iV. C. By his own appointment, it is like.
C. Why did they not tell us so '?
iV. C. I know not.
0. I wiU teU you then. They were loth to tell a plain lie ; for the Doctor died ■within three days after he had writ his preface to the first impression, and therefore, it is most likely, made no alterations. That preface was dated July the first 1635,g and he died July the fourth. So I gather from those who put oiit his two last ser- mons, preached June 21st and 28th ; and he died, say they, the Lord's day following.
* First Edition, 1635, page 364
t From page 364 of B. I note tliis, as Taylor in his edition of tlie ' Friendly Debate ' mistakenly gives a reference to C G.
t There are two editions of 1685, one of his own, another of somebody's else, hnt so ordered, that they seem the same. At least, they reprinted that sheet (wherein these things are contained) with these alterations, which I add lest I should not be rightly understood by all.
§ Mr Taylor adds a foot-note here—' The dav of the month is not appended in the first unaltered edition, a copy of which is In the Bodleian Library.' This is an overlook. The 'unaltered edition' A is now before me, and it bears the date ' July 1. 1635.' Mr Taylor apparently turned to the ' Epistle Dedicatory,' which is undated, instead of to the address 'To the Reader.'— G.
292 THE soul's conflict.
•Immediately after which came out a new impression of the same year 1635, hut not called a second edition, which they would have us believe was not till 1636 ; a mere cheat, as I confidently affirm, having seen and compared all.
Not satisfied with the preceding, the charge is renewed, and, if possible, intensi- fied in a 'general preface ' to the ' 6th edition ' [1684, § ix. ; in Taylor's edition supra, vol. v., pp. 262-8]. That the -whole may be before our readers, this fresh assault may also be given : —
' And let me beseech all those who shall cast their eyes on this preface, by no means to hearken to one sort of people among them, but to look upon them as men of an evil mind, that are perniciously bent to their own and all our destruction ; such, I mean, as persuade them to read nothing that is said for their information, and take as great care to continue their scruples as we do to remove them. An in- stance of which we had long ago in the corrupting of Dr Sibbes's book, called the Soul's Conflict, which hath been in many hands since, and might have done much to the settling men's minds in dutiful oljedience to authority, if they of the then discontented party had not falsified his words, and quite altered the sense of his dis- course. For it was intended to satisfy weak and doubtful people in those very things, as well as others, which still trouble this church ; but lest they should receive such satisfaction as to conform to public orders, when they were in any un- certainty of mind about them (as Dr Sibbes honestly advised them to do, nay, told them tney ought to do, notwithstanding their doubts and scruples), there was care taken to have that passage quite blotted out of his book immediately upon his death, which happened as soon as the book had seen the light. Eead the second part of this treatise, pp. 225, 226, &c., and then consider what kind of conscience this is, and how impudently it pretends to tenderness, which is so strait-laced about a cere- mony, and takes such a liberty as this to deprave other men's writings, and make them speak contrary to their meaning. If they could be persuaded to reflect whose practice this is, and how odious it hath made those who have been guilty of it, it is possible they might be ashamed to find this foul and (as they would call it in others) anti-Christian dealing among themselves.'
Such is the charge and case of the bishop against the Puritans in all its length and breadth, and I would now make a few remarks upon it. It only requires, I apprehend, a statement of matters-of-fact to set the whole aside. But it were to dishonour the memory of the Puritans to emulate the spirit of the bishop in vindi- cating them.
[a] The text of the sentences (let the word be marked) in question is found in ' Soul's Conflict ' A, the original edition, as given in the ' Friendly Debate ;' and the changes alleged are accurately represented from ' Soul's Conflict ' B. But —
[6] The following specific notice, which the bishop, as will be shewn, knew of, but apparently found it convenient to ignore, warrants us in affirming that the omissions and additions of B, were made, if not from the dictation, at least with the sanc- tion of Sibbes himself. It is taken from the close of the address ' To the Christian Header :' — ' By reason,' he says, ' of my absence while the work was in printing, SOME SENTENCES Were MISTAKEN.'* Now, that the ' sentences ' in debate were those herein referred to, is self-evident, from this fact, that they are the only sen- tences IN THE whole book changed in B. Nor is this all. For —