fortified with a Sanction but with a Sanction that promiseth Justification and Salvation not for the Duties sake but for Christs sake only Now both his Propositions being false no wonder that the inference he draws from them be ridiculous insignificant and of no force at all against me for I do freely grant that it is a fallacious way of reasoning to argue from the meer ambiguity of a word that hath several significations But that was not nor is it my way of arguing And this being the case as I have truly represented it and as manifestly appears from the Apology it self the ridiculous demonstration to wit a Law is a Law the Gospel is a Law therefore the Gospel is a Law I say this ridiculous demonstration which Mr. Goodwin in pag 41. would lay at my door returns home to himself and calls him its true Father and justly it may for assuredly it is a Bratt of his own brain and breeding and for that reason he seems to be very fond of it calling it a pretty way of arguing and saying without doubt it is unanswerable And yet if we look upon this pretty little rogue as the Image of his Brain that begat it and if we strip the Baby of its identick dress or fools coat it is very easily answered For being formed according to the tenour of his Discourse concerning the various significations of the word Law it amounts to no more than this A meer nominal Law that requires nothing is a real proper Law that requires something but the Gospel is a meer nominal Law that requires nothing therefore the Gospel is a real proper Law that requires something The Proposition is that which I suppose he would father upon me but I justly disown it as none of mine and so I do by the other identical Proposition a Law is a Law Let this Brother prove if he can by any good consequence that there is any such thing expressed or implyed in any part of the Apology I am so well assured that there is no such thing there that I defy him or any Man to prove the affirmative that there it is And by and by we shall find himself clearing me of that imputation and blaming me for proving the Gospel to be a Law because it hath Precepts requiring Duty fortified with a sanction of Promises and Threatnings Which is a demonstration that either this Brother asserts that which he knows to be false or else that he contradicts himself and writes he knows not what The Proposition then or Major is the birth of his own Brain and whether it was begotten against his Conscience as Bastards use to be let him look to it I assert nothing pro or con in that matter As for the Assumption or second Proposition he will not he cannot deny it to be his own to wit That the Gospel is a Law a meer nominal Law which requires no Duty of us at all for it is the great thing he contends for with all his Might throughout his Book Now it appearing thus that the Argument is his own much good may it do him and his Cause which the World may know to be a very good one by this token that it is supported by such pretty honest Devices And thus the pretty unanswerable Argument is easily answered when stript of its Identical dress For both Propositions are false The Major Proposition is self evidently false when stript of its Identical dress And if he will not suffer his Baby to be stript of its Fools coat my Answer is That it is his own and he may do with his own what he pleases The Minor I have proved to be false and shall further prove it to be false before we have done And therefore though the conclusion as to the matter concluded be very true according to the Logick Rule ex falsis verum yet it is not therefore formally true as it is concluded and because it is concluded and inferred from such false premisses But he pretends in pag. 42. to have provided a proper remedy against this malady of arguing from the ambiguity of a word of various signification by clearing the sense of the word Law which he says he has largely done But cui bono to what good purpose was all that waste of Time Paper and Ink since it doth not reach me at all for I defy him to shew me where in the Apology I did ever so much as once endeavour to prove the Gospel to be a proper Law from the meer sound of the word Law which is of a various signification But though I did not so argue yet my R. B. hath assumed to himself the liberty of arguing from the ambiguity of the word Gospel almost throughout his whole Discourse to prove that the Gospel is so a Doctrine of Grace as to require no Duty of us at all Turpe est igitur doctori quum culpa redarguit ipsum I think it had been more to the purpose to have cleared the sense of the ambiguous word Gospel so as to have shewed that in Holy Scripture or the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines it is never taken for the Covenant of Grace made with the Church through Christ the Mediator including the conditional part of it but always and every where for a meer absolute Promise or Promises which require no Duty of us at all If my Reverend Brother had done this he had done his work and had answered me effectually and had made me his Proselite too But I do not blame him for not doing this because it is plainly impossible to be done But what if my purpose and design in the First Section of the Second Chapter of the Apology which he pretends to answer was not so much to argue and prove the Gospel to be a Law As 1. To instruct our Accuser who seemed not to know our Principles and to let him know what we really mean by a new Law of Grace 2 To rebuke him for saying ignorantly that new Law of Grace was a new word of an old but ill meaning and to prove by Testimonies of credible Witnesses Antient and Modern that new Law of Grace was no new word of an old but ill meaning but that he in saying so against us the Subscribers was a false Witness against his Brethren And to show that this was my purpose and design there needs no more but to read the Apology Page 20 21 22 24. 