my Practical, and I confess myself to do so too; so vehemently, that I believe 'twill be long ere we see a better in its stead. But yet I conceive, that he that hath learned that, may be capable of more, at least of directions to make use of that knowledge imbibed to the amendment of his life: else, most of our preaching were in vain; nay else, both that Catechism ought never to have been expounded, and every one that hath written any thing else for the benefitting of youth or men, must lie under the prejudice of that insolence of thinking himself able to make a better, as well as this Author. For your justice in that answer to the third reason, I am not to thank you, nor can I think that any man that was in any measure my friend, needed to be told by you or any, that I acknowledged the Trinity. If he did, examine your own heart, whether you know not some body, who had helped to defame me in that particular, by saying I was a Socinian or the like, or by saying I maintain many errors broached by such; If you do not, I will thank you for the good office you mention; and so hasten also, (and wish heartily I could make more haste to get into some more delightful employment) to the second report. In that, I see, I met with no false accusation of you, but in you enough of injury to that Author, by picking out what might make him odious, and present him an eloquent learned disciple of yours, to be taught, that swearing is a sin; or rather a profane designer and corrupter of the Nation, that hath given Boys a liberty of swearing in their Catechism. I have sufficiently told you, and all men, that that Author is most guiltless of that charge, and if you will not yet acknowledge it, I must leave it to God to judge betwixt us; as also, whether he produce not the unquestionable command of God against all swearing, assertory or promissory; and whether you do not imply, that he doth so, in saying against him that [the perhaps imaginary superaddition] (which you know are no other than the words of Christ) will not be so effectual to restrain, as the unquestionable command of God. Sir, doth he question the Command of God to be against swearing? doth he not say that all profane use of God's name is sure forbidden under the third Commandment of the Law by reduction? (or is not all unlawful swearing, assertory as well as promissory, a profane using of his name?) that I may not add that he produces, and earnestly insists on the direct clear command of Christ against all voluntary oaths, which is unquestionably a Command of God to any that is not worse than a Socinian, and denies Christ to be God at all. And whereas you observe by the way, that there is liberty given by this Author for assertory oaths, do you think there was not that liberty for some sort of them? or doth the Author say there was for all sorts of them? or for any that were voluntary? He supposes the primary intention of the third Commandment (and of these words, thou shalt perform, etc. against non-performance of promissory oaths) to be against perjury; Under that, by reduction, to be forbidden (not swearing simply taken, and so not all assertory oaths, but) all profane using of God's name, which sure contains assertory oaths, though not them only, or all of that sort, because some others do profane God's name; and of these, all do not, but only those that use it unnecessarily. This is sufficient indeed to conclude all kind of assertory oaths, not to be the particular matter of Moses Law, and indeed no sort of them to be so much as reducible thither, but only those where his name is unnecessarily used; but sure those that are such, it doth not give any liberty to, nor can you think it did, without pronouncing at the same time, that 'twas contradicted in the next page, which I must suppose you were able to see, because you looked so narrowly here to find this hole, which I am persuaded never any the most carnal man ever took notice of, to encourage himself in his sin, till you directed him to it. By which you may see, that some men are more industrious in finding faults to accuse their brethren, than others in seeking pretences to excuse themselves. To your Arguments I shall endeavour to say little, partly as not apprehending the force of them, partly supposing that we now talk of a matter of fact, which may be tried by evidence; the Book being ready to prove the truth of what I affirm from it; and then 'tis not in the power of a 1000 probable arguments (much less of a few disjointed) to wrest any man out of such a certainty. I should willingly venture them to any Reader to do their worst on him, especially your first, whereby you would show that he cannot prove the Doctrine of a total universal prohibition of swearing itself, and making it as unlawful now, as perjury was before, unless he lose the total in cipher. Where sure, Sir, 1 If a man would bind you to your words, you are now much less an enemy to swearing in universum, than the Author was: for otherwise that would not be objected, that he prohibits more of that kind than he can prove. And 2 for mincing the total into a cipher, you will have no reason to fear, for though he should mince the total somewhat, and say with (I assure you not from) Smalcius (for who doth not say so too?) that I must not swear, but for God's glory, and the public good; yet is not that all cipher, I hope, for it prohibits all swearing in communication, as utterly unlawful; all voluntary, especially promissory oaths. But then, Sir, you must know that a total prohibition of swearing itself, contains all swearing by any creature, as well as by God, and that is no cipher neither. As for your question, Whether the perfect Law of God did give men leave to take vain oaths? he is willing most clearly to satisfy that, and assure you of his opinion, that it did not; and because by the whole period I cannot possibly conclude any thing but only this, that you know not why I used the word Totall, (a total universal prohibition of swearing) I will tell you that too; because Christ had said, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, swear not at all; which what it signifies, is here sufficiently explained; thus, not only not by God, but not by any creature of God neither. 2 In the difference, as you state it, betwixt us, you are very unjust, in saying I undertook to prove, that by the third Commandment there was no more meant, then that a man should not forswear himself. This is false; I never undertook it, but profess that what is forbidden by reduction, is meant as truly, though not so evidently proposed, as what is expressed, and therefore you must be content to open your eyes, and see what is the question between the Scholar and the Catechist, (and the same also is the conclusion) viz. not what is meant, i.e. what is the full adequate importance of that Commandment, or what it contains under it; but what that is, i.e. what the words strictly signify, or, as 'tis now expressed, what is the primary intention of the phrase; and to that question the answer is made [no more undoubtedly but forswearing;] as if the question were asked of [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] is that no more than that thou shalt not commit adultery? I should answer, no more undoubtedly; yet never fear that any man would think that I affirmed, that fornication, and all other villainy was not there forbidden, especially when I had also added, that it were by reduction; and so in like manner, to take the question that you after set, whether I will say there is no more meant by the Commandment then taking away the life of a man; I answer, that the word killing is no more, and that was all the Author said of the third Commandment, viz. that the Commandment in Exod. (that is, the words of the Commandment (which are there set down) Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain) is no more than forswearing; that the words were the subject spoken of, 'tis plain by the proofs produced of it, from the use of those words in other places. This is so probable a truth, that I could not have thought it needful to have given it illustration to any man else. 3. When I appealed to Christ as Judge, and thought I had made good may appeal by producing his words whereby he renders that Commandment, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 [thou shalt not forswear;] you attempt to argue and prove against me, but never take notice of my proof, which is absolutely against law of pleading or disputing. And for the argument you confront to it, I assure you it persuades me nothing, but that you thought 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 was to be written with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. For though I shall tell you that all oaths, that come from the evil or from the Devil, are not from thence concluded to be evil or devilish, because the oath that I take lawfully in Judicature may come originally from evil or from the devil in another, and must not needs be from evil in the taker, so I have no need to answer you with that, but plainly confess, that all evil and devilish oaths are forbidden in the third Commandment. 4 I need not deny but that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 may sometimes be rendered vain, and so sometimes 'tis, even when it signifies a Lie, (as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Bible hath a peculiarity sometimes to denote Idols, those greatest lies in the world.) All that I was to conclude was, that Christ having expressed it by a word which St. Matthew here reads 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, there was nothing in that Hebrew phrase, but what was agreeable to this, and that is true, though it should be granted to signify vanum, because it doth falsum also. But you say, you need not go about to prove that the jews saw this truth as clearly as we do, but you can prove that they saw and acknowledged it, and that that is sufficient for you, and then let me tell you, you have fought blind all this while, and now you may see, if you will, that forasmuch as concerns this Author (unless you will fight on, when you say you need not) your great quarrel is at an end, for he that said in general of all this Sermon in the mount, that Christ added either new precepts, or new light, promised to be satisfied with either of them: and though he conceives the * See the testimonies of the Fathers both Greek and Latin, in the Catechism pag. 106. not thought fit then to swell up this Letter. Greek Fathers to have generally affirmed the former, and the Latin also, for the first 400 years, (particularly in this matter of swearing, Theophylact, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: expressing his opinion to be, that some swearing was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 under Christ, which had not been so before) yet he hath obliged himself to be content with the latter, which now, you say, you need not deny, (I would you had never needed to oppose one so violently, that asserted no more, than what you need not to deny;) and therefore I will now add only thus much, that. 1 This is the meaning and effect of affirming it [forbidden there, not by the primary intention of the word] for from thence it is that the clearness arises; that which is forbidden by reduction only, being not so clear, nor consequently so deeply obliging those to whom it is not (supposing still that it is not their fault, that it is not) so clear. 2 That if it were granted, that Christ gave a new precept here, it would not yet follow, that all unlawful swearing by God's name was not forbidden before: because there is another thing which he may have added to the third Commandment, the not swearing by any thing else, as well as not by God. But, you see, I need not now affirm this; I will give you leave to think that I am so awed by you, that I am not willing to spring you any new game of controversies. I confess I like not the sport so well, as to solicit your company any further. For the Septuagints 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I gave you an hint by the way, that that will gain you but little. For my knowledge of the primary signification of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you must not judge, for he that shall but look into Schindler (as venerable an Author sure as Pagnin) will find that he saith 'tis used the re falsâ; vanâ; First falsâ; but if you had pleased, my argument of the use of the word in the ninth Commandment (as fit to expound the Second as any) might have been thought as fit to be considered, as what you have insisted on in stead of it. You do well to abstain from the negative argument of [he might but did not.] But than it is not true that the question betwixt you and me is not about the primary intention of the phrase: for whosoever reads that Catechism, these letters, or even many of your arguments, will know it is; or if not, I make no scruple to pronounce, what I have done so oft, that I have no other quarrel to you in this matter, save only the injuries you did me at St. Mary's, and every one that believed aught of it from you. But sure, Sir, I have not acknowledged in any manner, that the first edition of that Book had any thing in it questionable in the judgement of learned men; I told you it was [in kindness and submission to the meanest,] and that kindness and submission intimates no more acknowledgement of questionablenesse, than the word meanest intimates the learnedst. I would now add, that I might have done it to prevent causeless quarrelling, but that I now see that it will not do that neither. As for your long deduction and magnifying of your cost and travail through the additions, etc. of that Catechism, you might have been less Playsome in re seriâ. If you do not already know that you have prevaricated herein, you may read and remember the Printers Postscript (which I think you cite also, and so have read, I shall now but advise you to remember it) and you cannot choose but see, (and, I hope, acknowledge) that all your Fable vanishes, and your History ends in this plain brief, that will bring no scorn on the Author, viz. that he prepared a new edition of the Catechism; added a third part more; and, to serve the meanest, explained every thing that by any advice or hint he observed to need explaining; call it altering, if you will, for to alter from worse to better he professes himself to think an amiable, imitable quality, and will never be ashamed of it: yet must not now assume it to himself, having, I assure you, no right to it, any further than it signifies explaining. This edition had long since been Printed in Oxford, could the Printer have gotten down so much paper. When the City was rendered 'twas carried to London to that end, where against the Authors will or knowledge three editions had been made by the first Copy, one of which was just then ended; and by that means the Printer had been at greater loss than I was willing to be cause of to an enemy, if another new impression had been then made of it. This, God knows, was the cause it is now set out so troubledly (the Printer being willing to put out the additions thus, rather than not at all; and to put this inconvenience on the Reader, than loss upon himself) for which, though I was very sorry, yet I never foresaw that I should be thus chid and reproached, and triumphed over for it. I hope some of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Christ's Sermon may be the portion of them that suffer without a cause, though it be not upon that excellent stile [for righteousness sake:] I am sure, this of mine is not for unrighteousness. And now as seriously you shall judge of the thing called exercising of patience, and never expect to be thanked for your charges, unless it had brought in to me more justice (I need not say charity) from you. And if after this, nothing will satisfy you but recantation, so oft repeated recantation (O that this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 might be changed into that of the Apostles, of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) get me but some Expedient that lying shall be no sin, and that no other sin in you or others shall be consequent to it in this, and for the other part of it, if it can delight you more than 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 Kingdom, of seduction, etc. and what follows in the next, to the end of the report, I am sensible of it, and I thank 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 show me the sin which hath now brought this portion of calumny upon me, and that is all I would say to it. And yet, after this resolved silence to that part, I shall again answer to you some few things. 1 That when in your fourth consideration you say [meant in a Commandment] you should say, signified by the words of a Commandment. 2 That which you call, taking in a latitude, I call reduction. 3 That my explications were designed by me to be as remarkable, nay much more than 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 do (not so much as the knowledge, at that time) with the setting out any edition of that book, save only of those additions, and of printing the first few copies at Oxford, for the use of those that were more willing to be at that charge, then at a greater in transcribing it. 5 I say most distinctly, that every emendation in that Book, that to my utmost remembrance I can speak of, was intended long before ever the Town was near taking: and for danger of being called to an account of any thing said in it, God knows my simplicity, I was never near dreaming or thinking of it, and am now in courage enough to fear neither men nor Angels in that particular. 6 That I know not, that ever I have made you a solemn poofession under my hand to give you satisfaction; and my most careful 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 me, for I would not willingly take any more pains about it. For other men, I am more secure: and if you once be satisfied, I shall suppose all men, that know it, will think it time for them to give over quarrelling. 7 That by [would] I did in effect mean, 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 spoke of submission to the meanest: and wonder as much, that you should think the alterations were made in submission to you, as that you should now rank yourself with the meanest, who have not supererogated in humility since I met with you. Truly, Sir, I do not think, meanness is the cause of your misunderstandings, nor did I ever from any friend at London hear 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 find little signs of them now, and by the subjects do believe that there were little expressed in those letters of yours ten years ago about me, I can, and do freely forgive you all: but know not that I am bound to thank you, till some body else tell me so. 9 If any learned men ever told me of that opinion about Christ improving the Law, and expressed themselves to think 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 find fault with, or lay any charge on it of hurt or danger to any man's 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 years ago I had no objection against my opinion, but that it was by some men fathered on Socinus: but knowing, that I believed it long before I ever saw one word (I think, 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 do, if it were so) I resolved to deny myself in that fantasy rather than objection; and speak what I thought might edify what diminution of credit soever it brought after it. I shall add my thanks for your counsel, which I would fain think to be in great earnest, but that I suppose you cannot believe that I look upon Criticisms as a kind of heaven, nor that you would think 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 Moral Law, as I find 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 Moral Law's perfection, I hope it must not so be understood as to deny that Christ (as he gave more grace than was ever allowed in the state of nature, or by the Law, so) might, if he pleased, improve the obligations which either the natural 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 supper additions you talk of, you will I hope consider, that 'tis as dangerous to detract from the World of God, as to add to it; and to deny Christ to have added, if he have, as to affirm him, if he have not, I am sure, the consequences may be more dangerous. As for your stile of perfect and spiritual 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 Jews, or by the God of nature to all men) and spiritual also, extending to the spirit or soul of man, and not only to the outward actions. But this, I am persuaded, hinders not but that Christ that gives more grace than was brought into the world by the Law of Moses or Nature, and that disburdened 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 spiritual perfection (whether by new laws, or new light) than 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 counsel of perfection) to us Christians, was the utmost of my design and endeavours in that Sermon you speak of 10 years ago, and is of this Author now; and I never imagined it possible that this doctrine could give any man liberty to think worse of the Law of God, or practise less of it; but have reason to think (and could give an experimental account of what I say) that the not teaching it, might flatter men ignorantly to believe that there was less required of them then I conceive (and desire, they should conceive) there is. And do you consider also, that he 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 seems I was not mistaken neither, nor in my expectation, that plain positive affirming the things you would have affirmed, would not satisfy you. I told you, that the Author under the general phrase of all kinds and sorts of sin, sets in the front the weakness, frailties, and pollutions of our nature, our proneness and inclination to sin. This your Sermon said was speaking with irresolution, as if he doubted etc. I tell you once again this is no irresolution; and he doth not doubt but that this aptness to fall into all sin is a sin, to wit, an aversion of our faculties from God, which ought wholly to be converted to him; will this satisfy you? I have reason from your former carriage not to be over confident that yet it will; for if it doth, you ought in all reason to have been satisfied before, where it was set down as a first species of sin. You say, my expression is inexcusable of [as infelicities, if not as sins,] you, it seems, are resolved it shall not be excused to you, and therefore will not interpret it by the words that went next before it, or so as it may be reconciled with them, but will force it to a sense directly contradictory to what went just before it, and so must suppose me mad (for so is he that can affirm contradictions at once) only because you will not be just; any thing that is most irrational must be believed of another man▪ rather than an expression be excused by you. But, Sir, I do not yet think it inexcusable, if I desired to bring all those men on their knees (in humiliation and godly sorrow for their inclinations to evil) which do not believe them when they are not consented to, to be other than infelicities. Men that will not be of my opinion in all things, I can be content to serve and minister unto, and labour to do them good upon their own (if they will not permit me upon my) principles. But than 1 it seems I must not say, pollutions of nature (I said, of our nature, and you seldom leave out the least word by chance, or but when you have some design in it,) or if I do, that expression is more proper to denote actual sins▪ than original sin, which is one entire, etc. I shall put it to the question, whether pollutions of our nature be at all proper to denote actual sins, which are pollutions of our persons; whether not most proper to our natural aversions from God, or inclinations to evil: If the wisest or meanest would have that better expressed, I desire to hear from them, and it shall be considered against another edition, which will again (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 actual sin, and then sure his evil inclination was not the thing which could be capable of the title of infelicity in any man's 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 God's grace suppose it possible that he hath not; and then, that his act of non-consenting will be a piece of Christian victory over that sinful inclination; and the sinful inclination, though it shall still continue a sin, and be matter of humiliation, yet sure will not pass with you for a sin cherished at that time, and consented to. Your third quarrel grounded on the conceit that I seem to imply, that there must needs be some consent given to every actual sin, did make a very hard shift to be a quarrel; and in stead of being managed with blows, stands still, and falls out into contumelies; and concludes that I should prove, but itself ventures not to disprove any thing: otherwise (if I saw your grounds of scruple) it may possibly be believed, that this Divinity might be cleared to you, without pretending, as you say, to Dictatorships. 4 I do neither recant what was said before, nor doubt whether inclinations to sin be sins, i. e. aversions from God, and then it matters not what you say I seem to do: I said this before, and so I say still, and (how humble soever the dislike of your behaviours towards me may by God's grace help me to be) this is not recanting. 