A Second Admonition to Edward Bagshaw, Part 2 · Section 61 – Section 79
Sect. 61. E. B. I ſhall conclude with mentioning one thing more:18. Crime Juſtifying a falſhood, while you openly your ſelf detect it. I affirmed that by Fleſh you had told us [war only meant, the ſenſitive appetite] This you reply is an untruth and a meer fiction, for you never ſaid ſo. Sir, you had need have a good memory, for you have writ many Books;37. Untruth implyed. in which as containing many words, there cannot want much ſin and vanity. And indeed had you meditated ſtrictly upon a quarter of what you have writ, you could not be guilty of ſo ſtrange forgetfulneſs. For in your Premonition to the Saints Reſt you have theſe very words, [Many think that by Fleſh is meant only Indwelling ſin; when, alas, it is the ſenſitive appetite that it chargeth us to ſubdue;] For which you quote, Rom. 8. 3, 4, 5, &c.
R. B. You begin comfortably, with a promiſe to Conclude; but you proceed ſadly. 1. Is not the inference as ſtrong againſt many words in your Preaching as in mine and other mens writings, that in many words there cannot want much ſin?
2. You proclaim the aggravation of your ſin, when you ſpeak for meditating ſtrictly on what we write. Can you heap up untruths in Book after Book, and commit all theſe Crimes, even when you have ſtrictly meditated what you write? Do you ſin ſo ſtudyedly and deliberately, and yet will you not Repent?
3. Reader, if ever thou wilt pitty a poor ſelf-conceited troubler of the Church, pitty this poor man, who here openly tells thee, that either he underſtands not common ſenſe, or elſe takes no heed what he ſaith, but bringeth a new untruth to juſtifie a former, even into the open light, and triumpheth in his act. He telleth you the charge which he undertaketh to prove; viz. that I have written, that [by Fleſh is only meant the ſenſitive appetite.] He now undertaketh to prove that I ſaid ſo, in the Premon. to the Saints Reſt (which is another Vntruth) becauſe I ſaid [Many think that by Fleſh the Scripture meaneth only our Indwelling ſin, when, alas, it is the inordinate ſenſitive appetite which it chargeth us to ſubdue.] Here he firſt leaveth out ſeveral words, eſpecially the word [inordinate] becauſe he read not the later Editions; And yet he put in the word [only] which the Printer in the laſt Editions hath left out, and which openly ſheweth the falſhood of his charge. Is it all one to ſay, that [by Fleſh is meant not only Indwelling ſin, and to ſay It is not meant at all?] Do you think he took any heed of the word [only] when he wrote it? My buſineſs (not in the Premonition as he miſ-reports, but in the Epiſtle) was to prove the ſinfulneſs of fleſh-pleaſing, and that when the Scripture bids us ſubdue the fleſh, and make no proviſion for it, &c. It doth not only mean, ſubdue the habits of Indwelling ſin in the underſtanding and will, and make no Proviſion for them, but alſo that we muſt prevent actual ſin by ſubduing the ſenſitive appetite unto reaſon, and ruling it by faith, and that even Original and habitual ſin it ſelf conſiſteth partly in the Inordinateneſs of that Appetite; And here I implyed this proof from the Notation of the Name; q. d. [If the ſin to be ſubdued be called Fleſh, then the Fleſhly appetite is not wholly to be excluded; For there is ſome reaſon why ſin is called Fleſh, rather than Spirit. And what can the reaſon be, but that 1. The ſenſitive appetite it ſelf is Inordinate, and ſo part of the ſeat of ſin; and 2. The underſtanding and will are enſlaved to the ſenſe or fleſh, and are vitiated with a ſinful inclination to ſerve the fleſh or ſenſe it ſelf: And therefore he that readeth in Scripture ſuch paſſages as require us to ſubdue the fleſh, he muſt not deceive himſelf by thinking that it is only Indwelling ſin (that is in the ſuperiour faculties) that is meant by fleſh, and that the ſenſitive appetite is not here meant at all, When as 1. Original ſin it ſelf is partly in the ſenſitive appetite; And, 2. Actual ſin is to be reſiſted by ſubduing the ſenſitive appetite to reaſon, and bringing the body into ſubjection as well as Indwelling ſin. to be extirpated. And if the Name of Fleſh be put upon Indwelling ſin, from the Fleſhly intereſt and Inordinate appetite, then ſurely this it ſelf is not wholly to be excluded, as no part of the ſenſe of the word Fleſh in Scripture. And when my words plainly expreſs this ſenſe, with what face could this man, not only put other words upon me, which were none of my own, but alſo another ſenſe, and a ſenſe clean contrary to the words? And this to juſtifie a former falſhood; And this after that in divers Writings I have fully, and plainly diſputed of Original ſin as it] is the corruption of the ſuperiour faculties; and in divers Books about Converſion ſhewed the neceſſity of the cleanſing and renewing of thoſe faculties! And here the word [only] was before his eyes, a confutation of his calumny?