3. Further What if for the Instruction and Information of our Accuser I told him and the World plainly 1. That God most freely made the Covenant and enacted the Law of Grace with us through Jesus Christ 2. That God by this Law of Grace both obliges and encourages us to certain Duties and also by the Promises of it obliges himself to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake if we perform the Duties prescribed and comply with the terms injoyned 3. What if I plainly declared that by new Law of Grace
only to prove that in the 5th Century the Gospel-Covenant was called a Law the Christian-Law This Mr. G. doth not deny but insinuates that by Christian-Law Salvian meant nothing but a Doctrine of Grace which hath no precepts and requires no duty of us at all But if my R. B. once read over all Salvian and understand what he reads I hope he will never be so shameless as to deny plain matter of fact For if I be put to it I shall if the Lord will prove by his express words that he called the Gospel not only the Christian-Law but the New-Law and that it is a New-Law which hath precepts that oblige to duty Thus I have justified my citations out of the four Fathers Justin Martyr Cyprian Augustin and Salvian and have confirmed and strengthened their Testimonies by shewing that they prove what they were cited for and more too Now we must see what exceptions Mr. G. brings against my Modern Witnesses And 1. He excepts against Bradwardin because he was a Papist I Answer behold here the Justice and fair dealing of those Men with whom we have to do They bring Bradwardin to witness for them against us and then he is a good witness tho he be a Papist But when we bring him to witness for us against them then he is no good witness and his Testimony signifies nothing because he is a Papist The truth is we had not mentioned Bradwardin in this cause if he had not been first publickly Summoned by Mr. G's good Friend our Accuser to witness against us And if they will confess that they did foolishly in first mentioning him against us they shall hear no more of him from us as a witness against them For I declare I do not at all value his Testimony meerly as it is his Testimony And I think that in the Apol. I have shewed sufficient reason why no true Christian should value his Testimony meerly because it is his Testimony And that with a non obstante notwithstanding that high esteem which Mr. G. saith he hath obtained among Men. And yet because it is in my Judgment unlawful to belye either the Pope or Devil I must forbear saying either that Bradwardin asserted works done by Grace to be strictly and properly meritorious or that with incomparable strength and closeness of reason he refuted the Pelagian Heresies in all Points till Mr. Goodwin hath clearly proved both these matters of Fact for I have some reason to doubt whether they be both true and as to one of them I gave one reason of my doubting in the Apology p. 164. and another in p. 133. 2dly He endeavours to elude the Testimony of the Professors of Leyden by saying That they only mean that the Gospel in a large and improper sense may be termed a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatings in the Books of the New Testament Answ Ah poor Writing I would I had wherewithal to cover thy Nakedness but that is out of my power for the Leyden Professors give no such Reason why the Gospel may be termed a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatnings in the Books of the New Testament But they say expressly as cited in the Apology p. 27. that the Gospel is sometimes called a Law because it also hath its Own Commandments and its Own Promises and Threatnings Mark ye 1. They do not say it may be improperly called a Law but that it is called a Law 2. They do not say that it is called a Law because there are Precepts Commands and Threatnings in the Books of the New Testament but because it also hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings that is plainly That as the old Covenant of Works had its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings so also the Gospel or New Covenant of Grace hath its own Commandments and its own Promises and Threatnings 3dly As the Promises of the Gospel are its own so are the Commandments and Threatnings of it its own but the Promises are its own because they properly belong to it then also are the Commandments and Threatnings its own for the same reason because they properly belong to it For the worthy and Learned Professors make no difference but say that Commandments Promises and Threatnings are all its own Now this is the very true reason why I according to Scripture call the Gospel a Law As for what Mr. G. Disc p. 67. cites out of Polyander there it makes nothing against what he says here in the passage now under consideration but at the most shews that Gospel is a word