5 For the danger, I shall acknowledge it, when I acknowledge the thing, but to set down inclinations to sin in the front of the species of the general phrase [all sorts of sin] 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 ask the reason of it again, but your desire to lay a new accusation on me of complying with the Socinians. Which Sir is, as your accusation, so your calumny again, if you meant any other thing by compliance then the desiring more to bring all to humble themselves before God for their inclinations to sin (on what principles soever they went) then at that time, in the midst of a Practical Catechism, in the matter of Repentance, to fall a disputing with all comers about original sin. For the Liturgy you speak of, if you know not my mind, let me tell you, 1 That I would have the Litany continued in the Church, the first part of which is sufficiently contrary to your [&c.] and this you may guess by a Book which I profess to subscribe to in that particular, viz. The view of the Dir. page 25, and 26. Then secondly, that I would have the Doxologies continued, and how that would become such a Liturgy you may see, View of the Dir. page 32, and 33. yet farther, that I would have the Creed continued, yea, and kneeling at the Sacrament, among other reasons for this, (on which the Protestants in Poland forbade sitting,) because I would not comply with the ancient or modern Arians, or any other that make our Saviour a mere creature. For which I shall direct you also to that View of the Dir. page 28. I shall not now ask you which is more compliant to your [&c.] the New Directory, or Old Liturgy; nor whether a Socinian may not more conveniently officiate now (and so, in that case, those of his opinions join with him) than they could six years ago, when the whole Church service was appointed to be read constantly in every Church. I am not willing to trouble you with any new questions, but only to be satisfied by you in matter of fact what wrong you have done that Author in your Sermons, and to show you that it is wrong. As for reparations from you, I now know you better than vehemently to expect any, and by your carriage in this particular, and your [If I were composing such a Liturgy,] I am for the future armed to be content with what now I find, and to expect that when you want even words in the Author to cavil at (as it will be long before those will be wanting, and I remember to have seen an art of cavilling that turned every word of the Creed into heresy, or blasphemy, or Atheism, and then what shall become of this poor mortal frail Catechism, when such an artificer is resolved to triumph over it?) possibilities, and jealousies, such as the [If you were composing, etc.] shall be sufficient to rob that Author of his little reputation. That that [if] could have no ground but in your design quocunque modo to defame him for a Socinian, you will guess, when again I tell you that the placing inclinations in the front of sins, was a declaration free and full against that error. 6. I am, you see, neither of their mind that think inclination to ill no sin, nor therefore did I blind, but instruct my Reader with that Orthodox expression, as you call it; and 'tis hard that a man cannot use Orthodox expressions, but he must be accused for doing it, upon supposition that he did it to this end that he might afterwards tempt others to an error. God knows our hearts, and must only judge that of me: and till he have done so, and revealed it to you, 'tis want of charity in you to say I have not done fairly. 7. If it were never so absurd, to say that godly sorrow were to be conceived for an infelicity quà sic, merely as an infelicity, yet it might be conceived for it [as an infelicity if not a sin;] i. e. by them who doubt whether it be a sin or no, or who, though they are not certainly persuaded that it is a sin, when unconsented to, yet acknowledge it so, when it is consented to, and then grieve for it as for a sin; and when it is not, acknowledge it to be an infelicity, and grieve for that also. Besides, an infelicity may be such an infelicity, that it may be matter of godly sorrow, though not quà sic, merely as an infelicity: as, in this point, I may have sorrow that I have a vicious impure nature about me, which is justly thought by me an infelicity, especially in comparison with that pure state of them that are with Christ; and this sorrow is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, a sorrow according to God; and the interpretation of desiring or loving the appearance of Christ, and so a godly sorrow: and he that doth not positively resolve that this having a vicious nature is more than a pollution and an infelicity, taking neither of them for a sin, may yet mourn for it quà a pollution, not quà an infelicity; and make good that he doth so, by professing sincerely, that he would undergo any infelicity, on condition to get rid of this pollution. And yet lastly, (which is the only answer necessary for you to consider to this point) if that which you say is absurd, were so indeed, it would rather prove, that what is called [an infelicity, if not a sin] were indeed a sin, when 'tis said of if in that very place, that it must be matter of contrition or godly sorrow, then that it is taken to be no sin, when 'tis both affirmed to be one, and to be matter of contrition. If I should say, that I may have sorrow for somewhat that is an infelicity, and call that a godly sorrow, an error this might be, but I hope not a dangerous one; or if it were, not such an infectious one as to turn every other affirmation of mine into a non-affirmation, or make me guilty of other errors, of which I profess (and 'tis clear at that time by other evidences) that I am not guilty. Thus hard is it for flesh and blood to lay down a quarrel or a jealousy, when 'tis once engaged. Otherwise, plain words might deserve to be heeded to prove a man Orthodox, as well as supposed consequences to arraign publicly, and condemn him for errors. In how much more quietness have poor creatures possessed their souls, that have learned from those words (and ever since daily practised) the humbling of themselves for their very inclinations to sin, than you that have thus used your skill unhappily to limbeck, extract, and force poison out of them? 8. I acknowledge, that every sin ought to be bewailed as a sin, and that inclinations to sin ought to be so bewailed; and I meant by contrition, or breaking of the heart to pieces, as much as your tears of blood amount to: And of this I neither doubt, nor fear to profess my sense. Yet sure they that do not agree with me in that particular, may be advised to have true grief and sorrow for them and their own principles. 9 That the corruption of our nature hath special influence on our practice, I am as confident, and have considered as ponderingly as you: and this whole Catechism was designed to obstruct those fountains, as much as was possible, and to help to purify unto Christ a peculiar people zealous of good works; and according to my best understanding, I designed a scheme that might be instrumental to that end: and whatever your method would have been, and what your commands for the particulars that might be more expressly cleared, I could not divine, and had liberty to use my own method. This only I know, that inclinations to sin are there expressed to be sins, and that clearly enough, that he may discern it who hath so much leisure from quarrelling as to bewail them. And indeed you need not tell me what dangerous consequences have been inferred from doubtful expressions in Catechisms, etc. For I have an example before mine eyes of one that will infer those consequences from one word in such a Book, that the whole sense of the place contradicts directly, as much as sin and no sin are contradictories, and then 'tis but reason a man were allowed pardon (and not triumphed over presently) for being willing (when 'tis by another's fault become so necessary) to explain. And so much for the third report. The fourth (that about faiths being, whether a condition, or instrument of justification:) I cannot observe by your words that you have at all insisted on in either assembly; for though you deny it not, yet also you affirm nothing, as in the two former, which you own; and as in the last you are pleased to do. Either then you spoke to this particular, and then although it be a fault in you not to acknowledge it, yet till I am sure of it, and that my reputation is concerned in it, I have no reason farther to importune you; or else you did not speak to it, and consequently did me no injury in that particular, and then I truly cannot accuse you, having no authority that you did, worth my depending on, and that which I had, contradicted by others, as the other of the Trinity which proved untrue, and so the rather inclines me to believe that this is so also: On these grounds I have no temptation to add more to this matter, because the whole business which brought us now together, was to vindicate myself from (and that made it necessary for me to know what had been) your accusations, and not to render you at this time (which I can spend much more profitably to myself and others) an account of my faith, save only where you have calumniated it. Yet because it is possible that the questions here proposed by you, may through some mistake or ignorance of the grounds that I go on, be matter of some scruple to you, and it may be my duty to prevent those mistake, I have now thought fit to tell you, what is the general ground that I build on in this matter, by analogy to which you may form an answer to those questions, and reconcile those seeming differences which you may have taken notice of. My grounds are these, 1 That justification is divine acceptation, and pardon of sin. 2 That the mercy of God, through the satisfaction and merits of Christ, is the sole cause of this justification. 3 This work of justification is of such a nature, consisting merely in Gods pronouncing us just, accepting and pardoning, a work of God without us, upon us, concerning us, but not within us, that consequently nothing within us can have any real proper efficiency in this work: for than that, whatever it is, must be said to justify, i. e. to accept, and pardon, which nothing in us can be said to do, though but minus principaliter, secundario, or realiter instrumentaliter; for if it had any such efficiency, there might in strict speaking be some real virtue or force in that thing, and that proportionable to the effect in some measure, at least it must act virtute primae causae, and by the impulsion of that might immediately produce the effect; which any even grace, as it is in us, hath not force enough to do. For either it must do it as an inferior meritorious cause, subordinate to Christ's merits, or as an inferior efficient cause, subordinate to Gods pardoning and accepting; and then, as I said, that must pardon and accept also immediately, though not principally; as the knife cuts immediately, though the hand or the man principally. 4 This work of grace in God through Christ thus justifying, is not every man's portion, some qualification or condition there is required in the subject, in the person whose sins God will thus pardon in Christ, or without which God that justifies the sinner, will not yet justify the impenitent infidel: the promises of God, though general, being yet conditional promises, and the promise of pardon being one of them, as shall be proved at large if you think fit. 5 This condition is set down in several phrases in the Scripture, Conversion, Repentance, Regeneration, but especially receiving of Christ, faith in the heart, an embracing of Christ, the whole Christ, taking him as our Priest, whose sacrifice, and whose intercession to depend on; as our King, whose throne to be set up in our hearts; as our Prophet, to submit our understandings to his doctrines, and captivate them to the obedience of faith. 6 This grace of faith hath mavy excellent offices and efficiencies; one principal one, laying hold on the promises, laying hold on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; others also of subduing the passions, mortifying lusts, overcoming the world. In all these, being works wrought in us, by God principally, instrumentally by this grace, Faith is an efficient. But all this doth not at all conclude it to be in any propriety of speech an efficient, or any kind of logical proper cause in the act of justification: because there is no need of any such, God being ready to do his work, to perform his promise, i. e. to justify the penitent believer; and whensoever by his grace that qualification is wrought in the heart, or there but truly rooted, God pronounces that man just. I have out of my heart set down my sense, which I suppose, you will find every where scattered in the Book. I desire not that it may prove a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 between us, (in case there be any word hastily let fall, which though to me, that understood my own meaning, it be plain, to you, especially if you delight to be captious, may want explication;) but yet I would be glad to hear, if there be any poison in any of these propositions; and whether, and wherein I am mistaken: If not, I suppose you will be able to answer all your twelve queries out of these premises, or discern that it was impertinent to ask them, these grounds being thus supposed. I shall I think, only need to add, that as soon as ever this new creature hath life in him, at the first cordial receiving the whole Christ in vow, or resolution sincere, i. e. at the first minute of conversion thus to God, the person is justified; not one of those in time after the other, but in order of nature, as naturally the condition must be undertaken, before the Covenant belongs to me: but at what minute soever this is done, God puts away his wickedness, etc. I have sinned, saith David, and the Lord hath put away thy sin, saith Nathan; I said I have sinned unto the Lord, and thou puttest away the iniquity of my sin. This thus pre-required I call sanctification in semine, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, (the direct Greek for that word) without which no man shall see God; and consequently, without which no man is justified; for whosoever is so, is in that condition at that minute, that, if he die in it, he cannot miss of glory. Beside this notion of sanctification: there is another for the acts, and fruits, and state of sanctification: and that I acknowledge a consequent of justification, and an effect of that grace that justifieth the ungodly. And having added this, I conceive I have cleared the way to your last particular. In which, it seems, you took some exceptions, which, by what hath been said, will appear to be your fault, not the Authors of the Catechism. For 1 faith and works are not confounded in the discourse of justification, any otherwise then St. james and St. Paul confound them; St. Paul saying, Abraham was justified by faith, and St. james by works, and the way of the reconciling them punctually set down there. 2 What he doth say of being justified by faithful actions, as it is after the very stile of St. james [Abraham was justified by works;] so doth the word [by] signify only a condition, not an efficient. And whereas you mention obedience to the whole Gospel, constellation of Gospel-graces, etc. and think strange that they should be affirmed the condition of justification, you must remember that those phrases denote them only in the seed, or first life of all these proportionably to the first notion of sanctification, and then I suppose you can make no scruple of that affirmation. 3 You scruple that faith without the addition of such works, such obedience Evangelicall, would be affirmed unsufficient to justification. Wherein perhaps you think [works] signifies actual performances: but that is not the meaning of it in that place, but the word is taken in another Scripture-acception of it, for such obedience as the Gospel now requires, and for that which the Story of Abraham once makes the thing on which he was justified, i. e. resolution to obey God in the sacrificing his Son, not the actual sacrificing of him: this is there called in the Catech. page 35. Evangelicall obedience, and is set as the explication of works; and without this, I acknowledge to believe that faith would be unsufficient to justify; meaning faith in any other notion but that which doth contain this receiving him as a King, and giving up the obedience of the heart to him. And you must give me leave a little to wonder why you should add, that the words following (in that place) are as bad or worse than the former, (and yet 'twas but civility and prudence not to name them) when they are but a direct citation of a place of Scripture. Thus [the same is called in a parallel place, Faith consummate by love, Gal. 5. 6.] (for so the Greek 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is rendered by the Syriack.) The truth is, the last thing by you excepted against, was in effect a place of Scripture also. jam. 2. 22. [Faith made perfect by works,] set down in some words of paraphrase; and then this in the Galatians might be as bad or worse than that, (I shall mollify the harsh phrase for you, and add) more contrary to the Antinomians and Fiduciaries. As for your disproving that doctrine, I shall not need consider that, because the doctrine is new set when it comes to be disproved, and in those terms which you see I acknowledge not: for I do not suppose the necessity of adding Evangelicall works unto that purpose, and in that act, to make faith the instrument of justification. For 1 I acknowledge not faith an instrument of that, any other than a moral instrument, by which I express myself to mean a condition accepted by God to justification; and a logical or proper instrument of receiving Christ, (which Christ, not which Faith, justifies.) 2 Evangelicall works, in the notion wherein I surpose you now take them, for fruits of faith, performances of obedience, I affirm not to be either instrument or condition in the act of justification, or to that purpose; but I require them afterwards when occasions and opportunities of exercising that faith, of performing those resolutions, do call for them. And therefore 3 I make no scruple to acknowledge that we are not justified by any righteousness inherent in us, as I oft have said, but only by the righteousness of Christ imputed: Only that infusion of new righteousness (which when 'tis infused and rooted, is inherent in us) is the condition without which we shall not be justified; not taking it again for the actual performances, or acts of righteousness. Yet in the three last lines you have now again changed your question, and made it such an one, that I cannot blame you not to be ashamed to repeat your arguments, or to maintain; For I shall most joyfully conclude with you in the very words, the truth of that you say you used those arguments to prove, viz. That we are justified by the obedience of Christ alone, freely imputed by God, applied and rested on by Faith only. For whatever other qualifications be required as conditions in the subject, 'tis the work only of faith to apply in that sense, i. e. to rest on Christ. And having so well agreed in the conclusion, one would wonder how we should so differ in the premises. Certainly there was some fault some where. Was not it a willingness to find faults in that Book that made it appear so full of errors, and a heat (that might have been spared) which turned the pulpit into a Pasquin, or Morforius, on which that Author was to be defamed? That which I have now affirmed, I am confident is the sum of what is said on that Point in more words, and with more proofs and clearing in that Catechism; and not now minced or dressed anew by your directions, or for your palate. Yet if it may now please you, and you will ask God forgiveness for your slandering of me, and consider me so much, as to think that that reputation was valuable to the Author which you unjustly laboured to rob him of, I shall most heartily (as I do already forgive you the injury, so) conclude this Paper, and take leave of you, and continue Monday night, Oct. 19 1646. Your Servant H. Hammond. I desire to hear what opinion you have of this large trouble, thus unexpectedly multiplied upon my hands. SIR, I Am sent for away from hence in great haste to my dear Mother, who is very sick, and so am forced to dictate to an ill Amanuensis; if greater Letters than an e be mistaken I must crave your pardon. If you think fit to reply, be pleased to seal up your notes, and Mr. Wilkinson (who lodges at Merton College) will convey them to Your Servant Fr. Cheynell. Octob. 30. 1646. SIR, I Conceive your Letters are meant, (as they are by the superscription directed) to me only: yet I thought it my duty to direct you to some that are equally engaged, and able to give you better satisfaction. You will not believe me, and I have done. As for your discourse about desiring an exact account, truly Sir, I do seriously believe, that when you were at highest, you would show as much civility towards any Minister of Christ, as you did towards me. It may stand with the state of an archdeacon to desire an account, if he add, exact account. The greatest General will give Orders to his Officers in as homble a stile; These are to desire. But enough, if not too much of that. If your challenge made me smile gravely, yet sure you are too angry when you say, I have reproached and slandered you; you endeavour to make me as happy, as you conceive yourself to be. Sir, I never thought that there had been so much advantage to be made of a Parenthesis; I do not desire to mistake your meaning, and am sorry to read your uncharitableness. Your judgement is, that I seek for nothing in your Papers but exceptions; you intimate that I am no Scholar, and to yourself no friend; yet you are so courteous as to communicate some part of your mind to your unlearned enemy: but you profess, that you do not cast up a ball of new contention between us, only you are pleased to refer me to another Book called the View of the new Directory. I acknowledge that I have heard, what I now begin to believe, that that Book is yours, because you smile upon it, as Fathers use to do upon their pretty Babes. The Author of that view of the new Directory lays down this rule, page 2. [Nothing is necessary in the worship of God, but what God hath prescribed;] Pray, Sir, let us know how many severals of the Common-prayer-book that are purposely left out in the Directory, are prescribed by God. 2 The said Author abuses both Presbyterians and Independents; but whether he doth answer the several Arguments propounded by either, I leave to you to consider. Sir, if you have any thing to say against our Learned and Reverend brethren of Scotland, they are of age to answer you, try their strength. 3 If you please to undertake the answer of Mr. Cottons arguments against set Forms, you may have liberty to speak your mind; but truly Sir, till you have performed this task (I mean, till you have shown how many things are prescribed by God, and rejected by us in this Directory: 2 Till you have answered our brethren of Scotland, and Mr. Cotton, (to say nothing of others) you have no temptation to triumph, unless you mean to triumph before the victory, as that Author doth. You should not refer us to Mr. Hooker, now the state of the question is so much varied. 4 If it be granted to you, that some set Form may, by some persons, at least for some time, be lawfully used; how will you prove it necessary that any whole entire set Platform of Liturgy should be rigorously imposed upon all the Ministers of these three Kingdoms of England, & c? is not that the thing which you do so passionately long after, and earnestly contend for? if it be not, I confess I am much mistaken; and if it be, let it be clearly and undeniably proved. 5 In this last return, I do not find you willing to own what your words seemed to import, [That there is some necessity, that the Liturgy form in the Apostles times should be continued in the Church.] For you give the present Church leave to judge of the Liturgy composed in the time of the Apostles (as you pretend) and to make what alterations or additions, alienation or exchange shall seem fit to the present Church. But Sir, if those Apostolical men were extraordinarily assisted by the Spirit in composing that Liturgy, shall men of ordinary gifts take upon them to pass a peremptory sentence for altering, alienating, exchanging what was (as you conceive) composed by the extraordinary assistance of the Spirit, and is by a more than ordinary blessing and providence preserved and transmitted to posterity? Sir, take your words according to your own interpretation, that the holy Ghost who settled a Ministry, enabled them in the Apostles time to form a Liturgy to continue in the Church, to the end that the Ministers might pray and intercede for their several Congregations; and you do certainly decline, if not studiously, the maintaining of what you are engaged to maintain by your View of the Directory; if a Minister may pray as he ought in a congregation, without the use of the Liturgy, which you say was form in the Apostles time to continue in the Church, then sure a Minister may pray as he ought in the Congregation, without the help of the late Common-prayer-book. 6 You name several Liturgies; which will you stand to, and avouch that it is without any interpolation or corruption? 7 Not to spend time about the miraculous gift of prayer, you say there were some exercises of that gift, and confess those exercises to be different from the set Forms you contend for. Sir, is there no ordinary gift of Prayer vouchsafed to the Ministers of Christ? should not this ordinary gift be stirred up by meditation, and exercised in prayer? should not Ministers of Christ give themselves to pray, and study how to pray seasonably, according to the several occasions administered by the various turns of God providence? How do you prove, that a man that hath not ordinary wisdom to pray as he ought, is called by Christ to be a Minister of the Gospel? Surely Sir, I think a Minister should study to pray seasonably, as well as preach seasonably, and if the Primitive method and manner of prayer be to be observed, it doth not follow that the Liturgies, which go under the name of St. james and Mark, and have constantly been suspected by Learned men, should be rigorously imposed upon the Ministers of the New Testament, who have an ordinary gift of prayer, nay, are endued with the spirit of prayer. 