Sect. 62. E. B. And indeed Sir, that I may confeſs a ſecret to you, this very paſſage of yours I looked on as ſo conceited and ſingular, and many years agoe it gave me ſo great offence, that I threw away your Book upon it, and never would read it over, as not thinking it poſſible that one who erred in the very entrance in ſo plain a truth, was able to inſtruct me in any thing that was worth my knowing.—
R. B. 1. The Book was written about twenty one or twenty two years agoe, and you are a Young man yet: You ſurely begun very early to be paſt poſſibility of being taught any thing by ſuch as I. Is this only to declare your humility? or that you ſpeak evil of the Books which you never read? and that you are the fitteſt man to be the accuſer of them?
2. It may be there was ſome early antipathy between our judgements. For I will confeſs ſuch another ſecret to you, That about twelve years ago a Latine ſmall diſcourſe came to my hand as famed to be yours, againſt the Species of Monarchical Government, and the arguments againſt Monarchy in it ſeemed to me ſuch poor injudicious ſlender ſtuff, that (though I did not as you caſt away the Book till I came to the end) it was one occaſion of my writing the twenty Arguments againſt Democraſie, which I put into the Book which I have revoked (my Polit. Aph.—)
3. Do you not tell the world how fit a Champion you are for any truth or reformation, who when you read [not only indwelling ſin] expound it [not at all Indwelling ſin,] and then glory that you caſt away the Book as that which could not poſſibly teach you—. And are you not by this time an excellent Scholar and a very wiſe man, if you did ſo by all your other Books?
Sect. 63. E. B. p. 26. I am much confirmed in that judgement of your Book, ſince a perſon yet living, and one worthy of credit, accuainted me, that when the learned and judicious Mr. Herle had read that cryed-up Book of yours, he told him, It had been happy for the Church of God if your friends had never ſent you to School. Mr. Cawdry had the ſame opinion of it; And another perſon as knowing in the Myſterie of Godlineſs as either of them told a friend of mine, that notwithſtanding the noiſe about you, you would end in fleſh and blood.
R. B. 1. A worthy queſtion! What a Book is which you never read! I will help you out, and mend your cauſe. You diſpraiſe it that never read it; and you name ſome that read it and diſpraiſed it; And I that wrote it am far from praiſing it. Therefore I hope you are gratified▪ and who will now contradict you? (Though I confeſs for my own part, I think I ſhall not think my ſelf fit to tell the world in Print what any mans Book is, at the ſame time when I confeſs that I never read it: But you may poſſibly avoid that way becauſe it is mine.)
