no guilt in my
conscience." "My head hath bin possessed with this truth [which I am
preaching] these manie years--I am not late nor newe in this
persuasion."[14] He then proceeds to quote from his notes exactly what
he had said on the subject of reconciliation in his recent Discourse. It
was as follows: "Christ doth not save us by onely doing for us _without_
us [_i.e._ historically]: yea, we come at that which Christ hath done for
us with God, by what He hath done for us _within_ us. . . . With God
there cannot be reconciliation without our becoming God-like. . . . They
deceeve and flatter themselves extreamly; who think of reconciliation
with God by means of a Saviour acting upon God in their behalfe and _not
also working in or upon them to make them God-like_," and he says that he
added in the spoken sermon, what was not in his notes, that a theology
which taught a salvation without inward moral transformation was
"Divinity minted in Hell."[15]

{294}

Dr. Tuckney in his second letter becomes still more specific. He admits
that Whichcote's "persuasion of truth" is not "late or newe"; he
remembers, on the latter's first coming to Cambridge, "I thought you then
somwhat cloudie and obscure in your expressions." What he now notices
with regret is the tendency in his old pupil to "cry-up reason rather
than faith"; to be "too much immersed in Philosophy and Metaphysics"; to
be devoted to "other authours more than Scripture, and Plato and his
schollars above others"; to be producing "a kinde of moral Divinitie,
onlie with a little tincture of Christ added"; to put "inherent
righteousness above imputed righteousness" and "love above faith," and to
use "some broad expressions as though in this life wee may be above
ordinances"; and finally he notices that since Whichcote has "cast his
sermons in this mould," they have become "less edifying" and "less
affecting the heart."[16] He thinks, too, that he has discovered the
foreign source of the infection: "Sir, those whose footsteppes I have
observed [in your sermons] were the Socinians and Arminians; the latter
whereof, I conceive, you have bin everie where reading in their workes
and most largely in their Apologie."[17]

"In a thousand guesses," Whichcote answers this last charge, in his
second letter, "you could not have bin farther off from the truth of the
thing." "What is added of Socinians and Arminians, in respect of mee, is
groundless. I may as well be calle