it a Christion Faith they had for they looked for all benefits of God the Father through the merits of his Son Jesus Christ as we now do This difference is betwixt them and us that they looked when Christ should come and we be in the time when he is come therefore saith St. Augustine the time is altered and changed but not the faith The same Doctrine is delivered Part. 2. p. 187. Of this judgement also was Ignatius if I understand him Epist. ad Antiochenos {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. and in the Epistle ad Philadelph Sed Prophetas diligamus propter ipsos in Evangelium annunciasse in Christum sperare ipsum expectare in quo credentes salvati sunt in unitate Jesu Christi existentes And I should thank any one that would tell me if the Types and Ceremonies of the Law did not represent Christ to come and were not thought by Saints then so to do why God did institute that Ceremonial Paedagogy Laud That God instructed our first Father Adam in the duty of Sacrifice I shall easily grant and I shall grant as easily that God proposed some other end of them in that institution then to receive them as a quit-rent from the hands of men in testimony that they held their estates from him as the Supreme Landlord for though this may be held as to Sacrifices Eucharistical yet there was another sort which we may call Expiatory ordained by God himself as the Types and Figures of that one only real and propitiatory Sacrifice which was to be performed in the death of Christ yet were they not bare Types and Figures that had no efficacy in themselves but such efficacy as they had was not natural to them but either in reference to the Sacrifice to be made of Christ or else extrinsecal by the Divine Ordinance and Institution of Almighty God and that they might be so in this last respect there want not very pregnant reasons in the Word of God for whereas God considered as the Supreme Law-giver had imposed a Commandment on man under pain of death although it stood not with his wisdom to reverse the Law which with such infinite wisdom had bin first ordained yet it seemed very sutable to his grace and goodness to commute the punishment and satisfie himself with the death of Beasts offered in Sacrifice unto him by that sinful creature Id p. 93. p. 95. for ought appeareth to the contrary the Sacrifices both before and under the Law had in themselves a power of Propitiation by vertue of the Ordination and Institution of Almighty God and not a relative vertue only in reference to the All-sufficient Sacrifice of our Saviour Christ Pacif. I think as you that neither the only nor the chief end of Gods instituting Sacrifices was this that he might receive a quit-rent from his creatures I grant also that the Sacrifices had an efficacy in them as to the taking away of sin but the Law being made He that sinneth shall die I see not any ground to think that God would dispense with his Law without a valueable consideration and that the death of a Beast is not The government of Israel was a Theocracy and God who would have any other laws made with cruelty would not make his own laws without merciful condescension to the infirmity of men therefore as he would not let those sins go unpunished for which Sacrifices were appointed so he would not have all offenders cut off by the hand of justice but mercifully appointed a commutation that not the sinner but the Beast should be slain and the slaying of the Beast did procure a man immunity from that death temporal which else would have been inflicted on the offendor in that Common-wealth but that God ever made any Institution or Ordination that upon the offering of a Sacrifice without respect to Christ the Anti-type sin should be forgiven in the Court of Conscience or of Heaven that with the common consent of Divines I deny you that say he did must show us where any such Ordination or Institution is recorded Laud When God brought Israel out of Egypt he began to make a Covenant with them with some complyance to their infirmities for because little things could not be avoided Sacrifices were appointed for their Expiation but for great sins there was no Sacrifice appointed no repentance ministred And therefore still we were in the ministration of death for this mercy was not sufficient as yet it was not possible to be justified by the Law it did not promise Eternal life it ministred no grace but fear and temporal hope it was written in Tables of stone not in their heart that is the material parts of the Law of Moses was not consonant to natural and essential reason but arbitrary impositions they were not perfective of man but very often destructive Unum Necess p. 39. Pacif. There are many passages at which just exception may be taken you say God when he brought Israel out of Egypt began to make a Covenant with some complyance to their infirmities But I pray you had he not begun till then you say as yet it was not possible for a man to be justified by the law was it ever since possible you say the Law was written in Tables of stone not in their hearts But you do not sure hope to perswade us that the Law Moral was not then written in every good mans heart and no other laws were ever written in Tables of stone when you say That is the material parts of the Law of Moses was not consonant to natural and essential reason but arbitrary impositions they were not persective of a man but often destructive I understand you not that is what is Did the writing of the Law on the Tables import any such as that which follows and why say you that the material parts of the Law of Moses were not consonant to natural and essential reason are not the ten