8 You mention the use of Psalms, and the Lords prayer. Why sure Sir, you did view the Directory very slightly, if you took no notice of the Order about the public reading of the holy Scriptures, and the frequent reading of the Book of Psalms. We acknowledge the prayer which Christ taught his Disciples to be of itself a most comprehensive prayer, and not only a pattern of prayer; And it is specially recommended to be used in the prayers of the Church; if you please to call this a Liturgy (and, it seems, you can demonstrate no more) do not complain that you are deprived of all manner of Liturgy; for now you have told me that public divine Service is the English of Liturgy. Sure I am, the Parliament desires that our public service of God should be most divine and orderly; for their care hath been to hold forth such things as are of divine institution in every Ordinance, and to set forth other things according to the rules of Christian prudence, agreeable to the general rules of the Word of God: and for the consent and harmony of the Churches, there are general heads propounded, and if you observe the general heads, the sense and scope of the prayers, and other parts of public worship, you will have no cause to complain of disorder and confusion in our public worship. But you tell me that we may pray as we ought, without the help of that Liturgy, which you conceive was form in the Apostles time; and therefore I think I may proceed to the sadder part of your task. 1 Concerning your sad Story, I need say no more, but that I am glad you have disabused one offender, I could wish that you would disabuse all those whom you have abused with three or four editions of your Book, by a remarkable Recantation of your error. Sir, venture my arguments to any Reader, I fear none; let your Book be witness whether I charge you justly or no: I mean your Book printed at Oxford, and all printed after that Copy; I except nothing, but your less remarkable alteration, which was not remarkable enough for me to take notice of in so short a time; and therefore you must blame yourself, that your Recantation was no more remarkable; for when you told me that you added these words [In the primary intention of the phrase.] I looked over your additions more heedfully, and could not find it: and I did at last read even your less remarkable alterations, and the Printers Postscript, or yours, for the excuse of yourself and him. Sir, your first answer in the eighth Section of your Catechism, explains the meaning of the third Commandment to be according to the literal sound, against perjury or non-performance of promisory oaths; mark that [Promissory oaths.] Whereupon your Scholar is immediately prompted to ask whether the third Commandment, [Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain,] be no more (mark that, no more) then [thou shalt not forswear thyself?) your answer is, No more undoubtedly. The God of heaven judge between us; nay, your several editions do judge; there being not a syllable of the primary intention to be found in three or four editions. 2 I say, the question is, what is meant in the third Commandment? Your first answer being an explication of the meaning of the Commandment: The second question is, whether the third Commandment be no more? that is, whether the meaning of it be no more, then that thou shalt not forswear thyself? this is most clear to me. 3 The question is not of the intention of a phrase; that's but a harsh expression, which must be explained to be meant of the intention of the Lawgiver; and it was God's intention to forbid foolish and wanton swearing, as well as forswearing. 4 We had not best dispute what is primary and secundary in God's intention; one intention is sufficient, and that is to forbid both. 5 You are not able to make it good that that's the primary intention of the phrase: and therefore I glanced at that by the way. 6 Your doubtful perhaps was that which troubled me: and surely Sir, you do see what reason you have to blot out perhaps. 7 Why do you say, perhaps foolish and wanton, sure profane using of God's Name is forbidden? is it not as sure that foolish and wanton using of God's Name is forbidden as profane using of it? or is not all foolish and wanton using of God's name profane? 8 Your remarkable alterations assure me, that you are convinced that you had not said enough against vain assertory oaths, in any of your editions: for the words run thus in them all, the particular matter of Moses his Law, [was of promissory (not assertory) oaths,] which you alter thus, [peculiarly of promissory, not only of assertory oaths:] and if that be not a recantation, I do not know what a recantation means. 9 I said truly that a doubtful perhaps would not restrain youths from foolish and wanton using of the Name of God; if Preachers be so timorous to cry, Perhaps it is forbidden, and that but by reduction neither, swearers will grow bold. I do not like your instance in this last Paper, when you say, that fornication is forbidden in the seventh Commandment by reduction; surely Sir, there needs no reduction to evince that fornication is forbidden. 10 You talk of the words of the Commandment; the question is, of the meaning of God in the Commandment. God's mind is to forbid foolish swearing in the third Commandment, and fornication in the seventh. 11 I did not take notice of your argument to prove that forswearing is forbidden in the third Commandment, because you prove what I never denied. 12 You say, the Oath which you take lawfully in Judicature, may come from the Devil in another. You are mistaken; it is not the oath, but the vanity of the oath which comes from the Devil. 13 You come not off with honour, when you say, First, that the superaddition (which I call imaginary) is a command of Christ, and afterwards say, if it was not a superaddition by a new precept, yet there is a superaddition of new light. Your Catechism is, it seems, like the Tridentine Canons, capable not only of several but contrary interpretations. I appeal to your Book again, Lib. 2. Sect. 3. page 93. First, your interpretation that Christ came to fill up the Law, as a vessel that had some water in it before, but now is filled up to the brim; and that which is worse, of a picture, etc. Sir, was there but a rude draught of moral perfection in the perfect Law of God? was it drawn in colours to the life, or as it were with a coal? Take heed, be not too busy in imitating any Father in a dangerous expression, or in excusing the great evacuators of the Law. Secondly, though you pretend often to be very careless whether you prove a superaddition or improvement of the Law to have been made by Christ, yet you confess that it is the foundation of a weighty superstructure, page 94. Pray Sir, declare what that superstructure is. Is it that you may be justified by obedience to these new superadded precepts, and yet say that you are justified by a righteousness without the Law? say honestly, is that the superstructure, or is it not? 3 Do you not tell us, that light is the state and doctrine of Christianity, darkness of sin and imperfection? observe how untowardly that comparison runs; though you do not bring it round, yet you go too far; you say, that before Christ, there was some mixture of imperfection, and some vacuities in the Commandments of God; you are speaking of the moral Law; you say, These vacuities are filled by Christ, page 94. These expressions sure have reference to new precepts, and not only to new light; if not, read page 96. to show that Christ came to fill up the Law, say you; first he rehearses the old Law, and thereby confirms 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 Practical Catechism. 1 There was Gospel under the Law, and the Spirit was ministered to all the elect then, during the time of legal administrations; divers Jew's were penitent believers, and therefore under the second Covenant before Christ came in the flesh. 2 The promises were plain enough to them that were endued with the Spirit, as is evident by the Apostles discourse in the 11 Chap. to the Hebrews, they were so plain that they saw them, were persuaded of them, and embraced them; though the thing promised, the Incarnation of Christ, was far off, yet their light was so clear, and eye of faith so strong, that they beheld Christ afar off. 3 We have no higher promise than that of being heirs and coheirs with Christ in glory, and they had the promise of eternal 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 God's 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 sin was able actually to damn penitent believers during the time of legal administrations. And therefore I wonder at your discourse in the 95 page. Pray Sir, is there any venial sin? 6 You speak too faintly, when you call the Evangelicall discoveries before Christ, glimmerings of light, and insert the sceptical perhaps, page 95. of your Pract. Catech. Sir, there is no perhaps, no haphazard in this business; Jesus Christ was sufficiently discovered during the time of levitical administrations to all the elect for their everlasting salvation. 7 When you speak of the glimmerings of the Gospel, you say these things were not universally commanded to all under threat of eternal punishment, but only recommended to them that will do that which is best, and so see good days, etc. Observe 1 That you do here by consequence assert, that there were counsels of perfection under the Law: I will not say works of supererogation, but the Jews were (it seems) encouraged to do somewhat more than was commanded. 2 Will you say, that to believe in the promised seed, to circumcise their hearts, mortify their lusts, reform their lives, walk in new obedience, was more than was commanded in the time of the levitical dispensation? 3 Will you say, that the Jews were not obliged to believe in the promised seed, circumcise their hearts, and the like, under threat of eternal punishment? I might enlarge, but by your answer to these few proposals, I shall be able to understand your obscure Catechism; do not say, that there is a Sarcasme in the Epithet. I hope, you will now confess that you did contend for new precepts; and therefore you recant once more, if you will be satisfied with new light. Sir, counsels give new light, but you say the superadditions in the fifth of Matthew are all commands, and not counsels only; and you endeavour to prove it ex profess, page 96. Surely the same things were commanded of old; then these are but imaginary superadditions, as I called them: but if they be superadditions, and not only counsels but commands, they are new precepts, and therefore you did not contend for new light only, but for new precepts. By this little that hath been said, it is clear that you had some weighty superstructure to lay upon this ample foundation of new precepts, or else you did but sweat and toil in laying the foundation that you might have your labour for your pains, which you are too wise to do. Sicnotus Ulysses? All that I desire is, that you would alter from worse to better; for I join 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 superadditions you dreamt of were, as I said, imaginary; and I must remember you that the third Commandment, which is out of question the command of God, and Christ, and the holy Ghost, will by God's blessing be most prevalent to restrain men from foolish or wanton using of the name of God in assertory oaths, or any other idle using of God's name when they do not swear. What I said of Criticisms was no Sarcasme: I did but remember you that Critics are apt to think themselves so far above other men, that they do usually contemn the serious admonitions of poor Country Preachers. But as high as the Critics think themselves, I hoped that you would not think them mounted to the highest heaven, and therefore called it a lower heaven. You tell me, [That you do only desire to study the moral Law, as you find 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 believers. But you go beyond them in the next page, pag. 15. and imply, that no unbeliever is obliged under pain of damnation, to observe the moral Law. Your words are to this effect, [That Christ, who gives more grace than was brought into the world by the Law of Moses or nature, hath disburdened all men of that sad yoke that lay on the jews, 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 only? 2 How do you prove that all men, I mean, every one of mankind, is put under the second Covenant? I suppose that is your meaning, because in your Pract. Catech. page 5. you affirm [That Christ did satisfy for all the sins of all mankind, 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 mankind to perform 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 self same page; and to whom are the mercies made over, but to them for whose sins Christ hath satisfied? 3 I desire to know how Christ could disburden any man, or satisfy for the sins of any one, according to your opinion, if he did only exercise the office of an aaronical Priest by his sacrifice? For it is certain that no aaronical Priest did ever make any more than a Typical satisfaction by the exercise of his office; and you add, that when the Scripture speaketh indefinitely of Christ's Priesthood, or his eternal Priesthood, or of his blessing us and turning of us from our iniquities, these expressions have no reference to his [single, finite, unrepeated sacrifice upon the cross, which belongs to his aaronical Priesthood,] but they must be understood of his Melchisedechian Priesthood, to which he was consecrated by his death, which you term an aaronical sacrifice, and look upon it as a rite and ceremony for the consecrating of Christ to be our eternal Highpriest, page 17, 18, 19 You think you have gone far beyond the Socinians in this point; but hear what Smalcius saith, Non est autem dissimulandum nos non negare Christimortem ad ejus sacrificium pertinere, Refutat. Smiglec. de erroribus nov. Arianorum, lib. 2. pag. 282. a word is enough to a wise man. Our case stands thus then, 1 Your doubtful perhaps will not restrain men from foolish wanton swearing; you did well to blot out that. 2 Your new precepts will not do it, and you do well to rest satisfied without them. 3 Your total prohibition of swearing itself will not do the deed; because Christ doth only prohibit false swearing and vain swearing, he doth not prohibit swearing itself; for if swearing itself were prohibited, it would never be lawful to swear in any case; even as adultery itself is prohibited, and therefore it is not lawful to commit adultery in any case. I hope you will distinguish between vain swearing, and swearing itself; if swearing itself be prohibited, I must not swear for the public good, because I must not do any thing that is prohibited, though it tend to the public good. You wonder to hear me speak of Smalcius, and demand who is not of that opinion? Sir, remember that you say, [Christ hath superadded to the old Commandment a total universal prohibition of swearing itself, making that as unlawful now, as perjury was before,] pag. 120. Now for a man that maintains this, to say likewise that it is lawful to swear for the public good, is to speak like Smalcius, etc. Examine well whether you be not guilty of the sin of dogmatizing: for I know if you did not condescend too passively to take up both opinions, you have reason enough to discern that these opinions do fight with one another. Sir, I have proved it already; take one argument more. If swearing itself be as unlawful now, as perjury was before Christ came in the flesh, than it is as unlawful to swear for the public good, as for a man to forswear himself for the public good, which I hope you will not affirm. A man may be lawfully called to swear, but no man can be lawfully called to forswear himself; Ergo swearing itself is not as unlawful as perjury. If you wonder that rational men should contradict themselves, I answer they seldom do it but upon a design; and I could easily guess at the design, but you have taught me to be more reserved. In the 12 page of your last Answer, you say, That what is forbidden by reduction is not so deeply obliging; and therefore I stumble at your notion of reduction, considering that you say, Fornication is forbidden by reduction in the seventh Commandment. Sir, I think myself as deeply obliged to abstain from fornication as from adultery, I mean, by the same Authority. Moreover you plead there, that Christ may be said to have added to the third Commandment, because he forbids swearing by any thing else as well as by God. 1 Were men at liberty before Christ came to swear by any creature? 2 We may now in some cases swear by God, but in no case by the creature; and therefore swearing by God is not totally and universally forbidden, as swearing by the creature is. You tell me that Schindler is as venerable an Author as Pagnine; truly Sir, I am not ashamed to profess that I have profited by that edition of Pagnine which Mercer put forth. If you conceive Grotius more venerable than Mercer, he will assure you that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprie significat vanum. R. Isaac Abarbinel on the 20 of Exod. saith, the word is taken so largely in the third Commandment as to comprehend both vain and false oaths. If I had said, false oaths had not been prohibited in the third Commandment, I would have considered your argument drawn from the signification of the word in the ninth Commandment. If you please to consult R. David Kimchi in libro Radicum, he will prove by the Talmud jerusal▪ and Onkelos, that the word signifies frustra, & sine causâ; and that he who sweareth that figs are figs, is to be punished for swearing in vain; he citys the 1 Sam. 25. 21. to prove that the word signifies vain, [surely in vain have I kept.] David doth not say he kept Nabals cattle falsely, but in vain; nay, you will find, that they tell you that a false oath is forbidden, because what is false is vanity, and Tohu, and nothing. I cited R. Abraham Aben-Ezra on the the third Commandment; and he will tell you, that one that hath accustomed himself to swear vainly, will swear in one day oaths without number; and if you reprove him for swearing, he will swear that he did not swear, and much more to this purpose. See R. Solomon jarchi, if you please; you will find, they all come to this, non assumes nomen Domini gratis, frustra, in vanum; and therefore you need not reject, what was humbly tendered to you, with so much scorn and indignation. You say, by [would be forbidden] you did in effect mean were forbidden. I do not understand what you mean, when you say you did in effect mean it: but let that pass. I understand you better when you talk of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉: I forgive you: and if that be part of your Rhetoric, I do not envy you, and will not imitate you. I pass on to your scanning of the third Report. 1 Sir, if you did not doubt, you did ill to speak doubtfully; for your doubtful expressions may help to make or keep others doubtful. 2 You acknowledge something worse than that I charged you with, namely, that you used that expression to serve them, [Who think our natural aversion from God, and inclination to all sin, to be no sin, but an infelicity, unless actually consented to,] by labouring to do them good upon their own principles. Sir, men cannot be brought to true repentance upon false principles; if men's principles are corrupt, refute their principles, and instruct them better, that they may be better principled; Otherwise if you build upon a false foundation, your building cannot stand, and they will be hardened in their impenitence by your connivance. Be pleased to take notice, that this corrupt opinion is not a fouleabasing principle, but rather a selfe-exalting error; and therefore the pressing of such a principle upon them, will never humble them. If you had told them, that we are all by nature spiritually dead, in a polluted and cursed condition, this might humble them; but if you serve men upon their own proud principles, they will take it for granted that their principles are good, and grow the prouder. No man can conceive true godly sorrow for his actual sins, who doth deny the very root and fountain of all his sins to be a sin. 3 You suppose, that corruption is not cherished in some act, and conclude, ergo, in that act it is not cherished; just idem per idem. 4 You are desired to prove what you take for granted: is not that equal? I say, that original sin is truly and properly a sin in them that are not of age to consent to it; and that every actual sin in men of ripe years, is not actually and formally consented to; corruption is so strong in us, that it doth many times break forth without our consent; and I am ready to prove both propositions, if you doubt of them. 5 You were ill advised to pass a compliment in a Practical Catechism, with men of corrupt opinions, contrary to your own principles. 6 You mention the Socinians very often; but let me entreat you to be wiser: do not provoke me to make a parallel between your expressions and theirs. I take not upon me to know any man's opinion, or his heart, any further than his words declare both. 7 When I spoke of a Liturgy that was in design, you know I did not mean the Common-prayer-book. 8 For your View of the Directory, do not magnify it till you have finished your task; never talk of the suffrages of the Jews, Heathens, or Mahometans, but speak to the point; I have shown you the point in question. 9 You would have Doxologies and Creeds: is this worth answering? doth not the Directory take in the whole Scripture for a Liturgy? and are there not Doxologies enough, and Creed enough (even all things necessary to salvation) in the holy Scripture? When the confession of faith is published to the world, you will find this Reverend Assembly (so much scorned in that Book you subscribe to) be no enemies to any Orthodox Creed: and you may, amongst the rules and directions about the Sacrament, in the Ordinance of Octob. 20. 1645. see that we have not forgot our Creed. 10 I am not at leisure to dispute with you about sitting at Sacrament; the Parliament is not guilty of your illogicall conclusions, though you would fain expose them to contempt in your View of the Dirictory, View Dir. ca 1. p. 1. If it please you, we will put it to the question, Whether the Directory (in which there is the wisdom of two Parliaments, two Assemblies, which I oppose to your wisdom) or your Pract. Catechism give more countenance to Socinian errors and practices? I will dispute this question with you where you please, and when you please. 1 Show me where the Directory doth enjoin all communicants to sit in the act of receiving. 2 Tell me whether all familiarity with Jesus Christ doth infer an equality. 3 Doth any Socinian think himself equal with Christ, or conceive that there is no more honour due to Christ, then to a mere man? Pray, do the Socinians no wrong, they will say as you say, That Christ did not bless us till after his resurrection, till he became an everlasting Priest; and ever since he was such a Priest, he hath all power in heaven and earth, a power equal to God's power, and therefore Divine honour is due to him. Sed tum cultum qui nunc Christo debetur postquam in coelis esse coepit, qui est, ut ipsi tanquam Deo confidamus, & omnia ab illo speremus, & petamus quae ad salutem aeternam pertinent, adeoque ipsam aeternam salutem dicimus ei deberi, non propter qualemcunque, sed talem & tantam potestatem quae par sit Dei potestati, Smalcius refutat. prim. lib. Smig. de erroribus Arianorum, cap. 11. p. 109. Sir, I will give you a better Argument against the Directory, and for the common-prayer-book; you may read it, View of the Directory, page 27 [It is not necessary to exchange the pleasant easy course of our Liturgy, for the tedious, toilsome, lesse-profitable course in the Directory.] Tell Prelates and Courtiers of ease and pleasure, and you win their hearts. This was a good Argument for an University Orator to urge, but this same word Ergo spoils all such Rhetorical arguments. I hasten to your discourse about godly sorrow: This is your first assertion. 1 Godly sorrow may be conceived for the pollutions of our nature, as infelicities, if not as sins. Be pleased to prove this proposition; and I will abide by it, and maintain the negative. 2 He which doubts whether original sin be a sin, may conceive godly sorrow for it, this is the second dictate. But your third Dictate is admirable. 3 He that thinks inclination to sin no sin, but when he actually consents to it, may when he doth not consent to it, grieve for it as an infelicity. Sir, the question is of Godly sorrow: is it godly sorrow, or is it not, for a man, to grieve for an infelicity, which, as he conceives, is no way sinful? 4 You say, If a man look upon original sin as a pollution, though not as a sin, he may grieve for it with a godly sorrow. I had thought that all pollution of the soul of man had been by sin only, Mar. 7. 23. You are much mistaken, when you say, that they who think original sin no sin, may be advised to true grief and sorrow for it on their own principles. If by true grief you mean a godly sorrow, no man mourns for sin after a godly manners but he that grieves for it as a sin against God. Sir, in a Practical Catechism, you should have laid undeniable grounds of repentance; and therefore either plainly proved, or at least resolutely asserted original sin to be a sin, without any ifs or and's: For where shall a man begin in his repentance, if he be not convinced that original sin is a sin? should he not lay the axe to the root of corruption, and bewail the fountain of pollution? will not he be apt to doubt whether actual sins be sins, who doubts whether an inclination to all sin be a sin? surely such an acute wretch will say, My inclination to such and such an act is natural, and not evil. Ergo this and the like acts, to which I am naturally inclined, are not evil. You know that I could add; let me beseech you to consider what hath been said, and I will pass on to your fourth report. Your fourth Report concerns Justification. Sir, I did not desire you to give an account of your faith, but I should have been glad that you would have vouchsafed an answer to my quaeres. I thank you for your second acknowledgement that you were misinformed, and I thank you for your endeavour to prevent mistakes. Truly Sir, I do not wilfully mistake your sense, nor do I desire to take any advantage of an hasty expression. Your first Proposition is, that justification is divine acceptation and pardon of sin. I will not stand to ask you why you put acceptation before pardon; it is likely that was not done de industrià; but I would know why you speak of remission and acceptation, and leave out imputation? I observe, that in your second proposition you do affirm that [The mercy of God, through the satisfaction and merits of Christ, is the sole cause of this justification.] Do not think me too curious, since you desire me to give my opinion of these propositions; you know, there are some that distinguish between a first and second justification; and they do express themselves warily, and they will grant what you say, so you will give them leave to choose which they mean, this, or that justification. But I will judge charitably of you, hoping that by this justification you intent not to imply that there is another justification; and so, as they say, a first and second justification. Give me leave to ask you a question or two about the second proposition, compared with the fourth, and with some passages in your Practical Catechism, that by a clear answer to a few quaeres, many mistakes may be prevented. In your second proposition you say, The mercy of God, through the satisfaction and merits of Christ, is the sole cause of justification. In your Catechism you say, Pract. Cat. p. 5. That Christ did sacrifice himself for all the sin of all mankind; and yet in your fourth proposition in this last return you say [That this work of grace in God through Christ, is not every man's portion.] Sir, if Christ's satisfaction be the sole cause, and he hath made satisfaction for every man, the grace of God (which extends as far as Christ's satisfaction) must be the portion of every man for his justification by the obedience of Christ alone. My first quaere then is, 1 Why the grace of God in justifying those for whom Christ hath satisfied, doth not extend to every man for whom he hath satisfied? 