A Treatise of Justifying Righteousness, Section 1 – Book 2
§. 1. DId I not find that some Mens Ignorance and factious Jealousie is great enough to make them combustible Recipients of such Wildfire as those Strictures are; and did not Charity oblige me to do what I have here done, to save the assaulted Charity of such Persons, more than to save any Reputation of my own, I should repent that I had written one Line in answer to such Writings as I have here had to do with: I have been so wearied with the haunts of the like Spirit, in Mr. Crandon, Mr. Bagshaw, Mr. Danvers, and others, that it is a work I have not patience to be much longer in, unless it were more necessary.
Two sheets more tell us that the Doctor is yet angry; And little that's better that I can find. In the first, he saith again, that [I am busie in smoothing my way where none can stumble in, a thing never questioned by him, nor by any Man else, he thinks, who owns the Authority of the second Commandment]. And have I not then good Company and Encouragement not to change my Mind?
But, 1. He feigneth a Case stated between him and me, who never had to do with him before, but as with others in my Writings, where I state my Case my self. 2. He never so much as toucheth either of my Disputations of Original Sin, in which I state my Case and defend it. 3. And he falsly feigneth the Case stated, in words (and he supposeth in a sense) that I never had do do with: Saying, [I charge you with a new secondary Original Sin, whose Pedegree is not from Adam: I engage not a syllable further]. And pag. 8. [You have asserted that this Novel Original Sin is not derived from our Original Father; no line of Communication between them; a sin besides that which is derived from Adam, as you plainly and possitively affirm]. I never said that it had no Pedegree, no line of Communication, no kind of derivation from Adam. 4. Yea, if he would not touch the Disputation where I state my Case, he should have noted it as stated in the very Preface which he writeth against; and yet there also he totally overlooketh it, though opened in divers Propositions. 5. And the words in an Epistle to another Mans Book, which he fasteneth still on were these; [Over-looking the Interest of Children in the Actions of their nearer Parents, and think that they participate of no Guilt, and suffer for no Original Sin, but Adams only]. And after, [They had more Original Sin than what they had from Adam]. 6. He tells me, that [I seem not to understand my own Question, nor to know well how to set about my Work]; and he will teach me how to manage the Business that I have undertaken, and so he tells me how I MUST state the Question hereafter, (see his words). Reader, some Reasons may put a better Title on this Learned Doctors actions; but if ever I write at this rate, I heartily desire thee to cast it away as utter DISHONESTY and IMPUDENCE.
It troubleth me to trouble thee with Repetitions. I hold, 1. That Adams Sin is imputed (as I opened) to his Posterity. 2. That the degree of Pravity which Cains nature received from Adam, was the dispositive enclining Cause of all his Actual Sin: 3. But not a necessitating Cause of all those Acts; for he might possibly have done less evil and more good than he did. 4. Therefore not the Total principal Cause; for Cains free-will was part of that. 5. Cains actual sin increased the pravity of his nature. 6. And Cains Posterity were (as I opened it) guilty of Cains actual sin; and their Natures were the more depraved by his additional pravity, than they would have been by Adams sin alone (unless Grace preserved or healed any of them).
The Doctor in this Paper, would make his Reader believe that he is [for no meer Logomachies] and that the difference is not in words only, but the thing. And do you think that he differeth from me in any of these Propositions, or how this sin is derived from Adam? Yet this now must be the Controversie de re.
Do you think (for I must go by thinking) that he holdeth any other Derivation than this? Or did I ever deny any of this? But it is vain to state the Case to him: He will over-look it, and tell me what I should have held, that he may not be thought to make all this Noise for nothing.
He saith pag 8. [If it derive in a direct line from the first Transgression, and have its whole Root fastened there, what then? why then some words which he sets together are not the best sense that can be spoken. It is then but words, and yet it is the thing: What he may mean by [a direct Line], and what by [whole Root fastened] I know not; but I have told the World oft enough what I mean; and what he meaneth, I have little to do with.