2. But he that employeth you ſhall miſs of his deſign, of engaging me againſt the names of Mr. Herle and Mr. Cawdrey, and againſt your unnamed perſon: It is ſufficient to me that I honour their names, and abhort all motions contrary to the Laws of Chriſtian Love; But I was not bound that they ſhould love or honour me, and if they did not, that is not my ſin: But if my ſin deſerve it, I have farr greater accounts on which to be diſpleaſed with that ſin. And I do with hearty willingneſs hear the Propheſie of him that told your friend, I would end in fleſh and blood, to awaken me the more to the neceſſary fear and vigilancy, leſt his Propheſie ſhould prove true. But whether theſe ſtories be true or not, it little concerneth me to enquire. If they be not, I pray name not the reporters or witneſſes.
Sect. 64. E. B. You have promiſed me that you will make no Reply—
R. B. It was but conditionally [if you write at the former rates.] And your alterations (by venturing to diſpute for ſeparation) have declared me not obliged. And becauſe I fear you were by thoſe words encouraged the more to all your untruths, I will promiſe you ſilence no more, though I purpoſe it. I have done this that you might have a ſecond Admonition to Repent, and the ſimple may not believe your multiplyed falſhoods: But now, he that will be hereafter deceived by you, let him be deceived.
Sect. 65. E. B. 20. When you write next I intreat—1. That you will be ſhort, 2. And ſignificant.
R. B. Your Counſel is Prudent Sir, but all men cannot attain to your exactneſs and ſignificancy! Nor will I follow your Rule till I ſee better effects of it. Nor pretend Brevity for leaving a Book almoſt wholly unanſwered, which I pretend to anſwer as you do: And I will better ſhew that I underſtand common Engliſh, before I call to others for ſignificancy.
Sect. 66. E. B. 1. That you will not miſtake the thing you write about, but labour clearly to underſtand the queſtion.
R. B. But I will not undertake to make you underſtand it.
Sect. 67. E. B. Do not ramble and talk of Nature as it is Pure,38. & 39. Untruths implyed. when you ſhould write about nature corrupted.
R. B. 1. Remember that it is not you but I that am the Reſpondent, and had the ſtateing of the Queſtion. Here therefore are two more falſhoods intimated, 1. That the queſtion was only about Nature as corrupted. 2. That I ſpake of Nature as pure, and not as corrupted. For the queſtion put by me was about Nature as Nature; and that men ſhould not ſo ſpeak againſt the corruption, as to diſhonour Gods part, Nature as Nature, nor yet as it is corrupted, to make it worſe than it is. So that I ſpake not of it as Pure; but I ſpake of it both abſtractedly as Nature, and alſo as corrupt.
Sect. 68. E. B. Do not diſcourſe about Free-will at large, when you ſhould only handle free-will in the things of God.
R. B. This implyeth another Untruth,40. Untruth implyed. that I did not ſpeak of Free-will in the things of God. To forbear the breaking of ſome of Gods Laws, and to do ſomewhat commanded are the things of God: I ſhew that men have ſome free-will to forbear Murder, Adultery, Theft, Treaſon, Perjury, Perfecution, yea, and writing falſhoods. If not, why do you cry out of Perſecution, Silencing, Atheiſm, when men have not the leaſt free-will to forbear them! Why do you refuſe the imputation of your own Untruths, if you have not the leaſt free-will to forbear them? Your words were [Now we ſee one firm reaſon to deny the leaſt allowance of free-will in the things of God, ſince thoſe that hold it in any degree—]▪ The Synod of Dort taught other Doctrine: And ſo doth Mr. Fenner in his Book of wilful Impenitence. And in the ſecond Sheet of Mr. Dods ſayings, when one had been reſtrained from ſwearing at Dinner by his preſence contrary to his uſe, he took occaſion to ſhew, that men can do more than they do, and can forbear more evil than they forbear.
Sect. 69. E. B. And becauſe many Profeſſors of Chriſtianity are ignorant and injudicious, do not think that therefore you do well to call Chriſtians,41. Untruth, notorious. conſidered as Chriſtians ſo. Theſe are evident and apparent Sophiſms which abound in your laſt Treatiſe.