of various signification which I have freely granted and fully spoken to before And as Polyander renounced the Popish Socinian and Arminian opinion concerning the New Law so do I and my Brethren renounce the self-same Opinion And yet in the sence of the Orthodox Ancient and Modern Divines we believe the Gospel to be a New Law of Grace and which is the same thing in other words a New Covenant of Grace which hath Commands Promises and Threatnings of its own 3dly He endeavours to put by the Testimony of Gomarus by saying That he understood the Gospel in its larger acceptation when he called it a Law in the place cited by me and pretends to have made this out in the 34th Page of his Discourse to which he refers his Reader Answ In my Remarks and Animadversions on his Sixth Chapter I have clearly and fully refuted that part of his Discourse and shewed how grosly he abuses Gomarus by wresting his words to an absurd sense which they are no ways capable of to wit that there the word Gospel is not taken by Gomarus for God's Covenant of Grace only but for all the second part of the Bible that is all the Books of the New Testament I proved from Gomarus his own words that by the word Gospel he neither did nor could understand there all the Books of the New Testament but that really he there understood by the Gospel the very Covenant of Grace it self both discover'd to and made with Man and recorded in the Books both of Old and New Testament and likewise that there he called the same Covenant of Grace God's Law because of the duty required in it and the condition prescribed by it To which I shall only add now that in the Apology p. 100. I cited the 29th Position which Gomarus lays down next before the 30th that here is under consideration and in that 29th Position he saith That the Gospel is called God's Covenant because it promulgates the mutual Obligation of God and Men concerning the giving them Eternal Life upon their performing a certain Condition and that it is called the Covenant concerning free Salvation by Christ because God in the Gospel of mere Grace publishes and offereth unto all Men whatsoever on condition of true Faith not only Christ and perfect Righteousness in him for Reconciliation and Eternal Life but also he
I meant nothing but the new Covenant of Grace and only said that this Gospel-Covenant might be called a Law without just cause of offence to the Brethren because the Scriptures of Truth call it a Law Now if I did all this in the Apology Page 21 22 23 27. as I certainly did and God Angels and Men know it to be true then my Reverend Brother did not do well to go about to deceive the People and make them believe that I introduce a new Law of Works to be justified and saved by and for them and that my Arguments to prove it are all grounded upon the ambiguity of the word Law unexplained All which is utterly false I confess indeed what is true that though my purpose and design was not to prove but to explain and declare what we meant yet en passant on the by and to shew that our explication was agreeable to Scripture I dropped four passages of Scripture and referred to more in the Margent which do abundantly prove the thing they were quoted for But it is as clear as the Light at Noon-day that my Proof from the said four passages of Scripture in the Line and from the other referred to on the Margent is not in the least established upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law but upon the plain sense and meaning of the Scriptures there alledged Nor could an Argument from those Scriptures there quoted or referred to be grounded upon the meer ambiguity of the word Law because the word Law is not to be sound in any of them Let any Man read them all over and he shall find what I say to be true to wit that the word Law is not in any of them I acknowledge likewise that a few Lines after in the same 22th Page I quote three Scriptures where the word Law is but then it is again as clear as the Light that I quoted those three Scriptures to prove nothing but this That our Brethren should not dislike our calling the Gospel-Covenant a Law because the Scriptures of Truth call it so expresly And my R. Brother acknowledges now with me that it is so called in two of the places to wit Isa 42.4 and Rom. 3.27 and in several others which he hath quoted As for my other Argument from Humane Authority neither is that established on the ambiguity of the word Law but on the word it self its being found in the Writings of Antient and Modern Divines long before we were born From whence I clearly proved that the Word is not new but old And if the Testimonies of my Witnesses prove more as they really do even that the Gospel-Covenant was not onely of old called a Law but that it really is a Law of Grace which requires some Duty of us that was beside my design and purpose which was only to prove matter of fact as appears from the express words of the Apology pag. 24. lin 16 17 18 19 20 21. If any object that in the Preface and Index of the First Section of the Second Chapter it is said expresly that we have proved the Gospel to be a new law of Grace by the Word of God or Scripture and by the Testimonies of Antient Fathers and Modern Divines I Answer It is true it is said so But then consider that the said Preface and Index were Written and Printed after the Apology was Finished and Printed though