2 Whether the qualification and condition, which you require in the subject be bestowed upon the elect absolutely or conditionally? Regeneration you say is a condition which doth dispose the subject for justification, that is, for acceptance and pardon, as I conceive, and you express. Pray Sir, show me what condition God requires unregenerate persons to perform, that they may attain unto regeneration, which you take to be the condition of justification. I acknowledge, that God doth never justify an impenitent infidel in sensu composito, that is, the infidel doth not remain an impenitent infidel; but than you must grant on the other side, that God doth justify the ungodly. 3 Whether there be any condition which doth so qualify the subject, as that you can say, by these habits, acts, vows, and these only I am justified? Pract. Catech. page 28. Sir, Learned men say that there is no condition required to dispose the subject for justification; but there is a condition, namely Faith, bestowed upon none but the elect, to receive the object of justification, Christ, and his complete obedience, perfect righteousness; and hence (as I conceive) some men (that meant well) say, there is a condition required, that is, to receive the object; and others say, there is no condition required, that is, to dispose or qualify the subject, so as that the subject shall be constituted righteous by that disposition or qualification. I speak as plainly as I can devise, that there may be no mistake. God doth by his free and effectual grace work the hearts of his elect to receive Christ, that they may be justified; not by their own obedience, or vow of obedience, but by the obedience of Christ alone, freely imputed by God, and rested on by faith only. Moreover, Learned men do distinguish between disposing of the subject to salvation (which is the last part of the execution of God's decree of election) and disposing the subject unto justification: though they grant that there is a condition to enable the subject to receive the object Jesus Christ, who is jehovah our righteousness. And therefore Protestants do maintain, that all the habits and acts of grace which are in the best of men concurring together, are not sufficient to justify a man before God, and therefore faith concurring with a vow of obedience, or any faithful actions, cannot justify us: Though faith alone be said to justify us Relatively, that is, in regard of the object received by faith. I acknowledge with you, that justification is God's act, we cannot pardon out selves, and God sitting as a fatherly Judge upon a throne of grace, doth justify us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as chrysostom upon the 8. of Rom. 33. vers. Sir, let me entreat you not to wonder, that I find fault with some passages in your Book, which you say are in effect places of Scripture. Sir, to abuse the Scripture for the maintenance of any error, is to my apprehension a great deal worse than to deliver any erroneous conceits in our own language. The Papists say as you do▪ that they say no more than St. james himself saith. I did not dream that you thought Abraham was justified by the actual sacrificing of his son: Socinus saith, Abraham was justified by offering up of Isaac. I do not think he means it in any other sense then that which you repeat; namely, that Abraham was justified by a resolution to obey God in the sacrificing of his Son, not by the actual sacrificing of him. Sir, I am heartily glad to hear you acknowledge that you agree with me in the conclusion: be pleased to retract all that is contrary to that conclusion in your Pract. Catechism, and then I am sure you must retract what I complained of. Pray Sir, do you not think that we are justified by a sincere vow of obedience, as truly as we are by faith? that is, that our vow of obedience is a condition of Justification; I do not say an instrument, for you deny faith to be an instrument of justification. And therefore if a sincere vow of obedience be the condition of justification, we are justified as truly by that, as by faith. 2 Consider that you say in this last return, p. 20. [The condition must be undertaken before the Covenant belongs to me.] This vow or resolution of obedience is, as I conceive, that which you call the undertaking of the condition; why then surely obedience is the condition of the Covenant of justification, for obedience is that which is undertaken in a vow of obedience. 3 If by Covenant you mean the whole Covenant of grace, you must make some condition go before our regeneration also. 4 You know the Papists speak as fully as you do any where for the meritorious satisfaction of Christ: but you know what they say of the praevious dispositions, to dispose and qualify the subject for justification; and you know what others say of the vow of obedience. 5 Though to give a pardon be God's act, yet to receive forgiveness is an act of faith. Acts. 26. 18. We do not receive a pardon by an act of charity, or by a vow of obedience, or receiving of Christ as King, and giving up the obedience of the heart to him; I believe you have not forgotten these expressions which are scattered up and down in your Catechism and Papers. If faithful actions be the only thing whereby a man is justified, as you affirm page 28. then are we not justified only by a vow of obedience. If faith be unsufficient to our justification, unless it be consummate by love, that is, by acts of Christian charity, or keeping the Commandments of God, as you expound that phrase, page 35. then sure you cannot say you plead only for justification by a vow of obedience. Unless you will make a first and second justification, I do not see how you can come off. On the other side, if we are justified by a vow of personal obedience, than we are not justified by the obedience of Christ alone, or by faith only; I mean, by the obedience of Christ, as that obedience whereby we are constituted righteous; nor by faith only, as that whereby we receive a pardon; receive Christ as jehovah our righteousness; and therefore truly Sir, I do not yet see how you can agree with me in my conclusion; namely, that we are justified by the obedience of Christ alone, freely imputed by God, applied and rested on by faith only, unless you will retract those passages in your Book, which were justly complained of, for the good of you, and this whole University. I speak plainly and freely, as it becometh Octob. 30. 1646. Your Friend to serve you Fr. Cheynell. SIR, ON Saturday, October 31. I received your Papers (dated the day before) by way of return to mine of October 20. That night I got a liberty from other avocations to read them over, and am now on Monday at the beginning of the week following on preparation to give you some account of them. Your letter which conducted them was but brief, yet was willing to take notice of one particular, that of your having written 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which though it be only a grammatical 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and very extrinsical to the matter in hand, yet seeing you are pleased to make it the only subject of those few lines, I must in civility tell you somewhat of your manner of excusing it. 1 That literal mistake you know you were guilty of, and I only told you that you were so, and added not one word more. Instead of excusing or confessing it, you now desire me only to pardon the mistakes of an ill Amanuensis, and add your reasons that forced you to make use of him. Sir, I will do more than you desire. First, I will pardon that former mistake in yourself also; and tell you, that in one that undertakes to be a Scholar, (and to be very severe to those writings of other men, which many pious persons have been willing to receive with some kindness, and now profess to see no kind of ground for your quarrels in them,) the not spelling so plain a word of Greek, would by very many men be hardly excused; I mean, it would take off from their opinion of your learning, as much as if you had written impius with a [y,] that is, more than many faults of a higher nature could be fit to do. Secondly, I will believe (or excuse) your saying, that your haste forced you to dictate to an ill Amanuensis, when I have some reasons to think it did not. 1 Because you had had my last Return in your hands ten days, and I suppose the occasion that caused your haste, was not known to you all that time, or more days than one or two of them: for I profess to think your avocation so very urgent, and should be sorry to hear that I was the occasion of detaining you one minute; but then before you knew of it, I suppose that did not force you to choose this shorter way. This was my first reason. 2 Because the Amanuensis was so far from being an ill one, that in the whole paper I know but of one failing in the kind forementioned: and that is in the word Sacrifice, where in stead of the letter c. there is s, which is in effect to write facio with s. But then upon the first sight this plainly appears to be your own hand, interposing this word in stead of another blotted out, as you know I can discern both by your former Letters, and by the like alterations in other places of these Papers. This again inclines me to believe, that the dictating you mention, might be designed a little to conceal such slips which might possibly fall from you, and that it was not forced by your haste only. My third Reason is; because I conceive it far more speedy way to write from my own fancy or understanding, (which may be done without any stay but that of inventing and writing,) then to dictate to another, wherein much longer time is required for me to dictate articulately, and for him after that to write, than again to recite to me what he hath written, before I can proceed to dictate. In this I can speak but mine own, and some others sense, and the common notion that I have of it; but considering how far my notions are wont to be from pleasing you, and that 'tis possible you might mean dictating out of your Notebook, where you may have thrown together all your exceptions against that Author (for that your Amanuensis transcribed what you had formerly writ, I suppose you do not mean that by dictating,) on these grounds, I say, it is possible here may be some difference in judgement between us also. And therefore if again you tell me, that you have spoken your full sense in this particular, I shall make all haste to believe you, and ask you pardon for this importunity: Yet in the mean time I will tell you my reasons also for my being so free with you in materiâ non gravi. 1 Because I discerned so little in your future discourse which would be more pertinent to the matter of my last return; having found, that after my having answered or laid grounds of answering near twenty questions in your last Paper, more than the matter in hand, or my leisure engaged me to, you have thought fit to spring new matters of controversy, and to that purpose (that you may never fail of the like matter) to catechise me in a strange number of questions more; when the whole intention of my Paper was, that it might be considered, whether you had not wronged that Author in your first quarrels at that Book; and not to engage myself in discourse for ever with him that had so little pleasure in any thing of mine. 2 Because by some such infirmities as these being represented to you, you might think it possible for you to mistake in greater matters. For truly, I think it far more possible for a Scholar (that reads hastily, and is intent to note and number faults) to impose causelessely upon his Author, then to commit such slips, (and not mend them at the review) when he writes as hastily. And truly if I did not believe that this which I have written were fit to persuade you that this were possible; and did I not hope, that being calmly mentioned to you, it would persuade you, I would not venture it to your eyes; and if I am mistaken in my belief or hope, do but tell me so, and I promise you to retract my error, to ask you pardon in my next, and (to repair all the injury that can be possibly consequent to the error) to throw thus much of the Paper into the fire, and not to permit it to the eyes of any other judge or witness, when you have thus signified your pleasure to me. I shall now proceed to your enclosed; and for your first period, [where you repeat only, and say you have done;] I answer, that I have done also. In the repetition of the discourse of exact account, etc. there is a great mistake, viz. That, because when I was at highest I would have showed as much civility towards any Minister of Christ, as I did toward you, therefore my present desiring an exact account of your speeches concerning the Author of the Catechism was the exercising jurisdiction over you. I must needs tell you that in my opinion height and dignity in the Church, is not a proper ground of lessening civility, but an obligation to increase it to all Ministers of Christ, from that example of our Saviour, who when he acknowledges the title of Lord from the Disciples to be well bestowed on him, joh. 13. 13. doth yet wash their feet, and give them an example of doing the like, (v. 14.) when they are at the highest also, and so Matth. 20. 27. and in the parallel places, he requires them to express their greatness in the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and sets them his own copy of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and you shall have my opinion (and I should be glad to be told of it, if my practice hath not been agreeable to it) that (as he that is not the more liberal and extensively charitable for having received the benefit of Ecclesiastical preferments, so) he that is not the more civil and truly humble for having received any dignity in the Church, hath somewhat of the Gentiles 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in him, and hath no countenance from Christ, or Apostolical institution or practice, for that misbehaviour in his dignity. From hence Sir, I will leave (and not help) you to conclude, that how civil soever I would have been to any Minister in any degree of greatness, or how civil soever any General may be, if he please, to his soldiers, my being thus civil now, (and no more) is not exercising jurisdiction over you, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, the only thing which I had then to demonstrate; and so I have said enough (and shall consent to the truth of your [too much]) of that also. Next for your grave smile, I shall not question it, or deny you those delights, so the ridentem dicere verum may go along with it, but sure the graver the smile was, the more it became you not to impose on me the exercising jurisdiction over you then, or challenging you now, while I only desired and begged, requested and reinforced my request, (that you would give me an exact account of what you had publicly said of that Author) on purpose that I might think no ill of you causelessly; Certainly Sir, such a carriage as this, thus grounded and designed, will neither provoke a grave smile, nor pass either for act of jurisdiction or for challenge; or if it must, no man shall ever be admonished for having trespassed against a brother, and so be brought to repentance for it, Matth. 18. 15. nor shall he that hears (or hath matter of suspicion) that any injury hath been done him by another, have means of knowing surely whether he hears or suspects with cause, or no. As for your affirmation, That sure I am too angry when I say you have reproached and slandered me, from whence you conceive, I endeavour to make you happy. Sir, it is a heap of mistakes. For, 1 by the grace which I meekly acknowledge to have received from God, I have been enabled (and I conceive, in some measure made use of the ability, by the help of the same grace) to hear that I have been reproached by you, and to tell you so, without being too angry, and therefore you are not sure. 2 I did not say you had reproached and slandered me (your additions are always to some advantage of your own;) I only said [to this reproach of yours] which I conceive was not said without cause; For [to say, that my desiring an exact account of you, and not of others, (when I knew not of any other) was to fall foul on you,] cannot be less than a reproach; nay, your addition was true, (though then I did not say it, and now I transcribe it from your Paper, without any passion,) it was a slander also. 3 He that is too angry, doth not at all (by that act) endeavour to make him happy with whom he is too angry; at least, not by the importance of that Text, Matth. 5. 11. unless the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 be added to it; and that you do not in this pretend I was guilty of: of which yet I confess to have been as guilty in those words, as of the too much anger. 4 It ought to be proved, that my calling your words a reproach was without a cause also (which you do not attempt to do,) or else from thence your conclusion had no right to he induced. In the next business, concerning my return to the passage read out of the Catechism in your Carfax-Sermon, you are in great haste, passing through all the many pages which I had sent you to satisfy you about that matter, till you meet with a citation of the View of the Directory: and then you think you have an occasion to leap into a new field, and presently tell me of my fatherly smile upon that pretty babe; (I beseech you, be more solemn, and impose not on me either smiles or fondness to any creature of mine; or however, do not first feign smiles, and then build conclusions upon them) and without more ado you spend four Sections in ask me questions, and setting me tasks about that View of the Directory, and several passages in that Author. I cannot think this is the way of replying; it is certainly at the best, diverting to another matter. But Sir, in your speedy passage to this other field you scattered something which I shall not despise so far as not to take up after you; and tell you, 1 That (whatever you did) you ought to have believed, from the very nature and importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, that the advantage which I made of it was very proper to be made: and why you tell me you never thought it, and neither answer my reason, nor give me any to the contrary, I cannot imagine; in your haste, that unimportant speech of yours might have been omitted as well as any other. 2 For those speeches of mine (whereon you judge my uncharitableness, and are pleased to express your sorrow for it,) I must profess you have wholly mistaken them; and I think that is done by you very unseasonably, at the very minute when you had said you desire not to mistake my meaning, and are so kind as to be sorry for me. For let me tell you, that such mistake are least incident to them that are such lovers of truth, and so sorry to see others uncharitable. Now for your mistakes, I conceive they will be clear to any man that reads the words; I am sure they are to me, that know my sense: I said, That if I thought you sought for any thing but exceptions, I would add as to a Scholar and a friend, etc. This no way intimates my looking on you as no Scholar, or no Friend to me, much less as on my unlearned enemy (which again you add supra computum;) I beseech you, do so no more, for there is difference betwixt no friend and an enemy, as betwixt positive hating and negative not-loving) but rather that I did look on you (and meant to deal with you) as both a Scholar and a Friend, if that only third thing, my thought that you did not seek for any thing but exceptions] did not interpose and hinder me. From this 'tis clear, that the utmost that could be charged upon that speech, was my thought that you sought not for any thing but exceptions; which if I had been guilty of, I do not yet discern it had been uncharitable, because in all the passages between you and me at this time, exceptions at that Author, and at my words, have been the whole affair discernible by me, and so there was no ground to oblige my charity to think (whatsoever possibility might be, on which to hope) any other of you. But I shall not need grant you that my former speech intimated this neither; for my words, taken and joined with what follows, do not so much as intimate that I did positively think, etc. (for beside that suppositio non ponit, and [if] is but a mark of a supposition) my doing the contrary to that which would have regularly been superstructed on that thought, (as it is apparent I do, by my freely adding my whole sense in the words immediately following) makes that [if] to be far from an intimation by which you might conclude that I did think what is there mentioned. He that proposes hypothetically [if a man were any better than a stone, than he would learn something] and then assume not that he learns nothing, but chose within few lines affirms that he doth learn very aptly, doth certainly not so much as intimate by that [if] that he is no better than a stone, but rather clearly affirms the contrary. Be pleased to apply it to the case in hand, and you will find you were too hasty to conclude me uncharitable, as before you were too willing to conclude me angry. In the next place; whereas you add, That I profess, not to cast up a ball of new contention, but only am pleased to refer you to another Book, the view of the Direct. This, I suppose, was a product of your haste also, for the former part of that speech was by me delivered of one thing, viz. of that account given you ex abundanti of my sense of that whole matter about Liturgy, among the Apostles, which therefore was not in any reason to become matter of new contention, for then there would be no end. But the second thing (my reference to the View of the Direct.) came in afterwards, in my answer to your first question, and that too with a [besides] a note of an ex abundanti also, when I had before sufficiently answered your question, at least so answered as that you reply not to it. What you meant by making this change, and mixing of things so distant, you will (I hope) upon examination of yourself remember. And I beseech you, for my sake to do it, that there may hereafter be some few less material passages in your discourse, which may be pased over by me without occasion of confuting: For as yet you see there hath been nothing of any deep consideration, and yet nothing that deserved not some animadversion. Sir, I come now to the new field you desire to lead me to, the several passages which you now newly mention in the View of the Directory, and the tasks and questions that you offer me on that new occasion, without any the least temptation offered by me to bring you to it (for they are not those places which I had referred you to, to which you make these exceptions,) and which is most unreasonable, before you had either said one word in answer to what I had now produced on that matter, or confess yourself satisfied with it: I must leave you again to pass sentence on yourself for this behaviour; and to consider, that you have no way encouraged me to undertake all your commands, or defend at this time every part of every Book which you shall have leisure to except against. Yet Sir, I am resolved to fail you in nothing that you can vouchsafe to think reasonable for you to expect, on condition that for the future you will weigh your scruples better before you throw them into your Papers. First you say, the Author of that View lays down this rule, pag. 2. Nothing is necessary in the worship of God, but what God hath prescribed.] and from thence demand how many severals of the common-prayer-book, that are purposely left out in the Directory, are prescribed by God? This will be very admirable to him that looks on that 2 page of that View. For first, that which you say, that lays down for a rule, is there produced only as a ground of the adversary with whom the Author of the View, there disputes, in these plain words [I shall suppose it granted by them with whom I now dispute, that nothing is necessary, etc.] If I shall labour at any time to confute or answer you by an argumant or answer ad hominem, by urging somewhat against you, that you take for a principle, and mention it as a thing which I suppose granted by you, would you ever think fit to impose this principle of yours as a rule laid down by me? If you will offer to do this, or now conceal that you do it, and make advantage of it, there is no disputing with you. But than secondly, you must take notice what 'twas that the Author of the View was there a proving, not any necessity of retaining all or any of the severals of our Liturgy, but that there was no necessity of abolishing the Book, etc. That was the easy task he had to prove against them that affirmed to think it necessary to abolish it: and you must not set that inanimate book new tasks (as you do me;) or if you do, you must not thus expect to be obeyed. Now I have gone thus far; I do remember to have heard that you objected some such thing to the Author of that View (under the title of the same person who was the Author of the Catechism) in your Carfax-Sermon, and challenged him to prove that our Liturgy was necessary. If the having said it there, and having concealed it when you were pleased to give me an account of that Sermon, caused or occasioned your inserting it in this place, then though it be now a kind of restitution to give it me here, which then you were willing to keep from me, (of which nature I have heard of more, which I shall anon mention to you,) yet shall I not thank you for it, because you do it under another species; but shall only complain, that both there and here you were either very unkind in not observing the main argument of that whole first part of that Book, or else very unjust, if you did discern it, and were willing to impose so distant a theme upon that Author. To your second accusation, I must as briefly say, that that Author abuses neither Presbyterian nor Independent; only mentions the several influences which he professes himself forced to believe that they had, the one sort into the premises, the other into the conclusion; and renders his reasons for it, because the conclusion is very distant from what the premises would necessarily infer (viz. a necessity of abolishing our Book, when none of the three premises ascended near so high) and that which the Presbyterians, as he conceives, would not affirm, (for sure all of that persuasion do not, or have not always thought it necessary to abolish set Forms:) and I now demand of you, whether in this thought he did abuse them; or if not, what else he did say of them that can deserve that phrase from you. For the arguments proposed by either] as far as the Book with which he undertook to deal did propose or intimate them, you know he hath answered them; and till those answers are disproved, they may pass for good ones. For your challenge in the name of your Reverend Brethren of Scotland, I know not what occasioned it, unless some citations out of Mr. Knox's Liturgy: and if those were not rightly cited, the pages are noted in the margin, and will presently enable you to disprove them. To your third of Mr. Cottons arguments against set Forms, the business of that View tempted not that Author, nor doth our present matter of debate incline me to think them necessary to be taken in. It is not every man's work to do every thing at every time: yet perhaps it might be answer sufficient to you, to tell you that it appears not to me by any thing that here you say, that you believe set Forms unlawful; and till you profess you do, you are perhaps as much obliged to answer Mr. Cottons arguments, as that Author; I am sure, as much as he is obliged to show how many things are prescribed by God, and rejected by you in the Directory, when he looks not on the Liturgy which he defends, as any of Gods prescribing, but only presses the no-necessity (from thence or from other grounds) of abolishing it, and after proceeds to some other particulars about it; but no where to the divine prescription of it. If by the answering your Brethren of Scotland, you mean any arguments of theirs against set Forms (as you seem to do by joining them with Mr. Cotton) I am persuaded by some part of that View (viz. by the Authors producing the practice of the Scots for set Forms) that he never dreamt they had appeared against them, at least so far as to think abolishing necessary (which was his only point in hand,) and then you must excuse him that he did not know first, and then not answer them. Yet after all this, what occasion you had to accuse him of triumphing, or of doing it before victory, (when you bring no objection against that victory, but only his not-answering Mr. Cotton, etc. (which were things to which his present task obliged him not, nor so much as intimated that it did;) and when you object not one word against his answers to that which he did undertake) I can no more guess, then at the reason why that Author might not (for some things which he had so particularly defended, and was never confuted by any) refer you to Mr. Hooker, or why the state of the question is so varied, as you say it is. For the fourth charge and question [How it will be proved necessary, that any whole set Form of Liturgy should be rigorously imposed, etc.] all that I shall need to say in vindication of that Author is, that he is never forced by the task before him to prove any such thing; if it be not necessary to be abolished, it is enough for his turn against his adversary. And then for your opinion of the matter or object of my passionate longing, or earnest contention (who, I thank God, am at this time neither passionate, nor longing, nor earnest, nor contentious for any thing but that you would permit me to to be quiet) I shall not need be much concerned, because all that you bring to prove all this against me, is, that if it be not true, you are much mistaken: in which you cannot blame me, if I grant the conclusion, because 'tis easier far than the other member, which you have left me, [viz. to prove clearly and undeniably▪] which sure is not every man's task, especially when you are the person I must approve these proofs to. Only I must desire you to remember, that to make it unlawful to use this set Form, is much more than to relaxate or forbid a rigorous imposing; and the former of these had been possible to have been done, without the latter. 