But if he think, 1. That Adams Person did commit the sin of Cain, and of all that ever were since committed; and that Judas his act, was Adams personal act. 2. Or that Adams sin was a total or necessitating Cause of all the evil since committed; so do not I, (nor doth he, I doubt not). And … I am cast by him on the strait, either …cuse him of differing de re, and so of Doctrinal errour, or else that he knoweth … when the difference is de re, and when …nomine, but is so used to confusion, that Names and Things do come promiscuously into the Question with him: And which of these to chuse, I know not.
The Reader may see that I mentioned [Actual Sin, and Guilt]: And I think few will doubt, but Adams [Actual sin, and Cains,] were divers; and that therefore, the Guilt that Cains Children had of Adams sin and of Cains was not the same: But that Causa causae is Causa causati, and so that all following Sin was partly (but partly) caused by Adam's, we shall soon agree.
He addeth that I must make good that new Original Sin (for he can make use of the word New, and therefore made it) doth mutare naturam, as the Old doth. Ans. And how far it changeth it, I told him, and he taketh no notice of it: The first sin changed Nature from Innocent into Nocent; the Second changeth it from Nocent into more Nocent: Doth he deny this? Or why must I prove any more? Or doth nothing but Confusion please him?
3. He saith, I must prove that the Derivation of Progenitors sins is constant and necessary, not uncertain and contingent.
Ans. Of this also I fully said what I held, and he dissembleth it all, as if I had never done it: And why must I prove more? By what Law can he impose on me what to hold?
But really doth he deny that the Reatus culpae, yea and ad Poenam, the Guilt of near…r Parents sins is necessarily and certainly the Childs, though Grace may pardon it? If he do not, why doth he call on me to prove it? If he do confess the Guilt, and deny i… necessary, when will he tell us what is the Contingent uncertain Cause? For we take a R…lation (such as Guilt is) necessarily to result a posito fundamento.
§. 2. He next cavilleth at my Citations, about which I only say, either the Reader will peruse the ci…ed words, and my words, which shew to what end I cited them (to prove our Guilt of our nearer Parents sins) or he will not. If he will not, I cannot expect that he will read a further Vindication: If he will, he needeth not.
§. 3. His second Spark is Animadversions on a sheet of mine, before mentioned, which are such as I am not willing to meddle with, seeing I cannot either handle them, or name them as the nature of them doth require, without offending him: And if what is here said (of Imputation and Representation) be not enough, I will add no more, nor write over and over still the same things, because a Man that will take no notice of the many Volumns which answer all his Objections long ago, will call for more, and will write his Animadversions upon a single Sheet that was written on another particular occasion, and pretend to his discoveries of my Deceits from the Silence of that Sheet, and from my naming the Antinomians.
I only say, 1. If this Mans way of Disputing were the common way, I would abhor Disputing, and be ashamed of the Name.
2. I do friendly desire the Author of the Friendly Debate, Mr. Sherlock, and all others that would fasten such Doctrines on the Non-Conformists, as a Character of the Party, to observe that this Doctor sufficiently confuteth their partiality; and that their Academical Church-Doctors, are as Confused, as Vehement maintainers of such expressions as they account most unsavoury, as any even of the Independants cited by them: Yea, that this Doctor would make us question whether there be now any Antinomians among us, and so whether all the Conformists that have charged the Conformists, yea or the Sectaries, with having among them Men of such unsound Principles, have not wronged them, it being indeed the Doctrine of the Church of England which they maintain, whom I and others call Antinomians and Libertines: And I hope at least the sober and sound Non-Conformists are Orthodox, when the vehementest Sectaries that calumniated my Sermon at Pinners Hall, are vindicated by such a Doctor of the Church.
3. I yet conclude, that if this One Mans Writings do not convince the Reader, of the Sin and Danger of Allarming Christians against one another, as Adversaries to great and necessary Doctrines, on the account of meer Words not understood, for want of accurateness and skill in the expressive Art, I take him to be utterly unexcusable.
Pemble Vind. Grat. p. 25. It were somewhat if it were in Learning as it is in bearing of a Burthen; where many weak Men may bear that which One or few cannot: But in the search of Knowledg, it fares as in discrying a thing afar off; where one quick-sight will see further than a thousand clear Eyes.
FINIS.
I had not time to gather the Errata of any but the First Book: Correct these Greater, or you will misunderstand the Matter.