in the Book they are both put before it as it is the custom to write Prefaces and Indexes last and yet place them first in Books Now when I wrote the Preface and Index taking a review of all that was said on that head in the Apology I found that my Quotations from Scripture and Doctors had proved more than I designed 1. I designed only to explain our meaning and by citing the four Scriptures in the Line and others in the Margent to show that our explication was agreeable to Scripture 2. By alledging the Testimonies of Antient and Modern Doctors of the Church I designed only to prove matter of fact to wit that new law of Grace was no new word but old This was what I designed in writing that part of the Apology But by looking it over after it was Printed I found that the Scriptures cited and referred to and the Testimonies of Doctors there alledged do really prove that the Gospel-Covenant made with the Church through Christ the Mediatour is a new Law of Grace which requires some Duties of us and which promises to justifie and glorifie us for Christs sake only if we through Grace perform the said Duties And for this reason it was that in the Preface and Index I said that we had proved the Gospel in the sense there given to be a new Law of Grace both by Scripture and by the Testimonies of Ancient Fathers and Modern Divines If any do further object That Humane Testimony can only prove matter of fact I answer It 's true Humane Testimony simply as such can solidly prove no more nor did I bring Humane Testimonies to prove any thing but that the Gospel Covenant was in their time called a New Law and a New Law of Grace and that they believed it to be such a Law which is nothing but matter of Fact Yet Men by giving Testimony to Matter of Fact may at the same time and in the same Testimony bring such Arguments from Scripture or Reason as shall likewise prove matter of right And this my Witnesses did especially Justin Martyr Cyprian Austin the Professors of Leyden Gomtrus Dr. Andrews and Dr. Twiss they both called the Gospel-Covenant a Law a New Law a New Law of Grace which proves the matter of fact and moreover in their Testimonies to the matter of Fact they alledged such places of Scripture or gave such reasons as do prove the matter of Right to wit That the Gospâ—l Covenant is a New Law of Grace and may and ought to be so accounted Now having first told the World how easily he could answer my Arguments and wipe off all my Citations upon a supposition which is of his own feigning and notoriously false as I have proved he next comes to answer my Arguments that is indeed my one Argument from Scripture for in effect there is no more but one and that one is there brought to confirm our Explication of the words Gospel Covenant or Law of Grace and to shew that what we mean by those words is consonant to the Scriptures of Truth as is evident from the 21. and 22. pag. of the Apology Well But be it Argument or Arguments he undertakes to give us a clear Answer to it and in order thereunto he proposes to do three things 1. To shew that the Gospel hath no Precepts or Commandments 2. That it hath no Threatnings 3. That it hath no Conditional Promises This is directly against the Professors of Leyden who in their Synopsis of purer Divinity say expresly as their words are quoted in the Apology
Son Authority to execut Judgment because he is the Son of Man On which place the assemblies Annotations have this note Authority to execute Judgment is Supream power to Govern and Administer all things Because he is the Son of Man That is Not only as he is God but also as he is Man that all Men may see their Judge Rev. 1.7 And on the same John 5.27 The Dutch Annotators say as followeth And hath given him power to execute Judgment also i. e. To Govern all things with power of Life and Death and especially at the last day Mat. 28.18 Rom. 14.9 Rev. 1.18 Because he is the Son of Man that is Because he having assumed the humane nature into the unity of his person is appointed by God for a Judge and Mediator and shall also as Man execute the same office Dan. 7.13 John 17.2 Acts 10.42 and 17.31 The last English Annotations 2d volume have the like note on John 5.27 But especially Mr. Hutcheson in his exposition on John 5.27 Is full and clear His words are these †Hutcheson on John pag. 76. on the 27th verse of the 5th Chapter Christ declareth that not only as God he hath a Fountain of Life equally with the Father but That he hath Authority given him from the Father to execute or do Judgment even because he is the Son of Man By executing or doing Judgment of which v. 22. We are to understand a Dominion and Government over all things and particularly the power of Life and Death to Condemn or absolve Which will be especially verified in the Judgment of the last day of which he speaketh v. 28.29 And Christ saith Authority is given him to do this Because he is the Son of Man or as he is the Son of Man Whereby we are not to understand his humane nature simply considered but his office and his humane nature as united in one person with the Godhead that because he is God-Man the Mediator of sinners and took on our nature for that end therefore he hath all power committed to him as Mediator for the good of the Church the Exercise whereof he fully entred upon after his resurrection Mat. 28.18 Rom. 14.9 Rev. 1.18 Pril 2.8 9 10 11. And he