R. B. Theſe are deliberate written words: And if all this be the meer fiction of your brain; If I have not one ſyllable that hath any ſuch importance; Nor one word in my Books have the leaſt ſhew of ſuch a thing; Nay, if the clean contrary be moſt openly and plainly expreſſed in them, and yet rather than confeſs your former falſhood, you fear not before God and man to ſecond it with this moſt immodeſt additional forgery, which hath no Cloak, let your Reader judge, and let your Conſcience judge at laſt, whether Repentance was your duty. He that ſaith Chriſtians conſidered as Chriſtians are ignorant, injudicious, &c. layeth his charge on Chriſtianity, more than on the men: Had you no way to hide your former falſhood, but by this impudent forgery that I ſpeak againſt Chriſtianity it ſelf? Had not Repentance been a better reparation of your proſtituted honour, than this.
Sect. 70. E. B. Do not love to jumble abſurd and inſignificant Phraſes together: as to ſay [A defective, faulty, true Church.]
R. B. Reader, if thou expect that he ſhould tell thee, the abſurdity or inſignificancy of any one of all theſe words, thou muſt not put him to ſo much condeſcenſion, but take it on his word, or reſt unſatisfied. Whether Defective, or faulty, be inſignificant words, or whether no True Church be defective and faulty, if you believe him, perhaps you may hear in his time.
Sect. 71. E. B. To mention a Political, Spiritual, Conſtitutive Head.
R. B. More wiſdom ſtill! which of theſe is the non-ſenſe?Wiſdom and humility in the dark. Is it that the Pope pretendeth to be a Political Head? Conſult. D. Lud. Moulins Jugulum Cauſae, and all Goldaſtus his three Volumes, with Chamier, Rivet, Whitaker, Blondel, and all that write againſt him. Or is it that he claimeth to be a Spiritual Head or Governour? Then all his own defenders and all our oppoſers of him wrong him, till Mr. Bagſhaw came to reform this language: Or is it becauſe he claimeth not to be the Conſtitutive Head of the Church? Ask all thoſe Papiſts that ſay it is Eſſential to a member of the Church to be ſubject to the Pope. Reader, Is not this man uncharitable, that will neither give us his leave to uſe our old words, nor teach us better; but intimate that we ſpeak nonſenſe, and he can ſpeak better if he would! We have hitherto been uſed to call a Governed Church a Political Society, as diſtinct from a meer concourſe or community of Chriſtians. And why not? if foreign come from foreign: And if God hath prepared for them a City, whoſe God he is not aſhamed to be called, Heb. 11. 16. And if it be well ſaid, Phil. 1. 27. foreign: And if our Political converſations foreign,Phil. … 26. be in Heaven, why may not a Church, at leaſt ſuch a one as the Pope doth claim, be called a Political body or ſociety! Or at leaſt, why may not the Pope be ſaid to lay ſuch a claim? We have been uſed to call that Government Spiritual, which is done by the Word and Church Keyes, and conſequently the Governours Spiritual? And why muſt this be non-ſenſe now? We have been uſed to call that Governour a Conſtitutive Head, without whom the ſociety is not eſſentiated in ſpecie, as a King in a Kingdom. O unkind Teacher, that will leave us all in this ignorance, and not vouchſafe one word to help us out.
Sect. 72. E. B. And do not think to excuſe your ſelf from writing Non-ſenſe, by ſaying you meant a thing objectively, and not ſubjectively.
R. B. Nay then I deſpair of ſcaping non-ſenſe! If the Object and the Subject muſt needs be all one, and if ſenſe in the Book or argument, and ſenſe or reaſon in the Reader be all one, I am not the firſt that was deceived: No nor if it be all one to ſay You underſtand not the ſenſe or reaſon of my argument, and [you have no ſenſe or reaſon.] But new Lords new Laws.
Sect. 73. E. B. And do not make Philoſophy ridiculous as you do when you tell us, That our acts of knowing exterior things are as Philoſophers affirm, objectively organicall, though not efficiently and formally. Sir I am ſure no wiſe man talks thus; and if Philoſophers do, its time we left them, &c.
