And I advise his Reader to pardon such slips in the book which I confute, as concern not much the cause in hand, but are only the oversights of the well meaning Author. As when pag. 8. he distributeth the Learned Ministry into several degrees; of which one is such as have no Learning, and another such as have a little, &c. It's easy to know that this was a mere oversight. And in his supplement pag. 145. when he saith [God himself doth assent and consent to the use of all the lies and wickednesses of men and devils.] It's like the Reader will think that he meaneth by the use, that [men and devils use to lye and do wickedness,] or act these sins: If so, it were odious blasphemy indeed: But by conference I have cause to believe that the Author's judgment is sound in those ⟨image 4⟩points; and therefore that it is but an heedless speech, and that he meaneth no more but that [God consenteth when lies and wickednesses are committed that men make good use of them in esse cognito,] as to repent of them or hate them or take warning to avoid the like; and that God himself will use them as occasions of some accidental good; as sickness is used to honour the skill of the Physician: And that the word Assent slipped in because his cause was in his thoughts. If you say, This is a ridiculous equivocation: To make such use of the Liturgie in esse cognito as to hate it, or persuade from it, no enemy will deny; but what is that to using it? To use the Liturgy is to read and practise it, and so to use lying and wickedness is to lye and do wickedly: that which you call sin objective in esse cognito is not sin indeed, but the idea of it: but it is the real Liturgy which we must make a Covenant to use.
And I advise his Reader to pardon such slips in the book which I confute, as concern not much the cause in hand, but are only the oversights of the well meaning Author. As when pag. 8. he distributeth the Learned Ministry into several degrees; of which one is such as have no Learning, and another such as have a little, &c. It's easie to know that this was a meer oversight. And in his supplement pag. 145. when he saith [God himself doth assent and consent to the use of all the lyes and wickednesses of men and devils.] It's like the Reader will think that he meaneth by the use, that [men and devils use to lye and do wickedness,] or act these sins: If so, it were odious blasphemy indeed: But by conference I have cause to believe that the Author's judgment is sound in those ⟨image 4⟩points; and therefore that it is but an heedless speech, and that he meaneth no more but that [God consenteth when lyes and wickednesses are committed that men make good use of them in esse cognito,] as to repent of them or hate them or take warning to avoid the like; and that God himself will use them as occasions of some accidental good; as sickness is used to honour the skill of the Physician: And that the word Assent slipt in because his cause was in his thoughts. If you say, This is a ridiculous equivocation: To make such use of the Liturgie in esse cognito as to hate it, or perswade from it, no enemy will deny; but what is that to using it? To use the Liturgie is to read and practise it, and so to use lying and wickedness is to lye and do wickedly: that which you call sin objective in esse cognito is not sin indeed, but the idea of it: but it is the real Liturgie which we must make a Covenant to use.