PAge, 27. Line 2. Read self, the Act. p. 54. l. 30. r. as obliging. p. 58. l. 20. for of r. or, p. 59. l. 1, and 2. r. who is not. p. 86. l. 32. for OURS r. OUR Righteousness. p. 88. l. 7. for Covenanted r. Connoted. p. 97. l. 31. r. and suffering. p. 103. l. 9, 10. for have us Holy, r. leave us unholy. p. 110. l. 10. for we, r. were. p. 111. l. penult. and p. 112. l. 5. and 10. for our, r. one. l. 21. for but, r. must. p. 115. l. 25. for raze out, r. rake up. p. 117. l. 18. r. personating Representation. p. 118. l. 2. for Minister, r. Meriter. p. 119. l. 16. for are, r. are not. p. 140. l. 23. for if, r. that. p. 126. l. 23. for arrive, r. arm. p. 149. l. 19. r. and the. p. 153. l. 23. r. and will. p. 154. l. 26. r. our own-innocency, it p. 157. l. 29. r. Private, but. p. 169. l. 2. r. conditional. p. 177. l. 9. r. sufficiency. p. 181. l. 27. for argument, r. agreement.
The Lesser Errata.
PReface p. 3. l. 16. r. eternal. Contents, p. 2. l. 21. r. Wotton. p. 11. l. 4. for no, r. in. l. 17. r. praetendit. l. 27. r. sufficere. p. 12. l. 1. r. ficantur: l. 16. r. impetrando, l. antipen. r. Credimus. p. 13. l. 2. r. praecedit. p. 16. l. 26. r. Schlussel Burgius. p. 22. l. 9. for that, r. the p. 36. l. antipen. dele by. p. 55. l. 10. for no, r. not. p. 60. l. 15. for then, 1. there. p. 64. l. 5. for of, r. or. p. 68. l. 28. r. so to. p. 80. l. 17. r. if you will sontes. p. 91. l. 20. dele the. p. 94. l. 2. for but, r. as. l. 11. dele and. p. 102. l. 1. r. per. p. 104. l. antipen. r. Albericus. p. 135. l. 20. r. praedicus▪ l. 23. r. aliquem. p. 112. l. 28. r. relatione. p. 116. l. 21. r. fulfillers. p. 120. l. 11. r. Vasquez. p. 150. l. 26. r. indebitae. p. 167. l. 29. for if, r. is. p. 184. l. penult. for as, r. and.
In a Cursory view of some Pages, I since see these faults.
PReface, Page 8. Line 22. for and, r. as. Book 1. P. 172. l. 1. r. is it true.
Answer to the Letter, P. 93. l. ult. for Conformists, r. Nonconformists. Book 2. Part 3. P. 16. l. 20. for tum, r. tu. P. 54. l. 14. for apt, r. yet, l. 28. for produceth, r. proceedeth. P. 56. l. 13. for still, r. not. P. 65. l. 13. for Guilt, r. Gift. Book 2. Part 1. P. 259. l. 8. r. Causas. P. 268. l. 4. for first, r. full P. 269. l. 28. fore Jure, r. iure.
And I must tell the Reader that it is so long since the Papers to Mr. Cartwright were written, that if there be any passage which in my later Writings I correct, I must desire him to take the latter as my Judgment: For I am none of those that pretend my Youthful Writings to be sufficiently Accurate, much less Faultless, or that to avoid the Imputation of Mutability, profess to be no wiser than I was between twenty and thirty Years ago. I find somewhat, Book 2. Part 3. P. 51, 52. which needeth this E…plication, viz.
[God as Judg of lapsed Man, when He was judging him, added an Act of Grace, which in several respects is, 1. A Promise. 2. A Deed of Gift. 3. An Act of Oblivion or universal conditional Pardon. 4. A Law. 5. And as it hath respect to Chri… absolutely promised and foreseen Merits, it may be said, to be like or Equivolent to an universal conditional Sentence: But taking the word [Sentence] strictly as it is [a Sentence of the Individuals according to the Rule of a Law as kept or broken], so it is not properly a Sentence as to us (as is after proved.)