R. B. When you once begin to ſay you are ſure, and no wiſe man is againſt you, I begin to think you talk more ignorantly than when you ſeem to doubt; I will not prophane a point ſo little underſtood by you, and ſo much ſcorned, as to diſpute it with you. Enjoy your ignorance and ſcorn.
Sect. 74. E. B. Laſtly, When truth is to be examined, and the nature of a thing ſtrictly to be conſidered, do not argue againſt it from ſome ill conſequence—as what you deſperately urge againſt the Scriptures being a perfect Rule,42. Untruth which foundation of faith and practice you labour to overthrow, by tragically infiſting on the conſequences that will follow—Sir this in the end will be found perfect folly and madneſs; therefore leave it in time, leſt the Lord reprove you, and you be found a lyar.
R. B. 1. Alas, That your Pen could write the laſt word without the more prevalent rebuke of your Conſcience? After ſo many Untruths? yea, and when in the ſame paragraph you are renewing the ſame ſin? in ſaying I deny the Scripture to be a perfect Rule, when I ſtill ſay, [It is a perfect Rule ſo far as it is a Rule!
2. If you intend ſenſe and truth, your argument muſt run thus [He that ſaith the Scripture is not a particular Rule, commanding the thing in particular, but only a General Rule, for the Metre and Tunes of Pſalms, for the dividing of it ſelf into Chapters and Verſes, for the hour and place of meetings, for the choice of a Text to preach on, and words and method of Sermon and Prayer, for the naming or determining the Perſon that ſhall be a Paſtor, for the form of Pulpits, Tables, Cups, &c. yea, for the making of a Clock, or Watch, or Hour-glaſs, to meaſure the time by, or for building the Houſe to preach in, &c. He that ſaith theſe are not determined of particularly in Scripture, but only under the General Rule of doing all things to Gods Glory, to Edification, decently and in order, &c. this man doth deny Scripture to be a perfect Rule, and laboureth to overthrow the foundation of faith and practice, and proveing what he ſaith by the ill conſequences that elſe will follow, will in the end be found in perfect folly and madneſs, reproved by God, and found a lyar: But ſuch a one is R. B. Therefore, &c.] Reader, if this be ſound doctrine, if after all Gods warnings of the danger of Levity and Ignorant pride, thou canſt yet receive ſuch errors and revilings, as a defence of the foundation, thy caſe alſo is to be lamented.
3. When Def. par. 1. pag. 98, &c. I had fully deſcribed the opinion which I rejected, and had given in fifteen reaſons againſt it, what doth this eaſie confident Diſputer, but inſtead of offering an anſwer to any one of them, calls it perfect folly and madneſs ſo to confute it by ill conſequences? Doth this diſputing ſatisfie any ſober enquirer after truth? Doth he not reproach his followers in the eye of the world about him, while he thus openly ſeemeth to expect, that they will reſt in ſuch reaſonings or replyes as theſe? And really if we prove againſt the Papiſts, that though they directly deny not Chriſt and his Office, yet that ſuch Conſequents will follow upon divers of their errors, will this man that talketh ſo much of Antichriſtianiſm, ſay that it is perfect folly and madneſs to charge ſuch conſequents upon them? If I prove that any opinion doth conſequentially deny God, or the ſouls immortality, or ſubvert all our faith, do I deſerve no better an anſwer than that? this is my perfect folly and madneſs, and I ſhall be proved a lyar. What need is there of learning reaſon, ſobriety or modeſty to enable any man to diſpute and ſeem Orthodox at this rate?