5 For my not owning a necessity, that the Liturgy form in the Apostles times should be continued in the Church, i. e. (as I there express) that that very Liturgy should be continued without any alteration or additions, I am content to join with you; but wish you had not mangled my words; 1 by putting in alienation and exchange (which is there applied to lands, not to Liturgy; and only used as a resemblance to show that he that saith, [The holy Ghost enabled a Ministry to form a Liturgy to continue] doth not affirm that it was necessary to continue, any more than he that leaves land to continue to his heirs, obliges them from ever alienating, etc. which similitude will enforce à majore, what I conclude from it, the no-necessity of not adding or altering that Liturgy; but (whatsoever it might do) is not there brought home to that of alienating, etc. because it is not by him that brought it, applied so far, (as you will see in the place.) 2 By saying, That I give the present Church leave to judge of the Liturgy composed in the time of the Apostles, and to make (as what alterations and additions, which only I did say, so) what alienation or exchange shall seem fit to the present Church. Wherein you have inserted and imposed on me almost every word recited particularly [the present Church, etc.] in stead of [the Church] (which signified quite another matter, viz. the Church either of those Apostolical men, or those next following them,) and the Church again not only in order to adding or altering as they should think fit, but (which differs much from it) of abolishing, as the affair now stands; or, as you there say, alienating and exchanging: (not to mention, that I no where have yet given that Church leave indefinitely to judge of the Liturgy, much less the present Church to judge so far as to alienate.) Certainly a man may affirm, that the Church next after the Apostles times may have leave to alter somewhat, (as occasions might alter,) and to add somewhat (as they thought fit) to the constant Forms used by the Apostles, and so to settle somewhat in the Church (by that adding) which might supply the place of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which the Apostles had above the succeeding Church, and yet not give the present Church of England, or any persons in it, which are not the present Church in any notion of it, leave to cast out all set Forms, particularly those which without any alteration, those first ages of the Church had delivered down to us from the Apostles. So again afterwards, you much vary the state, when you talk of men of ordinary gifts taking upon them to pass a peremptory sentence for alienation or exchange. Who would think that [the Primitive Churches thinking fit to add or alter,] should be so improved under your hands? (I beseech you once more never to alter one word in the period with which you are displeased; for other men that are in any degree credulous, or not very wary, may be deceived by your doing so; though you see I am not altogether so ignorant of my own sense, or of your wont, as to depend on you without examining.) You see now how little right your conclusion of that fifth Sect. had to be induced upon any words of mine: and yet let me tell you, that if it were granted you possible, That a Minister may pray as in a Congregation without the use of the Liturgy form in the Apostles times, etc. nay, without the help of the late common-prayer-book, yet will it not follow from thence, that it is well done to abolish (with this Liturgy) all set Forms, much less that it was necessary to abolish this. To your sixth you already discern my answer, that neither I nor the Author of the View are obliged to show you any Liturgy, and avouch that it is (I suppose you mean) that form in the Apostles times without any interpolation, etc. In your seventh you will not spend time about the miraculous gift of prayer, (which if you had done, and observed the use that I there made of that doctrine to the present purpose, it would have stood you in some stead, at least kept you from being ignorant of my sense, and (the consequent of it) your ask of more questions,) and I will not spend any more time about your several questions then to tell you, that all that I now, or the Author of the View contend for, doth not prove us concerned in those new quaeres: for were it granted, that there were an ordinary gift of prayer, and that to be stirred up and exercised, that Ministers should study to pray seasonably, (which I suppose is not to pray ex tempore because you say study) that he that hath not ordinary wisdom to pray as he ought, is not called by Christ to be a Minister of the Gospel, (and yet sure he that hath that ordinary wisdom to pray as he ought upon premeditation, may pray as he ought not, upon sudden effusion; and the Liturgy would a little prevent that, and perhaps enable him to pray more to the edification of the people, than he is able to do, who yet is able in some degree to pray as he ought) and that it doth not follow that the Liturgies under the name of St. James and St. Mark should be rigorously imposed, nay, that it were true that there are some endued with the spirit of prayer, (as that is by you set, for somewhat more than the ordinary gift, and which it will be heard for any man to demonstrate to others that he is truly possessed of) were, I say, all this granted to you, yet sure from all this heap of data (if they were concessa too) it would not follow that it was necessary, or so much as tolerably well done, to abolish all set Forms in the public service of God, which was the prime thing by that View insisted on. To your eight [about Psalms and use of the Lords prayer,] I was not to be accused for too slight a view of the Direct. but you for not observing to what purpose I now mentioned these. It was to show the use of set Forms in the Apostles times, and then 1 You must mark, that the using of some set Psalms by all the people as a part of prayer or thanksgiving, differs somewhat from reading them as any other piece of Scripture; and let me tell you by the way, that either the singing of them, or the manner of reading them alternatim, is a mark (though not inseparable) of that difference. 2 That the recommending the Lords Prayer is not so much as the Apostles constant using it in their service, (especially of the Eucharist) nor proportionable to our Saviour's [When you pray, say, Our Father,] and yet I suppose you will not doubt to observe with me, that there are many that acknowledge it recommended in the Directory, that constantly abstain from using it in their Pulpits. 3 That I conceive myself to have demonstrated more than the use of Psalms and the Lords Prayer (if by demonstrating you mean proving by the authority of Witnesses fide digni, (which is the highest way of demonstration, that matters of fact are capable of.) 4 That [for your rule of holding forth such things as are of divine institution in every ordinance, and setting forth other things according to the rules of Christian Prudence agreeable to the general rules of the Word of God; this is not the first time you have been told, that it is an excellent rule, and that it is far from concluding any necessity of abolishing all set Forms; or even all or any part of our present Liturgy. As for the cause I have of complaining of discord and confusion in your public Worship, I am not engaged by any thing I have said to give you any answer; having not ventured on such a degree of boldness, to speak so grossly either against the general use of the Directory, or against any of your particular exercises of your gifts. Lastly, I acknowledge I did tell you, that we may pray as we ought without the very Liturgy form in the Apostles times, and so nothing hinders but that I may go on also to the next particular; which you will give me leave to have called the then sadder part of my task, because it was then the longest, not because it had any thing else beside the length, and other things of that nature, (supposing still that you mean not any solid exception, or any strength of argument to be repelled) which might make it either task, or sad to me. In that I shall not find any fault that the business of the Trinity is at length dismissed, but suppose that you have received satisfaction in that point. Only it had not been any great matter if you had vouchsafed to tell me you were so satisfied. But I must not expect those acts of grace from you. I shall therefore follow as you lead me. And 1 Sir, concerning the sad story, (as you please to call it) I am much tempted to wonder (but that I have for some time a little resolved to give over that innocent quality, and learn with Numicius that prope rem unam, Nil admirari) that it should produce but one thing in you, and that should be gladness. For though the gladness, as you have fastened it, I shall not think a fault in you, but be also glad with you, that I have disabused one offender, (whose sin no man but you, and his own soul was guilty of;) yet that it should not be matter of some sorrow or regret to you, to have been the occasion of that offence in him, (which is certainly to scandalise your weak brother and leave it still possible for many other, through that scandal to stumble and fall in like manner;) this must be matter of wonder and admiration to me, but withal of advertisement what I am to expect from you by way of return to any act of Christian admonition, and for that you shall give me leave to be heartily sorry, though you will not. For you command, [That I should venture your arguments to any Reader, etc.] I profess myself ready to obey you: and therefore shall now take boldness to tell you, that I do expect from you, according to the purport of this speech of yours, that you will give your consent that this whole matter be referred to others judgement; and to that end, that all that hath thus past between us be straightway Printed; and I will then desire no further satisfaction for the injury which I conceive myself to have received from you. As for the witness you desire the matter shall depend on, viz. that Book as it was printed at Oxford, I shall be as ready as you to stand to it, and by that to have it tried, whether the Author of that Catechism in that first edition gave any Christian man any degree of liberty (more than you yourself confess is his due) of swearing. This way of trial I shall never refuse, but profess to you (what before I told you) that the advertising you of the addition in the last edition was perfectly ex abundanti, and that the Author was justified sufficiently from the main part of that charge (viz. giving youth liberty to swear) without it. And therefore by the way let me tell you, that when that Author had in the simplicity of his heart put in those words of the primary intention to prevent all mistake in the most ignorant, (not questioning but that all ordinarily learned or intelligent would understand without it,) for you to fasten peculiarly upon that one supernumerary answer of mine, and to make such shows of triumph, and impute clancular dealing to that Author, and a great deal more, (on so no manner of grounds or probabilities, when all is laid together) is that, which you ought to lay to your heart, though you will not the sad Story. What you add again to the same purpose, after so full an answer, is like all the rest; and as I must not think that strange neither, so I despair that my repeating my former answers will provoke or invite any better dealing from you. In your next Section beginning with, [Sir, your first answer, etc.] you have, I conceive, one new mistake. For by your [mark that] twice repeated, I suppose you would have it marked that that Cat. affirms no more to be forbidden by the third Commandment, than the non-performance of promissory oaths. If you mean thus, you are much mistaken. All that is toward that sense is only this, that the second part of the words cited by Christ, [Thou shalt pay unto the Lord thy vows,] explains the meaning of the third Commandment to be against perjury or non-performance of promissory oaths. Do you now please to mark, [against perjury] not denying but that the falseness of assertory oaths, which is also perjury, is there meant by the words of the third Commandment; but giving the non-performance of promissory oaths, a special right to the negative part of that Commandment, as it is there looked on by Christ. And I beseech you consider, & pass your conjecture, what did, or could move that Author to add that distinct mention of promissory oaths in that place, but those words which there Christ recites, [Thou shalt pay, etc.] and do you tell me, if they do not peculiarly (nay, only belong to promissory, (for sure assertory oaths are not capable of being thus paid) and if the Author thus strictly desired to follow Christ's method, ought this to be imputed to him? Certainly not, when he never made question but that assertory oaths were meant also by the third Commandment, and distinctly affirmed that perjury (which sure contains that) was there forbidden. The considering of this might rather have suggested to you this truth, that that Author was careful to make it his first task, or part of his method, to weigh the literal importance of each part of the Text, and gain as much from each part, against the sin, as he was sure it would necessarily import, and then to build upon it, what by reduction, (i. e. by any thing but the primary literal importance) what by Christ's superadditions, i. e. by the words induced with a [But I say unto you] whether they note new precepts, or only new light) would be as firmly superstructed. And your want of observing this method, this design of that Author, is the likelist thing, that in charity I can pitch on for the occasion of your mistake in any part of this matter; though for your affirming that this Catechism gave any Christian liberty of swearing, I cannot be just if I speak so favourably. To this, which I conceived a new mistake in you, I must add another old one in that Section, viz. that you will still talk of my several Editions, (and not mean that last where the additions are set;) when you have been so oft assured of this truth (of which I can produce the confirmation of several oaths) that I never had the least knowledge of, or gave consent to any other but the first Oxford printing of those few Copies, and those last additions. For the second thing, which is so clear to you, 'twill be acknowledged far from being so, if I again tell you that the meaning of those words of the second question, [Whether the third Commandment is no more, etc.] is most precisely this, whether the literal importance, (or if you will, the literal meaning) of the third Commandment be no more, etc. and that will well agree with the first question, what is the meaning of the old Commandment, (viz. as 'tis delivered by Christ in these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and the consequents out of other places, Thou shalt perform, etc.) that is again the literal meaning, or the necessary importance of the words produced by Christ, agreeable to which is the answer, that 'tis set to express it to be, as literally it sounds, against perjury, etc. 3 'Tis not very reasonable for you to overrule all others, by saying the question is not, when I have as much reason to know as you, (being so well known to him that set the question) and affirm it is, or (because with you the intention of a phrase is a hard expression) to conclude from thence, that it must be explained by the intention of the Lawgiver, whereas I again tell you that the literal notation of the phrase is the thing that was meant by it, and not the intention (I mean, the total full intention) of the Lawgiver. 4 For the question of what is primary and secondary in God's intention, [which you would not have disputed,] that you ought to have spared also: for again I say, 'tis about the primary or secondary notation of the phrase. But you by drawing in (before) the intention of the Lawgiver, found it an easy change into the intention of God; but neither of those is the thing here spoken of. 5 I conceive, Christ's rendering the third Commandment by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, is, as I was then confident, (beside others) a sufficient proof that that is the primary intention of the phrase: and I have reason to continue in that opinion, because you have not dropped any word of answer to it, in all your tale of rejoinders. 6 For the doubtful [perhaps,] if I had reason to blot it out, you need not challenge me for doing what was rational: the truth is, I was not confident that every body was persuaded or could be convinced, that all foolish, wanton using of God's name (if without any kind of swearing) was forbidden in that Commandment, which only speaks of taking, or lifting up God's name, which with the Hebrews signifies swearing, and (if wisemen may be believed) nothing else: and therefore I was (according to my judgement) more willing to put in [perhaps,] then to venture a quarrel with any body in that matter; but afterwards, conceiving (reduction) would bear it, and willing to be as strict in this matter as I could possibly any way justify (God knows, far from any thought of being accused for giving liberty of swearing) I put in (idle) in stead of the word (perhaps:) and so you have, you see, the fate of shrifting me. I am not permitted to keep any thing from you; and yet desire not to burden you with a secret, or to deliver this my confession under the restraint of any seal to you. 7 I have given you grounds to discern that 'tis not so sure that foolish and wanton using of God's name is forbidden by that Commandment (in case that foolish using it be without oaths) as profane or blasphemous using it; the former of which you were told, I conceived to belong to oaths, and those unlawful oaths, (and when not to such oaths, then to something else which was equivalent to them) as [to profane,] signifies to use that commonly or unworthily, which is only to be used in holy matters, and such are oaths resolved to be, and therefore called sacramenta; and the using them in common talk, or to any but that sacred use, is to profane them; and so you see, that was a causeless exception also. For though some foolish and wanton using of God's name may be profaning it, i.e. profaning God's name, or using it less solemnly, yet is it not the profaning of a sacramentum or oath, which sure is greater than the former. 8 Your conclusion, truly, is not true; all that can be justly concluded of me from those alterations, is this, that I began to conceive that what I had said against assertory oaths, might be made more clear to all; though 'twere to me, that knew my own sense, said clearly enough before; and I ought to be thanked for this care, (especially by you, if to you it was not clear) and not so oft to be reproached for it. And I will once more profess, that to my best remembrance I made no one alteration in that Book, but only on design to explain, not to alter or retract any thing; or to alter the words that they might more fully speak my sense. I wish there were any thing would content you, but speaking against my conscience; I would not much care then, if you still called it recantation. 9 You still mistake [foolish and wanton using of God's name] for swearing: (and I will be so charitable to you, as to think this is it makes you so hard to be satisfied in this matter.) But I have oft told yond, God's name may be used without swearing, and that (not using, but) taking or lifting up his name signifies that. And then why should the [perhaps] which is not affixed to swearing, but to something else, contribute any thing toward the swearers boldness? I beseech you discern what is so manifest and so oft repeated to you. The words there are, Profane etc. is surely there forbidden] and that, I have oft showed you, contains every unholy, unlawful oath under it. For your dislike of my instance of fornication in the seventh Commandment, there is no remedy; you will not like any thing that comes from me; and yet 'tis sure enough, adultery cannot signify fornication in the primary sense, or save by reduction; and besides, if to the particular of fornication you had a propriety of dislike, the other instance of killing would serve the turn, and that you might possibly have either liked or confuted also. Your 10 is but a recitation of what was oft said before, particularly in the first, and second, and ninth, and there you will find it answered. Your 11 is no fair passage, for though the proving perjury to be forbidden in the third Commandment, be the proving a thing that you never denied, yet the inference of the argument there used being this, that to take God's name in vain is no more in the prime sense, or propriety of speech, then to forswear, that you know was the only thing denied by you, and therefore the argument in any reason ought to have been taken notice of. In the 12 I pray be not too confident that other men are mistaken; 'tis in this more possible that you may be. For when the incredulity of another man is the only thing that calls for my oath from me in a matter which is not materia legitima juramenti, there the Devil having to do in the incredulousnesse, the oath may be said to come from the Devil also. 13 My honour will sufficiently be provided for in this particular also, after all your scoffs; 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, Swear 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 lie 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 pains and drudgery for you, for no other pay but of reproachful similes) the Author of the Catechism. But, O, that this so slight an occasion should, in the midst of another engagement, give you hint or excuse to break out from hence into that other large field concerning that whole matter of Christ's adding to the Law! I wish you could have satisfied yourself with 13 degrees of confutation (which sure you would have done, if any one of them had been 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 pass unattended in any your most casual notions; But clearly tell you to that whole matter, that I do produce the authorities of, and reasons out of the Fathers (and confess myself so weak as to be inclined, if not convinced by them) to confirm 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 years, in a clear pronouncing. And whensoever I shall understand that those testimonies, or those reasons may be likely to persuade with you, I shall (out of a very ill topical memory, being far distant from my Books) be ready to produce you some of them. But then though in the Catechism this be done, yet 'tis as clearly there said that no man shall be contended with in this matter (a little practice of piety with peace, being valuable above a great deal of this kind of disputing) so he acknowledge that Christ brought more light, and clearly convinced men of the unlawfulness of some things, which by nature or Moses men had not been convinced to be unlawful. Thus much for the Doctrine once again. As for the superstructure that the Author meant to lay upon it, I shall satisfy your importunity, if it be but to get you into ordinary charity with him. 