A second admonition to Mr. Edward Bagshaw written to call him to repentance for…

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 studiedly and deliberately, and yet will you not Repent?

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 pity a poor self-conceited troubler of the Church, pity 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 justify 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 Untruth) 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 ⟨p. 149⟩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 showeth the falsehood 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 implied 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