Sect. 75. E. B. You may ſee by this brief taſte, how eaſie it is for me to defend my ſelf—
R. B. O wonderful blinding power of ſelf-conceit!
Sect. 76. E. B. p. 21. It is not a leſſening of your Reputation that I mainly aim at: much leſs at the advancing of my own upon the ruine of yours. But I thought the truth of Chriſt worth my vindicating: And when I ſaw that your name did ſtand in the way of it—The whole deſign of this Letter is (as to others) to perſwade all to look upon you, not only as a fallible, but a miſtaken man—
R. B. I have long ago done wondering that ſuch men as you can deliberately chooſe and uſe ſuch means, when once they have dared to intitle God and his Glory to their falſe doctrines: For what is it that they will not think lawful to do for God and Truth? If ſome ſerve him by killing his ſervants, no wonder if others do it by ſlandering them, and perſwading all to ſeparate from them: And if they ſay [Rom. 3. 7. If the Truth of God hath more abounded through my Lye unto his Glory, why yet am I alſo judged as a ſinner?] But God and Truth may be better ſerved by Truth. But falſhood muſt by falſhood be upheld. But Sir my Reputation is at your ſervice for an honeſter uſe; but ſeeing it was but for the deſtruction of Chriſtian Love and Peace that you deſigned to make a ſtepping-ſtone of it, try whether you be not ſlipt beſide it into the dirt.
Sect. 77. E. B. I thought it my duty to reprove you, and to ſee your ſin (and error herein) in order before you—
R. B. I have much more ſin than you are aware of, which all ſuch invitations do call me to renew my ſorrow for, and vigilancy againſt: But when I once take the Principles of Chriſtian Love and Vnity for ſin, and the principles and practice of Enmity and Diviſion for my duty, I ſhall then avoid ſin as ſinfully and lamentably as many in this age have done.
Sect. 78. E. B. If you will ſtill go on, and under pretence of writing for Love, do what you can to keep up a mixed, diſorderly, perſecuting and imperfect Church-State, leaveing us no hope nor poſſibility of reformation—
R. B. 1.43. Untruth This is another implyed Untruth, that I keep up a perſecuting Church-State, when I have written ſo much more than you againſt it: yea, that I do what I can to do it; as if you thought that we can do no more evil than we do, and our power were as ſmall to ſin as you make it to be to good. But you will find at laſt that ſeparating from Churches for mixture, and imperfection, and ſuch diſorder as we have now in queſtion, and to cloak this with ſlandering the honeſt Conforming Miniſters with Perſecution, who lament it in others, and never practiſe it (though I am not one that take them to be blameleſs) this will prove a greater hinderance to Reformation than a ſober peaceable Chriſtian converſation will be.
2. And thus unskilful builders do pull down! Did our Separations and Church-diviſions theſe ſix and twenty years laſt paſt promote our Reformation? Wonderful! That men can yet take that for the reforming way, which hath deſtroyed Reformation, and brought us into all the confuſions we are in? Will all this experience teach us nothing? I will ceaſe wondering at the words, Luke 16. 31. If they hear not Moſes and the Prophets, neither will they be perſwaded, though one roſe from the dead.] And do you not know how your erronious reaſonings and practices do occaſion men even to ſcorn at your talk of Reformation? and if we did not diſown you and renounce your errors, and miſ-doings, the Non-conformiſts were like to be expoſed to common deriſion for your ſake, and accounted a ſort of men at enmity with ſobriety and peace; and multitudes were like to be hardened by you into greater evils and enmities than I will name. And can any ignorant Mountebanks more mortally and perniciouſly practiſe Phyſick, than you thus practiſe the Reformation of the Churches? Which are wounded and torn by ſuch Reformers?
Sect. 79. E. B. My miſcalling you Learned, Judicious,44 Untruth▪ Mortified—is indeed the only (untruth) which you can juſtly charge me with—
R. B. Alas Sir, is that ſin ſuch a jeſting matter? Will you end as you begun? When you ſaid you had done, will you not have done writing untruths? When you have no other matter for Vntruths, will you make this another, to ſay that no one of thirty three which I named to you, can be juſtly charged on you?—Ask any ſober impartial man who hath read your Book and mine, whether you have cleared your ſelf of any one of them, or ſpoken any thing that is conſiderable and probable to ſuch a purpoſe?