'Tis plainly and briefly this; A serious and hearty desire that the utmost that Christ's words in that Sermon can safely and properly extend to, may be now thought by men the duty of every Christian; and that it may not either be put off (as a counsel of perfection, or a precept for Clergymen only, under the stile of Disciples) or be brought down again to the old Law of Moses, or the fundamental of nature, (and being then either not conceived, or not found to be so severely prescribed there, be thought fit to be removed from the Christians shoulders) or else be taken with some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which by reconciling it with the latitude thought to be allowed under Moses, may take it off from all strictness, and so from that height which I conceive now to be required, and which I desired very earnestly that all men would look on as their necessary duty, and so try by God's help (and the force of the old pythagorean hemistichium 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) whether they might not possibly be able to perform it. This was the utmost of the superstructure by that Author designed or thought on, and that made me so wonder (from knowledge of my own sense, and conscience of my innocent intentions) that any man should say, That this Doctrine could destroy the sum and substance of the Gospel; and yet I confess, I have heard of one other man that hath said that, and perhaps from him you may remember it, and not have pondered the truth of it. And so by my honest saying, which you call for, you see what spirit of jealousy possessed you, when you fancied such an aereal superstructure for me, which I profess never to have dreamt of, and to wonder at the sharpness of your invention, that could be so prompt for me, I plainly confess, That Christ and his merits is the only cause on which I depend, and expect to be justified, without the righteousness of the Law; and the most obedient submission to his most elevated precepts can no more contribute toward justifying me then the like obedience to the law of nature of Moses would have done, if Christ were not conceived to have heightened that Law. When we have done the highest that Christ requires of us, we are but unprofitable servants; and by our new obedience have been far from doing more than 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 infer from page 94. that the Author there produces arguments to confirm that part of the opinion for new precepts, and therefore I shall spare reviewing your proofs that he doth so: but in stead of it, tell you, that after he hath confirmed it both by a remarkable Scripture, and the reasons given for it by the Fathers, (which concludes their opinion also) yet he confesses to be content with the acknowledgement of more light; and that he will not contend with any that is contrary minded, so he will bring the Jews up to us, and not us down to the Jews. Which that it is the express doctrine of that Book, you have oft enough been admonished, and can never persuade 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 again, and would seem to say somewhat against that doctrine; As 1 that there was Gospel under the Law, and the Spirit, etc. and divers Iewes penitent believers, and therefore under the second Covenant. Sir, all this is granted most willingly, and yet Christ's coming in the flesh did bring more light, more plentiful effusions of the Spirit, and so might possibly be allowed to give new precepts also. 2 For the promises, how plain they were to the Jews, needed not to be disputed by him who speaks only of precepts (save only as the height or plainness 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 known, you will hardly deny or disprove also. For though they were so plain that they saw them, yet 'twas afar off, in your own citation of Hebrews 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 be answer to your third argument, for that concerns the promises again: and in that respect 'tis sufficient to add, 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 infer 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 be allowed to have added some new precepts in lieu of them: and I am as sure they have not so much of goodness or easiness, 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 'tis not so strange that I should mention the pardoning of sin now under Christ; for though that was to be had for the penitent believer under the time of the Law of Moses, yet was it 1. Not by the power or purport of the Law, but only by Christ; And 2 'twas not at all to be 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 superadd, 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 think your question [Whether there is any venial sin?] tolerably pertinent, or fit to expect any return from me at this time, I cannot guess, yet shall 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and answer that also; that though no sin have any title to pardon under the first Covenant, yet under or by the purport of the second, many sins not gotten out of infirmities, etc. shall be washed in Christ's blood, and so be actually pardoned, (which is more than venial or pardonable in that sense) whereas many other shall never be capable of that washing, or that pardon, without particular forsaking, but bring them that lie under them (impenitent unbelievers) 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 be of some nicety) when you think fit to ask it me, I will go 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 appear by the answer that must be given (if it be satisfactory) to this argument, which I shall imagine produced against it; [No sin is in its own nature mortal;] for that sin should be the cause of damning any, or that punishment eternal should be due to sin, 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, etc. for sure had it not been for that Law of prohibition (that Covenant with that penalty, on breach of conditions) sin had never damned any one; and therefore those irrational creatures to whom no such Law is made, and Covenant given, though they should be supposed to sin against the Law of their creation, they shall not be punished eternally for that. Now it is an old rule in Logic, that Accident advenit enti in actu existenti, and is not the naturâ subjecti, though sometimes so ingraffed into it, that it becomes inseparable from it, therefore this [being mortal or damning] being an accident that came in by God's Covenant or Law, cannot be of the nature of sin, what ever that sin be: 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 sin from sin (any more than quantity from a body) manente peccato realiter, which yet we know God can do, and ordinarily doth, by pardoning of sin: for however it may be said by way of answer to that part of the Argument, that Christ suffered and satisfied for sin, or else God could not pardon any, (not to dispute the truth of that, whether he could or no) it still remains that the damningnesse of sin is then taken from sin, by what means it now matters not. This is the Argument I meant to suppose made against that plain granted truth; and to this argument, he that had proposed the main question, and held it negative, if he will ever answer, must say that the Law and Covenant of God (whether that signify the eternal Law, or even the eternal will of God, who wills holiness as he is God, or in any other motion of Law) is a main ingredient in the constituting of sin, the very formalis ratio, that makes that which is of its self materially an act, to become formaliter a sinful act; that makes the kill of a man, which is materially murder, to be also formally the sin of murder; and therefore if by the Law or Covenant of God all sin be made mortal, then may it truly be said in this other notion or respect, or for this reason, that all sin is so of its own nature. This answer must be acknowledged to be 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 infer that then it seems this is resolved on by that party that holds all sins in their own nature mortal, that that is all one with this other proposition [All sins which are by the Law prohibited under pain of damnation, are by that Law damning sins, and noneveniall;] this being so, I ask the opposite party, that disputed even now, what he thinks of this proposition [All sins which by the Law, or first Covenant were prohibited under pain of damnation, are by the tenure of that Law all damning sins, none venial] I am verily persuaded he will consent to it too. And having done so, what hinders now but that this controversy may be accommodated between disputers, being once rightly explained and understood? For that under the Law, or first Covenant every the least sin was sufficient to forbid a man's justification, and consequently to damn, 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, we know there is pardon for sin by the very tenure of the Covenant, and every sin is not now such, as that it shall either damn hereafter, or exclude every one that commits it from the present favour of God, but may be compatible with a justified estate, and a hope of heaven. Gospel-obedience is not perfect, exact, without sinning at all, but only faithful, sincere, impartial, without hypocrisy, or indulgence in any known sin; not the righteousness of him that never sinned, but of him that believeth on Christ, that repenteth and amendeth his life, that of the new creature, [He that confesseth and forsaketh shall have mercy] and the like. This was so far seen and acknowledged by some Papists of the Learneder sort, a Tertia parte de vit. spirit. Sect. 1. Gerson, b Opusc. tr. 3. c. 10. Almain, and c Refut. 32. ●tio. Luther. 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 etc. The third, Peccatum veniale solum ex Dei misericordia veniale est. I have now need to add 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 pacify contenders. As for your sixth of the [glimmering] and the [perhaps] it was a little unlucky, not only because 'tis said of Christ in Scripture, in terminis, that he was the dayspring to give light to them which sit in darkness, which is certainly as much as the [glimmering] or the [perhaps] can be imagined to import, but also, because those glimmerings are mentioned by that Author clearly in order to the commands in that place (as appears by the question that induced that answer) and you talk of the discovering of Christ to all the elect for their everlasting salvation, which seems to me still to respect the promises; or if it do also refer to the commands sufficiently discovered under the Law, etc. 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 only require higher obediences now from those that are allowed higher light. To your seventh, which again breaks asunder into three under-charges or examinations, there will be little scruple to tell you, that though the things you mention were required of the Jew's sub periculo animae, Viz. belief, mortifying lusts, etc.) yet some other things, viz. some of the things proposed by job in his speeches to his friends, by David in his Psalms, especially by the Wiseman in his Proverbs, etc. might be 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, etc. 2 Not delivered by these as Lawgivers, 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 Father's will by Christ involves us. Besides, I suppose 'tis no news to you, that there were voluntary oblations among the Jews in Moses his time, and many acts of strictness after, wherein they that obliged all men to perform them, were said to dogmatise: 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 inferred by this neither. But 'tis now impertinent to enlarge on this subject; when all other difficulties that now depend are satisfied. I may chance be able to give you a justifiable account of that also. And so how far soever the Author of the Cat. contended for new precepts, yet having expressed what he would be content with in that matter by way of composition, rather than contend, and saying the very words that I have in that matter transcribed thence, I must be no more said to recant this second time than that Author did even at the first edition. Who by that one willingness to live peaceably with you and all men, must it seems, be condemned to that reproach of having recanted; and be triumphed over, only because he would not quarrel with every man that is contentious. And to go on with you, what if counsels give new light? may not commands do so too? or must I be reprehended because I am no Papist? I mean, because I conceive these in St. Matthew to be no counsels, but precepts? I hope, that which I have said will sufficiently rescue me from any more of your jealousies concerning my weighty superstructures. I have told you my whole heart; you need not use any optic glass of your own providing to see that which is so naked, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 before you. For the second page of your sixth leaf, where you are pleased to mention the [All that you desire] it is too wanton for me to return any thing to it; I have no leisure to be playsome, or to consider how poor you are, or how the Critics have offended you, or what lower heaven they converse in. Only I hope, I shall not now at last be condemned for an Antinomian, (because I only think the whole Law of the Jews doth not now oblige us) much less to go beyond them, to be a hyper-Antinomian, for no more than these two plain assertions, that Christ hath rid us from the sad yoke of ceremonies Judaical, and will now accept of sincere, though it be not unsinning obedience. If this Divinity will not please you in any measure, I shall never approve myself to you; but yet hope that you do not think in earnest that the Antinomians error is that Christ added higher precepts, or by more light increased the obligation to obedience above that which the Law required. I suppose you meant that name only as a mormo to fright me; not that now, because I am no Socinian, I must be an Antinomian presently. After the setting down the [All that you desire] and that closed as I conceived with a [finally] it seems you have two desires more (and one of them hath many more in it also:) and when your desires do so increase upon you, I can scarce hope to give you satisfaction; and therefore shall desire to be excused, if I proceed not to them, because some parts of those desires I cannot imagine how I am obliged to answer at all, (as to tell you what grace was brought into the world by the Law of Moses, when I make no doubt to acknowledge that grace came by Christ, and▪ as I remember 'twas you (not I) that seemed to say the contrary, in the top of the second page of your fifth leaf of this last return, [The Spirit was administered, etc. during the time of legal administrations] which yet I would not there quarrel with neither, but think them reconcilable by a commodious interpretation) and other parts are utterly impertinent to any part of our point in hand; as that, Of all mankind's being under the second Covenant, Of Christ's satisfying for all, and so of pardon and revelation of the Law of faith to all, (which if it were the thing which brought in all the former, will be easily satisfied, by saying, that what was before so revealed sufficiently pro statu, was not yet so fully and clearly as now by the coming of Christ) and so that also of the aaronical Priesthood, wherein yet I perceive you conclude strangely against that Author. For sure he can very well think (what he doth) that Christ can satisfy for sins, notwithstanding that the exercise of his aaronical Priesthood consists in his sacrifice. For though that sacrifice be a ceremony of his consecration to his Melchisedechian Priesthood in one respect, yet as a sacrifice (not in the shadow, but) of the substance, as a sacrifice not of the bullock or goat, which indeed can make but a typical satisfaction, but of the Lamb and eternal Son of God, this sacrifice may well expiate and satisfy, and so did indeed. And if you can get the Socinians to affirm this also, I shall never quarrel with you, I should be glad you could thus make them your converts. But sure Smalciu's [Non est dissimulandum nos non negare Christi mortem ad ejus sacrificium pertinere] will not come home to it: For they can say this frequently, and yet not think that any satisfaction for sin was made by any sacrifice of Christ; not that that sacrifice consisted in Christ's death, or was offered by his dying; but express the meaning of those words sufficiently, that the death of Christ did only pertinere to that sacrifice which was not offered up in his death. Which you see is not my sense but that the death itself was a sacrifice, and in it satisfaction made for sin by the sacrificer. I was afraid a word would not be enough to every wise man, and therefore I have been forced to add this also. As for your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of your conquests, you have liberty to use it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and triumph as much as you please. For though the [perhaps foolish wanton using of God's name] (which is not always in oaths) would not restrain from foolish wanton swearing, (and yet me thinks à majori it might) yet sure the [sure all profane, etc.] and the exposition of Christ's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, may be allowed to do it; and so all had been safe, and to that matter altogether as clear, if the [perhaps] had never been blotted out. 2 Christ's new precepts will do it, (whether they signify superaddition of more precept, or more light, which infers increase of obligation) and if they would not, I should not by that be obliged to rest satisfied without them. However, you see I do not rest so satisfied, but only tell you what you are to understand by them, and that just agreeably (or in terminis the same) to what had been said before in that Catechism. 3 For [Christ's not forbidding swearing itself] you will give me leave to have been long since of that opinion with you, meaning by it, that swearing for God's glory or the public good is not forbidden by Christ: and therefore sure the meaning of the answer [A total universal prohibition of swearing itself] was something else, viz. of swearing at all by the name of any other beside God, which formerly you might have believed, if you had pleased, But I am afraid Sir, you are fallen upon some new notion of [the sin of dogmatizing.] For to the notion that I always have had of it (viz. teaching for doctrines or necessary duties the Traditions of men, or imposing things as doctrines of God, which are not such) 'tis impossible your words can belong. Do not you mean by the sin of dogmatizing [transire in dogmata vel sententias aliorum?] I suppose you do, by what follows, of my condescending too passively to take up both opinions. This may possibly be a slip in you; I shall not upbraid you with it. By what hath now twice or thrice been said, your new argument is superseded; and I am for all my assent to the answer in the Catechism, verily persuaded that forswearing myself for the publque good were a far greater sin than swearing truly in order to that end. But that that Author must still be forced to have contradicted himself, is very hard, when the clear account of his not having done so hath so oft been given, and cannot yet get a little audience from you. I would, you would be but so well natured as to tell me the meaning of your sic notus Ulysses? and what the design is that you could so easily guess at; This plain dealing would deserve far more thanks (but indeed not set me out for so dangerous an undermining designer) than your suspicious speakings, and then affected reservation. Speak out the deepest of your heart; 'twill be as seasonable, and as just, I suppose, and in all reason as well taken as your question about the weighty superstructure, or your collections in either Sermon. For your stumbling at my 12 page about reduction, I am sorry, and shall labour to keep you from falling down right. By telling you, 1 That sins forbidden by the same authority, may yet more or less clearly be forbidden by that authority, and under the second of those (viz. those that are less clearly forbidden) that of reduction may come. 2 That the less the clearness of forbidding is, the less deep is the obligation to them to whom they are (and 'tis not their fault that they are) less clear: yet of things forbidden by reduction, some are much more clearly forbidden than others; and so fornication, than some other sins forbidden by that Commandment: and I suppose you, to whom it is as clear that fornication is there forbidden as adultery, are as deeply obliged to abstain from one as other; But then still in other particulars, which are not by the light of the words, nor by any other means made thus equally clear to some men, to them they are not equally or so deeply obliging. Then for your [moreover] about Christ's 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 be 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 vain, (because he that swears by the creature doth not directly any such thing) but might perhaps be better reduced to the former Commandments of not worshipping the creature. 2 I do not believe that any command under the Law of nature, or of the Jews, will be produced so clear, or be acknowledged so convincing to those that lived before the Law, or to the Jews, against swearing by some creature, that joseph which is brought in frequently in the story swearing by the life of Pharaoh, without any mark of sin on that form of speech, shall be 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 Christ's [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] and of the Father's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. And therefore, 4 I must willingly acknowledge, what the Author doth, that a Christian may in no case swear by the creature, and have told you that that was the meaning of that Author's phrase of total universal 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 me that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 proprie significat vanum. Where he so saith, you tell me not, nor will I deny it, because I know not what in that place he may mean by proprie: but yet I must tell you, that it was a little unlucky, that I should examine but one Author of your citing; and that should prove so contrary. For I have looked on that Commandment 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 turn; and I hope you will now pardon me, if I abstain 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 be ashamed to say after him, when he rendered the third Commandment 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and when I acknowledge vain swearing by God's name forbidden by that Commandment, and that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as 'tis sometimes rendered falsum (as by the Targum, Ex. 21. 1. 'tis paraphrased by 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 mendacii, and by our English rendered false, and so in other places) so it is oft rendered vain also; which is the utmost can be proved by them. Whereas indeed the word, even when it signifies vain, hath a peculiar notation of vanity proper to this matter, viz. of a fair empty show, when in words I seem to oblige myself, but really do not; which fault is observable in some kinds of swearing, which are therefore clearly forbidden in that Commandment. As for any scorn and indignation expressed by me about this matter in my last, though I wondered to see it objected, yet because my memory was frail, I looked 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 mean it] I shall satisfy you; it was that I did mean that which is in effect all one with that other phrase [were forbidden.] This you are so kind to let pass, and with it some few sides more, which I may therefore suppose had no greater difficulties in them, but am far from taking it ill that you let them pass, but shall assure you that you might as well have passed by that also of: 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 & 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, which by saying you understand, and by forgiving me, I suppose you think meant by me against yourself, 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 only titles of the Devil, but have a significancy proper to them; the one to express a calumniator, the other a plaintiff or adversary 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, The former (I confess) of these, you might with some reason think I might apply to you, and persuade yourself that I can not but believe you to have been guilty of calumniating me, i. e. accusing me falsely. But truly Sir, whatsoever I might think 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 only. And therefore let me assure you, I was far from meaning or saying any such thing of you; and was so little guilty in my own conscience, that when I found it in your paper, I was a little troubled, till I had somewhat satisfied myself with considering that you might possibly be mistaken, and then by looking on the place in my Papers where I find the passage most clear from looking towards you. The truth is, I was a speaking of the hurt that might come by teaching that Christ improved not the Law, and told you that I could give you an experimental account of it (Truly that referred to a particular person that was then in my mind, and is now in my memory, ready to be named to you, if you please) in one that by urging that doctrine, and so bringing down Christ to the perfect law of Moses, became an advocate for a vile unchristian sin. This I made no question was a stratagem of the Devils, accusing to him that Doctrine of Christ's superadditions for a false and dangerous Doctrine, and to that end calumniating all Authors for Socinians, etc. that were for that Doctrine, and by that means fitting him to the jnstifying of that his vile sin, which otherwise he had not probably been guilty of. This is in more words the plain of what I then said in those few words, not of Rhetoric, but of plain sense, and might (if you would) have been excused from the addition and length of this paraphrase. You lead me on now to the reviewing of what was said on occasion of the third report. In that, I see, I have not yet the luck to please you neither, but have offended you more by my excuse than I had done by the first crime; thus unskilful am I in conversation with men of your temper. This is, it seems, an error in me; I am sure, an infelicity. Well, I shall again endeavour to satisfy you in the reasonableness of what I designed, in not disputing with them that thought not all inclinations to evil unconsented to, to be sins; but only affirming that they were, and rather bringing them to godly sorrow upon their own principles, then falling to disputation about it. The reason was, and still is, because I foresaw every godly man (I mean, those of whose piety I have no reason to doubt, and that in other things are very orthodox, I am confident, truly humbled for their evil inclinations consented to) was not of your opinion in this matter. 