is the visible Actor and Judge in these Administrations which could be done by none but him who is God also and particularly in the last day wherein he shall be Judge in visible Shape Acts 10.42 and 17.31 Ibid. Doctrin 3. Mr. Hutcheson saith that Christ hath a donative Kingdom as Mediator God-Man for the good of his Church c. And Doct. 6. He saith that Christ in the work of Redemption and Administration of all things for the elect's behoofe is the Father's Commissioner and hath a delegated Authority c. And a little after in the same place he saith That as the Son of Man and Mediator this Authority is given to Christ as to a delegate Thus Hutcheson By all which you may easily see that Christ knows very well That the office of a Judge belongs to the Mediator And truly it is matter of wonder to me that ever a Sober Man should have Printed and Published to the world That Christ knew that the office of a Judge did not belong to a Mediator And yet not content with this Mr. G. 2dly Asserts that Christ hath disowned the office of a Judge as not belonging to a Mediator I seriously profess it grieves me to find such things in the Ingenious Mr. Goodwins book and tho he hath made himself my adversary without any just cause given by me that I know of yet I am not willing to Animadvert on this assertion of his so severely as the nature of the thing deserves I shall only tell my Reverend Brother 1. That here he asserts that whch he can never prove and I advise him as his friend not to attempt the proof of it for by so doing he will but make the matter worse and some of the Lovers and Honourers of our Lord Christ may be ready to appear against Mr. G. in this cause of Christ and to maintain the negative that Christ never disowned the office of a Judge as that which did not belong to a Mediator I hope Mr. G. will never be so impertinent as to alledg for proof of his assertion that in Luk. 12.14 Christ said Man Who made me a Judge or a divider over you For that relates wholly to another matter and the meaning is that Christ was not called to the office of a civil Judge Mediator or Arbitrator between the two Brothers who differed about the dividing of the Inheritance And yet I do not know any place of Scripture that seems to be so much for his purpose if he can but make people believe that the Meer sound of the words is the sure and best means to find out the true meaning of a Text. 2. I think it may not be amiss to tell my Reverend brother That the most vile Sect of the old Gnosticks the Disciples of Valentinus were all for Christ's being a Saviour but would not have him to be a Lord For if he be once admitted to be a Lord and King he may prove to be a Judge too and to have power both to threaten and also Judge and Condemn unbelievers and wicked livers such as the old Gnosticks were And that is a dangerous business to such as them Hence as the Ancient father Ireneus tells us * Salvatorem dicunt nec enim Dominum eum Nominare volunt c. Iren. adversus haereses Lob. 1. Cap. 1. They say that Christ the Saviour for they will not call him Lord did nothing in publick for the space of thirty years They thought belike that it did not belong to the office of a Saviour to be a Lord or a Judge therefore they would not have him called Lord but Saviour For that sweet word Saviour in their Judgment Savoured of nothing but free grace to ill livers Whereas the word Lord or Judge Savours of power to command obedience and Authority to threaten and punish the disobedient which very thing made the word it self so unsavoury to them that they were not willing to pronounce it with their lips But I am sure Mr. G. should know and I hope he doth know better things The Reverend Dr. Owen in the Prolegomena to the 1 volume of his Commentary on the Epistle to the Hebrews tells us a great and useful truth That Christ is our Saviour as he is our great Prophet Priest and King and that he carries on the Work of our Salvation in executing the three several parts of his Mediatorial Office to wit of Prophet Priest and King and all sober Divines that I know are of that mind and some of them too give very hard Words unto and pass a severe censure upon such Men as are for dividing of Christ and for receiving him and his Doctrine by halves Witness Bibliander in that book which I mentioned
promises Annexed to them These are all fictions of the Remonstrants The newly mentioned Definitions of Reprobation do sufficiently and more than sufficiently clear our Doctrine and teach that no such thing doth follow from any thing in our Doctrine But that in truth Heaven and Hell are confounded by those who hold that the Grace which God dispenses according to his purpose is equally common to all And some pages before Junius had said * Non negamus vocatis gratiam offerri ut saepius conferri communiter sed negamus iis conferri eam gratiam quae potenter toâ—it omne impedimentum hominem infallibiliter Christo inserit Consequenter ex insitis sui ostendit nostra sententia meritoriam causam condemnationis in iis qui tenebras preferunt luci Evangelicae Id. ibid. P. 188. We deny not but that Grace is offered to the called non-elect and often common grace is given them but we deny that that grace is given them which powerfully takes away all impediment and infallibly unites Man unto Christ Consequently our Doctrine from its own intrinsecal principles shews that the Meritorious cause of Condemnation is in those who prefer Darkness before the light of the Gospel Thus that Learned Man represented God as one that by his grace gives some help even to the non-elect in the visible Church and utterly denies that God cruelly mocks them by his Commands or conditional promises †Nemo diâ—it aeternam salutem paucioribus serio promitti quam foris offerri quibus offertur â—s serio promittitur si praestent conditiones pactas conventaâ— i. e. si resipiscant credant Evangelio Id. ibid. Pag. 17. No Man saith quoth Junius that Eternal salvation is seriously promised to fewer than it is outwardly offered unto To whom it is offered to them it is seriously promised if they perform the conditions required by the Covenant that is if they repent and believe the Gospel The other Person appointed by publick Authority to Answer Episcopius his Apology was Triglandius who wrote a large Answer to the whole of it In which Answer he saith * Deus secundum hunc Magistrum desinet esse Author omnis boni praesertim spiritualis fi homini praescribat conditiones fidei obedientiae vel fi author sit omnis istius boni non licebit ipsi tales conditiones homini praescibere ita incompatibilia sunt Magistro huic Deum esse authorem omnis boni spiritualis in homine Dominum Lommiâ— ut creaturae rationalis cui posset conditiones fidei obedientiae praescriberâ— Quâ—nam quaeso magis inculcat sacra Scriptura quam haec duo c. Trigland Examin Apolog. Remonstr Cap. 18. Pag. 277. God according to this Master Episcopius shall cease to be Author of all especially of Spiritual Good if he prescribe unto Man the Conditiâ—ns of Faith and Obedience or if he be the Author of all that Good it shall not be lawful for him to prescribe unto Man such Conditions So inconsistent in the Opinion of this Master Episcopius are these things for God to be both the Author of all Spiritual Good in Man and also to be Lord of Man as a Rational Creature unto whom he can prescribe the Conditions of Faith and Obedience But I pray saith Triglandius What things are they which Holy Scripture doth more inculcate than these two c. The same Author afterwards in the same Book Chap. 30. p. 416. saith That Episcopius ought to have considered aliam esse rationem coecitatis moralis aliam mere Physicae that Moral Blindness is of a different nature from meerly Physical Blindness For in Moral Blindness there is an aversion from Light for it delights in darkness and hates light John 3.20 It gives it self out for the most sharp sight and obtrudes its own Folly for the highest Wisdom Hence he who labours under it doth not desire sight to be restored to him so far is he from it that he most vehemently hates the Man who endeavours ' to bring him to a participation of the light and for this cause he cannot be delivered from his Blindness and therefore Christ said unto the blind Pharisees John 9.41 If ye were Blind ye should have no Sin but now ye say we see therefore your Sin remaineth But they who labour under a meer Natural Blindness deplore and bewail their Blindness and desire if it could be to be delivered from it Thus Triglandius shows the difference between Moral and Natural Blindness and there he shews also how such Men might be Cured of this Moral Blindness that it is their own fault that they are not Cured and that there is no right arguing from Natural Blindness which is involuntary and inculpable to excuse Moral Blindness which is voluntary and sinful Again in the following Chap. 31. p. 421 422. he grants that unto the Non-Elect and called in the visible Church there is given Grace in some respect sufficient †Anon hic gratia sufficiens quid ergo causae quod non omnes convertantur credant Nihil dico praeter fastum arrogantiam humanam quâ—e non perâ—… subâ—gi c. Id. ibid. Cap. 31. Pag. 421. Is there not here sufficient Grace saith Triglandius What is the cause then that all are not Converted and do not Believe There is no cause I say quoth Triglandius besides Man's Pride and Arrogance which doth not suffer it self to be subdued c. and then Episcopius having objected That no Man in his wits would say that sufficient Grace is given to a Man bound in Chains for his Sin to go out of Prison because the Prison Doors are opened and he is again and again exhorted with Prayers and Tears to go out so long as the Chains wherewith he is bound are not taken off him Triglandius Answers the Objection in these words following * Resp 1. Male comparantur externa illa cum interniâ— violenta cum voluntariis ingrata horrenda cum gratis delectabilibus 2. Constrictus ille agnosceret quidem grato animo apertionem carceris sed conquereretur se adhuc numellis pedicis alligatum esse peteretque obnixe ea solvi sed qui vocationem rejiciunt agnoscere nolunt captivitatem servitutem suam imo nihil illis fit aegrius quam ut moneantur eam agnoscere arroganter enim multa sibi persuadent praetenduntque de Libertate sua Quis sanus dixerit tales esse solvendos vel oportere eos solvi aut alias injuriam eis fieri si non solvantur 3. Arrogantia pravitate malorum affectuum suorum servitio suoâ—hi dâ—lectantur atque haec ipsâ— praecipua causa est ut jam dictum ob quam non Liberantur 4. Agnoscant istam suam miseriam captivitatem servitutem ac petant submisse Liberationem Liberabuntur absque dubio Vid. Psal 116. 142. Isa 55.1 2 3. 61. v. 1 2 3. 66. 2. Mat. 11.28 c. Id. ibid. Cap. 31.