2 Because it is a very nice point, which perhaps for wanting of clear stating may be misapprehended between men of distant persuasions. I will set you a brief state of it, and leave it to your judgement, whether I speak reason or no. There is in a man a double faculty, to which this inclination may possibly be applied, either the sensitive appetite common to men with beasts, or the humane will. The sensitive faculty naturally inclines to the pleasurable object. viz. to that which is agreeable to the flesh; that this inclination unconsented to by the man, uncherished, unliked, should be a sin, would be hard to affirm, though you mean by it but original sin; because original sin is a consequent of Adam's fall, and this was certainly in our first Parents in the time and state of innocence before the fall: as when the apple was so fair to the eye, sweet to the taste, etc. 'tis clear, the eye and taste were then inclined to it; and nothing but the command of God to the contrary could quell that inclination. Suppose then, they had not eaten after this inclination of the carnal appetite to that forbidden fruit, had that inclination in that appetite only been a sin in them? 'Tis very probable it had not; the consent, or somewhat else, of the will being necessarily required to make them thus guilty, and I now speak abstracting from any thing of that. Besides this, there is another inclination, viz. of the will, (not a full consent of the will (or a mixed) to the carnal proposal, but) a bending of the will rather that way then the other; not a weighing down of the balance to that side, but an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 (as that word is contrary to an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, from the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉) a pendulousnesse betwixt the good and the evil, but rather bending toward the evil. This is it that I conceived to be an aversion from God; not fully, but so far as that it did rather bend to the carnal object; and this was it that I called a sin: though being but the inclination of our corrupt nature, and not confented to, I could not call it an actual sin. Now the word proneness, or inclination to evil, being thus an equivocal phrase, I thought not fit to be severe or importunate upon them who perhaps did not know how to distinguish it, nor again to trouble a Catechism with too much nice discourse; but more grossly to bind the Scholar to humble himself for all sins, distinctly for his evil inclinations, (to that purpose affirming plainly that they were sins) or if he would be apt to dispute, which might hinder his being humbled,) I mean▪ dispute upon such a nicety as was mentioned) yet still to call for the conclusion, humiliation, upon his own principles, if he would not allow it upon mine. This I conceive, will clear that Author from any crime in his doubtful expressions, or connivance. For 1 the words are clear, that inclinations to evil are sins; and (if he will be taught) that will instruct him in true principles; if he will not, yet will not the [if] following be a means to harden him in impenitence. Nor indeed can I consent to you, that no man can conceive true godly sorrow for his actual sins, who doth deny the fountain of all his sins to be a sin, if you mean by that fountain, the natural inclination: For I make no question but he that sees, and fully discerns all his actual sins, and looks upon them all as progenies of his will, and so his [〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉] that sees nothing of nature, or necessity, or fault of others in it, but all his own villainy, may have as true godly sorrow for his actual sins, as he would have if he were sensible of that other also. I say not, that he would have as much true godly sorrow absolutely, or for all sins; (for supposing, as now I do, that he hath not sorrow for those inclinations as for sins▪ you must not conceive that I say he hath it save only as for infelicities) but I or he may have as true godly sorrow for actual sins, as the other would be likely to have for actual sins. To which purpose I shall farther venture this one example and proof to you; Our first parents certainly might conceive true godly sorrow for their first sin, which was in them actual, yet must needs deny the fountain of that, and (consequent to that) of all their sins (their own freewill) to have been a sin or sinful, unless they will accuse their creator, which will be no proper companion or effect of godly sorrow, and I suppose will not by you be expected from them. And so I had more reason for my expressions then perhaps you thought of. And so much for your two first objections in that point. 3 For your [idem per idem] which you impute to me, you are much mistaken. For, supposing some inclinations to evil to be not cherished, the thing that I concluded is, 1 That in that case 'tis victory, not sin; And 2 that in that case, I hope you will not say, it is a sin cherished or consented to: which, if you mark, was passing an opinion how you must be fain to conclude (and that, a thing quite contrary to your former concluding) and not making any such conclusion for myself. You were at great leisure when you observed that illogicall probation. 4 For that [which it seems, I supposed and proved not] I must now give you an account. And it was, that I seemed to imply that there must needs be some consent given to actual sin, I confess I then proved it not, but promised to give you an account of it when I had your grounds of scruples, you have now mentioned them to me, 1 That Original sin is truly and properly a sin in them that are not of age to consent to it. 2 That corruption is so strong in us that it doth many times break forth without our consent. To the first I shall but need remember you, that 'twas every actual sin to which I employed that consent necessary, and I hope you are not ready to prove that original sin in children (as you call it) is truly and properly actual sin; and for the second [the breaking forth of corruption in adultis] that doth (if again it be an actual sin) certainly suppose some kind of consent obtained, whether by sudden surreption, passion, etc. or by something sometimes that is worse than one act of consent, viz. by the custom of sin, and glibnesse toward it, contracted by many precedaneous acts of consent to it, or the like. Besides, there are two kinds of sin, omissions as well as commissions, and there is a criminous consent required to either of them; and he that is bound to use all diligence to subdue his corruptions, at least to repress them, if he do not so, this indiligence of his hath some of his consent: and that is a prime ingredient in the breaking forth of corruptions; which consequently do not break forth without all consent. And for me now to undertake the proof of that, that the Schoolmen upon Thomas have so fully proved, that every thing is so far sinful or criminous (meaning still actual sin) as it is voluntary, the yielding of the will to the sensitive appetite being necessary to the conception of lust, and that again to the bringing forth sin, I shall venture the worst of your censure, that I do not now proceed to demonstrate more largely. For indeed actual sin being a transgression of the Law, will hardly belong to that faculty, or appetite, which is not capable of receiving the Law: and such is that appetite that hath nothing of the consent of the will in it. For the compliment you charge me with in the fifth, you had answer in mine to your first and second of this subject. [For my mentioning of Socinians] I confess I have been guilty of it in these Papers, and I think you know who was the cause of it; and therefore what want of wisdom, or degree of folly soever that is, you should not be the Author of it in me, and the punisher also. As for any parallel Doctrines you can find between me and them, any farther than is agreeable to sound doctrine, and analogy of Faith, I am not so humble, or so guilty, as to deprecate your threats. As for parallels between our expression, 'tis possible you may do somewhat; and so perhaps with some study I could do the like between the Scripture and the Talmud: and to this I would not provoke you (though, I profess I know not yet of any one such) because it seems in your opinion [calling the Trinity a speculative mystery] was one of that kind, (and I doubt not but at the same rate there are many more to be met with) and then the provoking you, might let open another sluice or treasure of your Animadversions, wherein the sins of your brethren are laid up, and among them one bundle of these parallels; and I tell you truly, I shall take little joy in spending so many sheets more in proving those (whatsoever you shall produce under that title) to be unfit parallels. Yet by the law it is not so well, that you will do any thing upon a provocation, which you would not do otherwise: but I confess this sets no such character upon you, that I should be willing to provoke you. In your seventh I confess to believe, that you meant not the common-prayer-book by the designed Liturgy, (and cannot imagine why you should think I did believe you meant it.) And therefore I conceive I inferred regularly, that I had nothing to do with that design, because I desired the continuing of the common-prayer-book, and particularly those parts of it which were most incompatible with that design; such were the Doxologies, Creeds, Litany, etc. which no Arian or Socinian would join in. And I wonder you should thus mistake so plain an arguing. In the eight, where you take care that I magnify not the View of the Directory; you might have spared your pains, for I can cite a Book for a matter of fact (and that is all that I do in that place, by referring you to those places in it, my consent to which testifies my dislike of the design you speak of) without any kind of magnifying it. But for the matter so fit for my humiliation, which you observe in that Author, [The using the suffrage of the jews, Heathens, and Mahometans] that sure will not much tend to your purpose, not only because those very particulars you pitch on are transcribed (and so professed to be) out of a Book of a Learned member of the House of Commons and your Assembly, viz. Mr. Io. Selden, but also for these two considerable reasons more; First, because the suffrage of the Jews (from whence the other two are affirmed to have proceeded) doth carry some divine characters upon it, that whole Church and State having peculiar relation to the Theocraty, and so God's judgement of the lawfulness employed in their practice. And secondly, because the Liturgy of the Jews was by the Apostles and Christ himself made use of, and out of it with some increases and alterations the Christian Liturgies framed in the first age of the Church. If I thought it might be acceptable to you, I would serve you here also, and give you some observations to this purpose (very perfectly and easily reconcileable with what hath been formerly said, but yet) which are not in the View of the Directory, nor yet mentioned in the haste of my former Papers. 'Tis the observation of a noble and a learned French Protestant, Du Pless. de Miss. l. 1. c. 3. that the Apostles were sent, not to destroy but establish that pure worship or service of God which was in the synagogues of the Jews, which they therefore retained (after Christ's example) as far as did not contradict the oeconomy or dispensation of things under Christ: and therefore though they changed the sacrifices, and the Sabbath, (Christ being the substance adumbrated by one, and the Lords day being appointed to take the place of the other) yet the service itself in other particulars they did continue. The grounds of this observation you have in the Scripture: Christ himself goes into their synagogues, and the Apostles ordinarily at the hours of Prayers, and certainly joined with them in their service, as far as agreed with their present state. And by this means some sympathy hath been observable between the Jewish and Christian services. This is clear by the Jewish forms; for some of which, and for the rites of using them, we are beholding to a most excellent man (a Protestant also) P. Fagius, and to some others since, who have made use of his collections. The first part of their service was a confession of the sins of their people, (which was always solemnly used in their sacrifices) a rule for which we have in the sacred Writers, and in the Jewish Books the very verba concepta, the set constant forms mentioned by that Worthy on the Targum, Leu. 16. This they called confessio 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or verbalis; After that followed some Psalms of David, etc. which were sung the whole Psalms together, as also some 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hymns or giving of thanks, which, say the Jews, were instituted by Esdras, who after the Babylonish captivity restored the service of God. After that they had their lessons out of the Law, which were divided into 54 Sedarim, or Parascoth, i.e. Sections, as also the lessons of the Prophets distributed into as many haphtaroth, or Aperturae, or, as some render it, Dimissions, so divided that there may be one for every Sabbath in an intercalary year. Then again was the whole action concluded with prayer, viz. a general prayer for the necessities of the Church and State, public and private, and in that many particulars. After these prayers the Archisynagogus blessed the people, and dismissed them. Save only that on any great festival solemnity, the Passeover, etc. there followed Benedictions particular to the occasion, which on the Passeover were pronounced by the mouth of the master of the family; a form of which, Miserere Domine, etc. we have in P. Fagius on the Targ. Deut. 8. Some vestigia of this practice of theirs, in each part, we have in the New Testament; Of their confession (saith that noble learned man) Mat. 3. 6. Mar. 1. 5. Acts 13. 38. Of their lessons Acts 15. 21. Acts 13. 14. Luke 4. 18. Of their psalmodies and hymns, Ephes. 5. Col. 3. where 'tis observable that the three words of Greek used by the Apostle are the very same which are used by the Septuagint to render the three Hebrew words used in the Old Testament, and so refer particularly to the practice of the Jews. Of their prayer for necessities (saith he) in the Lord's prayer Mat. 6. which, with him, some other very learned men conceive to have had special reference to the formulae solennes then among the Jews; Of their prayer for the Commonwealth, and all that were in place of power over them, 1 Tim. 2. 1. which words there in St. Paul ('twas St. Augustine's affirmation) were nominatim intelligenda de solennibus Ecclesiastici officii precibus, etc. 4 For the practice of the first * Primi Christiani huic officio se accomodarunt. Morn. de miss. l. 1. ca 4. Christians, how agreeable 'twas to this practice of the Jews, will be easily discerned. St. Basil in the description of a Clergyman officiating, ad Cler. Caesar. Ep. 63. They go, saith he, to the house of prayer, and after the confession, they prepare for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, singing of Psalms, (speaking of the first Apostolical times; for now, saith he, we sing the Psalms in parts, or by turns: it seems they had not done so before, but all together) and by the intermixing of prayers, and interchange or variety of Psalms, and hymns, they overcome or spend a great part of the night speaking of the antelucani conventus) and assoon as the day breaks, they offer to God the Psalm of confession, and so dismiss the Assembly. Besides the lessons out of the Old Testament, the Christians (you will believe) added also others out of the new; and (saith Morney) ejus particulam aliquam Antistes interpretari solitus. After Sermon they proceeded to the celebration of the Eucharist (parallel to their customs on the great Festivities of the Passeover, etc.) In it, I the words of the institution were recited, with a thanksgiving or blessing, (as in justine Martyr 'tis described) then the bread and wine (before received by the offertory of the people) was distributed to the people; after which a Psalm was sung, etc. Before the Sacrament, saith St. Ambrose, was the prayer for Kings, Et haec regula ecclesiastica tradita à magistro gentilium, saith he, de Sacra. l. 4. c. 4. and of the use of that also Tertul. is express, Apol. c. 39 After the Lord's Supper the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Doxology was taken up in imitation of Christ, who after Supper sung an hymn with his Disciples, not disdaining to make use of the ancient Jewish custom. One testimony more I shall only add out of St. Cyprian de Orat. Dom. Ser. 8. Publica nobis est & communis oratio, etc. [Public common Prayer] pro toto populo oramus, for all the people, (as among the Jews for all Israel▪ & we for the whole Church, especially for Kings.) And that men may mind nothing but that their present employment, Ideo sacerdos praefatione parat fratrum mentes, dicendo, Sursum corda, ut dum respondet plebs, Habemus ad Dominum, moneatur nil se nisi Dominum cogitare debere. I shall trouble you no longer then to desire that the Liturgy lately used in this Church may be compared with the severals here mentioned, from the Jews first; and after, the Apostolical Christians: and as you will find the general form exactly continued in Confession, Psalms, Lessons, Hymns, Prayers for all the Church, especially for Kings, etc. (and no reason to doubt but that sometimes the very words were continued also; assuredly set Forms then, as now, as appears by the Sursum corda, and Habemus ad Dominum; Lift up your hearts, We lift them up unto the Lord) So it was not without reason that the Author of the View thought fit to draw one argument of many from the practice of the jews; to which the other two of the Mahometans and Heathens come in ex naturali sequelâ, but as rivulets and derivations from that fountain. But then besides these suffrages, you know there are in that View many other arguments produced which may chance to be more concluding to you. And though a man's arguments (as our own prayers) may serve the turn, yet the suffrages of others will do no hurt also. If the point in question, which you say you have showed me, be that which in this Paper you formerly mentioned, you may in my answer to that satisfy yourself that you were not very lucky in showing. Before I part with this section, let me beseech you to tell me, whether 'twere only a fault in your memory; that when you were pleased to tell me what you said at Carfax against the Author of the Catechism, you did not please to name this particular of the Mahometans, etc. especially when I am told that you cited it as a work of that Authors who made the Catechism, and spoke pretty tragically about that subject. 9 For your contempt of my mention of Doxologies and Creeds, it is not so very seasonable, because being mentioned only in order to prove that I was none of the designers of the new complying Liturgy, you cannot but say that they were pertinent to that purpose. And for your proof, That Doxologies and Creeds may be left out, because the Directory takes in the whole Scripture for a Liturgy, and there are Doxologies and Creeds enough in the holy Scripture] it is a kind of arguing that I confess I understand not; for sure for all that, (or granting the Scripture to contain, as you say truly, all necessaries to salvation) it will still remain true, that serving of God and worshipping him by praises, confessions, and professions of our Faith, may be allowed to be duties of such a value, that if they do not deserve to be brought in, yet 'tis not necessary they should utterly be cast out from the service of God. For your Confession of Faith which you say shall be published by your Assemblers, if that be to be used in the service of God, then must there be some new direction for it put into the Directory, and then perhaps the Creeds of the Ancient Church might have continued there as well. If it be only for other uses, you know it belongs not to the point in hand. And which way soever, you know it concludes not against any thing that I was about to infer from Creeds, etc. 10 For the question you there put, you do it I suppose but sportingly. For if you will needs have a question the only one that can be pertinent to the matter there in hand (or which will be betwixt things of any like nature) is that which is there set, betwixt the using the Common-prayer-book in each part of it and the putting it wholly (or in those so many mentioned parts of it) out of the Church: and then sure the so many obstacles to Socinian errors being retained in one, and turned out in the other, the vote will be quickly resolved on. As for your desired parallel, the Cat. or the Directory, I suppose you do not expect I should speak to that, yet that which countenances no one Socinian error, and I think either profestly, or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 discountenances every Socinian error, will be able to compare (in that matter of countenancing them) with any other Wirter in the world. For though it were granted, that it doth not so much discountenance them as other Books that are written particularly against them, yet not countenancing them at all, it doth as much not countenance them, as any other thing can be imagined to do. But Now 'tis a little wearisome to me to see this 10 Sect. again breaking asunder into questions, which you might so very well have spared. For sure Sir, 1 I no where had said in these Papers, That the Direct. had commanded all to sit at the Sacrament; I had only spoken of the Protestants in Poland forbidding sitting, because it complied with the Arians. 2 I had also no need to say, That all familiarity inferred an equality; 'tis enough to me, that humility and distance, kneeling, etc. is more like to be an argument of inequality, and an expression of it. 3 [That Socinians think themselves equal with Christ, etc.] I have no need to affirm, having only urged a matter of fact, which stands good without it, because that familiarity in sitting at the Sacrament will be more agreeable to their notion of Christ as a mere creature, then kneeling will be; and that is all was to be proved from it, and not that the Socinians equal themselves with Christ. As for my saying, That Christ did not bless us till after his resurrection, (which perhaps you repeat out of the way, to set some ill mark upon it) 1 I pray remember that they are the plain words of Scripture, having raised his Son jesus, he sent him to bless us, etc. and I hope 'twill be no huge fault to say what Socinus doth, when if he do say it, he saith the same with Scripture. 2 That you may mistake the meaning of that phrase; and think, as some do, that for Christ then to begin to bless, is for him then to begin to have divine power: but sure you know that is not my meaning; but that Christ may be considered in respect of his natures, or of his offices, i.e. in respect of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Fathers use it; and that 'tis only in that latter respect that all power is then said to be given unto him, and so this of blessing, and at last to be resigned up to the Father: which will not at all hinder the renouncing of all Socinian or Arian heresies in the business of Christ's eternal Divinity, or of the Trinity. By this you see what an ill parallel you had fetched out of Smalcius, and I must supppose most of your others are such. For your argument offered me for the Liturgy, I am not merry enough to receive, or reward you for it, (and you know, my business in hand is not to assert the Liturgy; that is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; but the demonstrating that I was none of the men for the new designed Liturgy) only let me tell you, that the easiness and pleasantness of the Liturgy was not thought to consist in the easiness of the task for the Minister, (for I do not perceive that the Directory-way, as 'tis exercised, hath any whit less of that ease in it) but in respect of the Auditors, who can go on in their duty with more ease and pleasure: and sure duty is not naturally so acceptable to all men that there is any necessity of making it more tedious, toilsome, (especially if it be added, as you say it is) and less profitable, then was necessary. And therefore you may perceive for all your scoffs, that Orators arguments (if the author of that View were guilty of that faculty) even those that you pick out for the very worst, may have somewhat beside Rhetoric in them. I am sure this which you mention, is more proper and effectual to infer the conclusion, than the fetching that argument out of that Book, to expose and show it openly, was to the question in hand, whether I was in the design for the new complying Liturgy. But I have learned to pass by all such Sacrasmes and impertinences, I hope, with some tolerable patience. Now than you say you hasten to my discourse of Godly sorrow, I beseech God to give each of us our part of it. In that, you begin with a challenge to me, to prove that which you know was proved already, if explaining a thing, and laying it before you in such a manner that you do not (I conceive, cannot) deny any part of it, may be called the proving of it. Your second is but a repetition of what was said by me; yet hath some art in it, depriving it of the proof that was brought for it, that it might look the more naked, and despicable. Your third was discreetly ordered to scoff at what was said, for a dictate and admirable, (which was neither, but a plain evident truth, that the impurity of our humane condition, may be matter of godly sorrow to any, though not merely quà an infelicity) and you ask again whether it be godly sorrow to grieve for an infelicity? I say again, such the infelicity may be (particularly that now spoken of) that it may be 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 be this quà sic, merely as an infelicity; which was all that was needful there to be inferred. In your fourth you mention your opinion, that all pollution of the soul of man hath been by sin only. But sure Sir, this doth not prove every pollution to be a sin; 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 proved on the other side by me, both before and now in the last Sect.) viz. That no man grieves for a sin after a godly manner, but he that grieves for it as a sin against God. When you know, that by that one instance of the impurity of our nature mourned for by him that took it not for a sin, but only a thing that rendered him 1 imperfect; then 2 prone to sin; and 3 less amiable in God's sight, etc. (with an addition of wishing and praying to be dissolved, and be with Christ as far better) the contrary was undeniably inferred; and no answer offered by you to these premises. For the undeniable grounds of repentance, I suppose they are laid in that Cat. both by requiring it for all sin, and by naming inclinations to evil in the front of sins, without [ifs or [and's] or any dubious expressions. But yet after all your severity in giving your advice for the designing of a Catechism, I conceive your inference, in the name of the Acute wretch, was far from any acuteness: for sure whatever were resolved about inclinations being no sins when unconsented to, 'twould never follow for your Client, Ergo, the like acts, to which he is naturally inclined, are not evil. For sure Sir, the acts may be allowed sins (and not be excused by our being naturally inclined to them) whatever were conceived of the inclinations. The conclusion from your premises could only be this, Ergo this and that act, being natural also, are not evil. And if you wretch should conclude so, you would soon be able to inform him that his acts are not natural, and therefore may be allowed to be evil though he be naturally inclined to them, because it is very evil not to resist and deny those inclinations. You than go off in triumph with a [You know what I could add.] Truly Sir, I profess I do not: and yet whatever 'tis, if it be like this you have allowed me, 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 misinformed, when I only profess that by your discourse I cannot discern whether I was in this misinformed or no. It seems you are willing to receive acknowledgements of mistakes: you would otherwise think it more pertinent to tell me whether in either Assembly you insisted on that particular or no. For an answer to your quaeres, you sure perceive (though you complain for want of it) that I gave you that whole sense of my soul in that point, not only by that means to be sure to tell you my opinion of your then present quaere's, but also of all others of that subject that 'twere 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, etc. 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?] 'Twere no great matter if I said 'twere the industriâ, on this head, because God first accepts the penitent person in Christ, and then after (in order of nature, though not of time) he pardons his sins: though indeed 'tis true again, that the sins are pardoned in order of nature before the acceptation of the actions; I mean, 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 pass with you for the double justification; but this ex abundanti also. But to your main question (for I must now wholly deal in the old trade of answering questions: which I have been told is the far easiest way for him that wants other provision, and yet would feign not make an end of disputing) Why I speak of remission and acceptation, and leave out imputation? Sure 'tis, partly because acceptation of the person, and so pardon also, includes imputation of Christ's righteousness, as the formal cause of our justification; God accepting of Christ's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or payment (which is imputation of his sufferings by way of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for us) and then accepting our persons, and pardoning our sins; partly, because one kind of imputation is after our pardon of sin in order of nature, a distinct thing from it, and so needed not to be there spoken of, as belonging rather to our sanctification, for the completing or filling up the imperfections of that; I mean now the imputation of Christ's perfect obedience to that penitent believer whose sins are pardoned by the sufferings of Christ: for to such a one Christ's perfect obeying the Law may so far be imputed as to give a gloss or tincture to his still imperfect obediences, so far as that they shall be accepted by God; Which imputation therefore may be antecedent to, and have to do with that acceptation of actions, but yet in order of nature be after the acceptation of persons, and forgiveness of sins. But the truth is, I then meant to give you plain 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 former proposition, and meaning it in the very same latitude that thereit had been used, for the entire, not partial (or first, or one part of) justification. To let this pass, when you had taken notice of it, was not an act of charity, but justice in you, yet that whirh would have been very welcome to me many times. For just from as true or solid ground as this, have many of your other exceptions sprang up, and have not so candidly been laid down by you. To your next questions, which you profess to ask, that mistakes may be prevented, upon that account, I profess to answer most cheerfully; for I see how wearisome a thing it is to have been mistaken. To your first quaere [Why the grace of God in justifying, etc. doth not extend to every man for whom Christ hath satisfied?] I answer clearly, because Christ's satisfaction is not absolutely for all, or that they may be pardoned whatever they do, how infidel or impenitent soever they continue; but conditionally for all, and thereupon that grace of justification extends to none but those who perform the Condition. For your second 'tis very nice (and might sure have been spared in this business) That because God hath been affirmed by me to require regeneration as a condition to justification, therefore I must tell you what condition God requires unregenerate persons to perform, that they may attain unto regeneration. To question thus were infinite, and to this matter of justification utterly unnecessary. But yet I shall not fail you in any thing; I'll satisfy you in that also. God requires in the unregenerate man 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, as the Ancients express it, a readiness to obey his call; not to resist, but receive his grace, when he bestows it on him; and having received it, what degree soever it be, to cherish, and make use of it; and this by his grace, God enables him to do. As for your demand of me, by way of retribution, that I must grant that God doth justify the ungodly, i. e. the man that is guilty of many sins, I make no question of that, if he be a penitent, and so may he be, and yet be called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 still, in the sense that I conceive belongs to that word, Rom. 4. 5. that is, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉; not one that continues impenitent in sin, but one that neither hath nor doth perform exact, perfect, legal obedience: which is very reconcileable, if not the same, with what you confess, [That God never justifies an impenitent infidel in sensu composito, i. e. never any that is then infidel or remains impenitent. To your third I answer, that there is such a condition, which doth so qualify the subject, that I can say, by it, and only by it I am justified, i. e. by it only as a condition, not including any causality in it. And if you will know, what that condition is, you have been oft told already, and I now tell you, Faith in the nation wherein it signifies a receiving the whole Christ, and contains in it a resolution of obeying Christ's Commands, as well as of depending on him for mercy. And on supposition, or condition that you grant that, and so speak of faith as 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, and 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, I will speak with you in the dialect of the first sort of the men you mention, and say that faith is required to receive the object of justification, Christ, etc. but withal add, that it is required as a condition too, to dispose or qualify the subject, and that without this condition, no man living shall be justified. Which being premised, it shall not yet follow from thence that by this he shall be, sa you say, constituted righteous, if by [constituted by] you attribute any causality to this qualification, or any thing but that of being a condition by which he is justified, i. e. is not jnstified without it. And so this is as plain as I can devise too; and me thinks there should be no mistake. For in the sense wherein I have now expressed myself, I do again consent to your conclusion, that God doth by his free and effectual grace work in the hearts of his elect to receive Christ, (that is, the Whole Christ) that they may be justified, not by their own obedience, or vow of obedience (as by a cause) but by obedience of Christ alone freely imputed by God, and rested on by faith only: It being one act of that faith by which the just do live, to have affiance, or rest on Christ. In your [moreover] it may also be true, that there may be some difference between disposing the subject to salvation and to justification: as the cordial habit of faith, and sincere vow, may dispose to justification; and, in case of living to occasions and opportunities, the acts of faith and actual performances will be required; yet so that he that is disposed for justification, if he should then presently die, were disposed to salvation also. Which notwithstanding I shall also add with you, 1 That there is faith required, to receive the object, Christ, jehova our righteousness; and grace prerequired, to enable thus to believe; and obedience to, or making use of that grace (the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉, Heb. 12. 28.) a condition required in us, to that end that grace may have its perfect work on us, And 2 that all the acts and habits of grace, which are in the best men concurring together, are not sufficient to justify a man before God. And therefore faith concurring so, with such a vow, or with faithful actions, cannot justify us. This I write out of your Paper, as fast as I can drive, (and, by the way, you see some difference between our tempers; I consent to as much of yours as possibly I can, and labour to take as few exceptions; you on the contrary have another method in reading them that you are not kind to) and consent to it most fully at first sight, and never remember to have doubted of it, since I considered Divinity. But for your addition, [Of faiths justifying relatively] you must give me leave not to take that into my form of Doctrine (being not very intelligible) but to use my own expressions, as conceiving them more perspicuous, and commodious to the notions I have of this matter, viz. Thus, that Christ only justifies, Faith receives Christ, but yet still by no way of causality justifies; is causal indeed in receiving Christ, but only the condition in justifying; because, though receiving is an act of ours, and in us, yet justification is an act only of Gods upon us, and concerning us. Which in effect you yield also, when you say, that [Faith cannot pardon sins or accept.] For than it cannot justify. At this time me thinks we are excellently well agreed, I wish it may long continue. But then in the next words, we are out again; I am now looked on as one that abuses Scripture for the maintenance of errors, whereas God knows 'twas no more but citing the words in St. james, faith consummate by works, as a parallel place to faith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in St. Paul, and let the Papists say what they will, (and abuse that or any other place) sure this is no abusing Scripture for maintenance of errors. But than what you mean by your not dreaming, that I thought Abraham was justified by the actual sacrificing of his Son, I cannot dream or imagine; certainly I never said any such thing; or if you thought I meant that by works, you are much mistaken: but only I conceived the resolution of sacrificing to have been accepted by God, to his justification, without actual sacrificing him. But then Sir, in that which follows, when 'tis resolved that we are agreed in the conclusion, 'tis very strange that that will not satisfy you without some retraction. O how much a more pleasant thing is victory than peace! Sir, I must tell you confidently, all that that Author ever hath said in the Catechism is perfectly reconcileable with this conclusion; (and he may chance to be as fit to judge of the importance of his own words, as any man else) and therefore still retraction must be spared, unless you please to retract causeless displeasures. But that it seems you will not suddenly do: for again you are deep in a questioning over again, what hath been so often answered, and profestly acknowledged. I shall proceed to do it over again once more. 1 I say, that we are not jnstified by any thing in us, i e. either by vow of obedience, or faith, save only as by a condition, or causâ sine quâ non; and in that sense, by both of them together we are justified. But than you have an objection to those words of mine [The condition must be undertaken before the the Covenant belongs to me] and say in your third, That if by Covenant I mean the whole Covenant of grace, I must make some condition go before our regeneration also. I answer, that the word Covenant there in that place, signifies any one part of the whole Covenant, which depends on the performance of any proportionable part of the condition, and so needs not belong in that place to regeneration also, but may be restrained only to that of justification. Yet for the condition praerequired to regeneration also, I have given you my sense formerly, and need not so soon repeat it to you. 4 For the third [you know] I profess not to know how they belong to me, or any interests of mine. 5 That to receive forgiveness is an act of faith, I shall again acknowledge, so you conclude not from thence that it justifies by so doing. But that I ever said, That we receive a pardon by an act of charity, etc. I shall not yet be persuaded, nor can that proposition have any truth, any otherwise then that charity is part of the condition, without which that Pardon shall not belong to me, (which were a very ridiculous ground of saying, that we receive our pardon by that act; because [receiving by] notes an efficiency, and of that there is none in a mere condition.) Sir, I am confident I never said these words, and therefore I cannot well forget them. As for your citation out of the page 28. of the Cat. That a man is justified by faithful actions, and by them only. That you must understand (as 'tis there clearly set in the case of Abraham) in case there be a present opportunity to exercise the faith. For though when such occasions are not present, the faith which consists in voto, the full resolution, the cordial receiving the whole Christ, will serve the turn, without any actions; yet when the occasion is present, the action must be ready, or else the faith will not justify. And therefore though in this case of such opportunities, I plead for more than the bare vow, as necessary to justification, yet still 'tis true that I plead for no more in any other case; and even in this I can content myself with this vow, if it be sincere; nor will God acknowledge it so, if it act not in time of trial; when the opportunity is offered. And so, sure I am well enough off from a first and second justification. For all, that I require by way of condition, is the sincere receiving of Christ in heart and resolution; which if it be sincere, will fructify in its due season; and if it be not such as will do so, 'tis not fit to be accepted by God to our justification. But for your arguing on the other side, That if we are justified by a vow of personal obedience, than we are not justified by Christ alone, or by faith only; that is but the old Sophism, so oft laid open, by our confessing nothing to have to do with our justification but Christ, as the cause of our justification, or that which constitutes us righteous; and for our vow of obedience and faith, that is only as the condition: granting still faith to receive the pardon, but not thereby to justify. And so once more I will agree with you, that is, with that concluding proposition of yours, whether you will permit me, or no; and do it now again without any need of the least syllable of retraction. Thus have I attended you a most wearisome journey, being scarce permitted to pass over any line in your Papers without answering some either mistake, or question of yours. And truly I have served you freely and faithfully, and that hath swelled it to a bulk beyond what in any reason I was bound to pay you. And if you do not please that there shall arise to me some fruit by all this by your discerning and acknowledging the causlesnesse of your exceptions, yet if you please, let us put it to others to judge between us; for 'tis possible we may judge amiss of our own performances. And therefore by your good leave (as before I told you) I shall be willing the world shall judge between us, or as many of them as shall be fitted with great patience to sit out the hearing of so mean an Act. If this course will not please you, but you think good to write back again. I shall take confidence to expect (what is most just) that you return ad punctum, or ad carceres from whence we set out: and which soever of your public charges upon that Author seems to you to remain unsatisfied by my returns, let it be specified, and your reasons joined with your expressions of dislike, such as you think will destroy the grounds and be directly and clearly opposite to the state of the question on which I build. And having now twice submitted to such punctual answering of so long a catalogue of questions, let me, I pray, be freed from any more of that task. For I know when all other things are at an end, there will never be any end of them. There is a very unhandsome English proverb to that purpose; Let me beseech you, not to fall under any suspicion of being guilty of it: and as you might justly accuse me, if I applied it to you, so I beseech you to see that it be not appliable. Yet let me tell you, When these controversies now depending are at an end, there is no one question concerning any line in those Books so paradigmatized by you, or in any piece of Divinity, wherein I understand aught, but you or any man shall for the least ask have the full sense of Wednesday Nou. 4. Your Servant H. Hammond. SIR, YOU have sent me many sheets: and the only conclusion that I can pick out of them, is an English Proverb; and that but intimated; truly Sir, if I being a fool have asked more questions than you in your wisdom are able to answer, I am ashamed of my folly, and you need not glory in your wisdom; yet such, it seems, is your high conceit of your own wisdom, that you do passionately long to publish your wisdom to the world in print. Sir, I shall not licence any Papers of yours that I have as yet received; and you may see cause hereafter to thank me for it: nor will I desire you to licence so much as an ●. of mine. But it seems you cannot think of any other way of satisfaction for that injury which you conceive hath been offered to you by your Friend (for so I call every man that deals plainly with me,) and give me leave as a friend to advise you to be ware lest the satisfaction which you gain by getting into Print, benot as imaginary as the injury which hath been offered to you, by the repeated yet necessary admonitions of Nou. 15. 1646, Your humble Servant Francis Cheynell. If you think fit to object any thing against me in Print, I doubt not but by God's help to give all that are impartial full satisfaction, as soon as my more weighty employments will permit. SIR, YOur Letter of return to my last I received not till this morning (though it were dated on the Lord's day was seven-night:) and with it an advertisement that Mr. W. whom you appointed to convey my former to you, was gone to London before it came to me. So that, although I know not how this paper will make shift to find out the way, yet can I not but address it toward you, if it be but to take the leave of you a little solemnly, and to profess that I design not any farther trouble to you on this matter, having been assured by you of the unprofitableness of my former pains; and having little hopes, that any more will prove more fortunate than those eight or nine sheets, out of which you tell me you can pick but one conclusion, viz. an English proverb, and that but intimated. Sir, I am very unhappy if I have written so much so unconcludingly: but cannot be so severe to myself, and those papers, as to imagine that it was not in your power to have picked out some others, (had they been for your turn to take notice of them) as easily as that one which you acknowledge was but intimated. It seems, your notes tend all to finding of faults; and so this came into your observation. I shall not from hence conclude that this was the only thing you had reason to dislike in those papers; Only I must say that your reasons of disliking this particular of the English▪ proverb, as far as it was mentioned by me, are by no means concluding; and to make them appear such, you are fain to affix a sense on my words very distant from that which the contexture of them is capable of. For Sir, that you have yet appeared to be a fool, or that I undertake to have any wisdom, or have any need to do so (the innocence of the cause which I have in hand being sufficient to supply that place) or that you have asked me more questions than I am able to answer, I had no way so much as intimated; but on the contrary, had for the time passed answered all your very many questions, or showed you (as in some few) how unnecessary it was to the matter in hand, to answer them; and yet promised you farther, That when the controversies now depending betwixt us were at an end, there should be no question concerning any line in those books, or any piece of Divinity wherein I understood aught, but you should for the least ask have my full sense or answer. All that that mention of the proverb could signify, was this, that I desired you would take care hereafter not to fall under any suspicion of being guilty of it; which was but a circumlocution of this plain sense, that if you returned any thing to those sheets, I desired it might be ad punctum, without ask any unnecessary questions, because that would be a way unworthy of any Scholar, and would be infinite. And if I should have told you plainly, that if you should do this, you would, by the force of that proverb, be found guilty of folly, and possibly pose a man wiser much than myself, this would not have amounted to any of the three things by you concluded from my Letter. Yet is all this as truly said by you as what you next add, That I passionately long to publish my wisdom to the world in print. The rudeness of this scoff shall be pardoned by me. I shall only speak to the truth of it. I had no such opinion of the worth of any thing, that would be pertinent answer to your exceptions, as to have any passion or longing to have it printed; I only told you, That if you could not yet acknowledge the causlesnesse of your exceptions, by your leave I should be willing the world should judge betwixt us: and in one other place, When you had bid me venture your arguments to any reader, affirming that you feared none, I thought it seasonable to tell you that I expected according to the purport of your speech, that you would give your consent that this whole matter should be referred to others judgement, and to that end Printed. I suppose, neither of these speeches imply either passion or longing after the press; And truly Sir, as long as there are such Readers abroad as you, I think a man in prudence ought beforehand to be assured of their kindness, ere he have much appetite to be in print. The short is, I was and am most willing to submit the dispute between you and me, and the truth of this question [Whether you have wronged me or no,] to any or all reasonable men: and having offered it successelesly to you, I am still ready, if you consent, to make it more public; and shall not consider any interests of my own so much, as to retract my offer. You say, You shall not licence any papers of mine which you have yet received: and then, I suppose, you are confident they will not now be licenced in this place; and it will only be in my power to take care that this be the last you shall receive. Only I shall add (without expressing any longing) that if you will licence your own, you shall not need to trouble yourself in desiring me to licence mine, or to give my consent that they be licenced. As for your advice to the contrary, I know not from what degree of kindness it proceeds: and having some reason to believe that there is nothing in them against piety, or charity, perhaps you may be mistaken, if you think your not licensing them will ever deserve thanks from me; any more than that which you call an act of friendship, doth, viz. your having dealt plainly with me. To which give me leave to answer, that friendship is a strange thing, and very distant from Christian charity, if it be any thing like those public reproaches which you laid most causelessly upon the Author of the Catechism in your Sermons. Assure yourself, if I were now in the temper of mind, in which you were when you did that, (and it seems, now continue to be) I would presently send all your papers to the Press with my answer to them; and tell you, I was in this your friend. But I have other employments for my thoughts, and other motives and principles of not revenging injuries, than those which you offer me by way of friendly advice to beware, etc. Which perhaps may intimate something of terror. I shall for the present sit down with full patience and satisfaction of mind, that I have driven this business thus far: and till your more weighty employments permit you to consider me, as my pains to serve and satisfy you deserve from you, I take my leave of you, and rest Nou. 23. 1646. Your very loving Friend H. Hammond. I would you had signified your pleasure positively, that I should not permit to any man's eyes, what you only say, you do not desire me, etc. I should then think myself obliged to burn that first part of my last answer: but as yet, wanting your directions, I have not done it. The end.