Commandments material parts of the Law of Moses yet sure they are consonant to natural essential reason but if you will call only the Ceremonial Law the material part of the Law of Moses the reason of which appellation I cannot guess yet how this was ofen destructive of man and not perfective will be very difficult to apprehend Laud If we consider the particular of Moses Law it was such a burden which the Jews themselves were loth to part with because it was in the Moral part of it but a Law of abstinence from evil Unum Neces p. 20. p. 21. the righteousness of the Law was in abstinence from evil the righteousness of the Gospel in thatand in the doing of all the affirmative Commandments of Christ Pacif. Was the Law in the Moral part of it but a law of abstinence from evil What make you of the fourth and fifth Commandment the other eight indeed are expressed in a Negative form
be de non cute What account will you or can you give us of the Universal wickedness of mankind Laud One cause of the Universal Iniquity of the world is because our Nature is so hard put to it in many instances not because Nature is originally corrupted but because Gods Laws command such things which are a restraint to the indifferent and otherwise lawful inclinations of nature I instance in the matters of Temperance Abstinence Patience Humility Self-denyal and Mortification But more particularly thus A man is naturally inclined to desire the company of a woman whom he fancies this is naturally no sin for the natural desire was put into us by God and therefore could not be evil But then God as an instance and tryal of our obedience put fetters upon the indefinite desire and determined us to one woman which provision was enough to satisfie our need but not all our possibility This therefore he left as a reserve that by obeying God in the so reasonable restraint of our natural desire we might give him something of our own But then it is to be considered that our unwillingness to obey in this instance or in any of the other cannot be attributed to Original sin or natural disability derived as a punishment from Adam because the particular instances were postnate a long time to the fall of man and it was for a long time lawful to do some things which now are unlawful But our unwillingness and aversness came by occasion of the Law coming cross upon our nature not because our nature is contrary to God but because God was pleased to super-induce some Commandments contrary to our nature For if God had commanded us to eat the best meats and drink the richest Wines as long as they could please us and were to be had I suppose it will not be thought that Original sin would hinder us from obedience But because we are forbidden to do some things which naturally we desire to do and love therefore our nature is hard put to it and this is the true state of the difficulty Unum Necess p. 415 416. Pacif. I am neither taken with the Logick nor Divinity of this discourse not with the Logick for whereas you should have given us an account of the Universal wickedness of mankind you only give us an account of some carnal wickednesses whereas you cannot but know that men do universally defile themselves with the pollutions of the spirit as well as of the flesh men are prone to hypocrisie and lying c. How comes this about Is it because Gods Law layeth restraint in these instances on the natural and lawful inclinations of men But I am somewhat more displeased with the Divinity of your discourse for you seem to me all along to excuse mens corruption and lay all the blame of their wickedness on the Laws of God which certainly are holy just and good There 's no question but the nature of fallen man would readily enough obey such a law as should command to eat the best meat and drink the richest Wines as long as they could please us and were to be had but such a law would be a wicked law The query is seeing the matter of Gods Law doth consist mostly of things that are good before commanded why the men of the world do not close with them Could this be if there were not a contrariety in our natures to any thing that good is I hope extra aestum disputandi you do not think that the laws of Temperance Patience Humility do command such things as are a restraint to the indifferent and otherwise lawful inclination of nature or that it was any part of the nature which God put into us to desire the company of a woman whom we fancy for what if that woman be another mans wife what if she be ones own mother is it lawful to desire her company A man would almost think that you do strike in with those who hold no rationes boni mali aeternas indispensabiles but think that all moral good and evil depends wholly on the free and arbitrary volition and constitution of God so that there 's no action so intrinsecally good but it might have been made evil no action so intrinsecally evil but it might have been made good if God had so pleased which opinion if you should hold you would thereby destroy the certainty of all Christian Religion for if God may if he so please will the deceiving of the creature how know I but he hath And what is then become of all my faith and hope in reference to Eternity Laud Another great cause of Universal impiety is that at first God had made no promises of Heaven he had not propounded any glorious rewards to be as an argument to support the superior faculty against the inferior i. e. To make the will choose the best and leave the worst and to be as a reward for suffering contradiction Unum Necess p. 413. Pacif. Why when you are to give us an account of the Universal Impiety of mankind do you suggest such a reason to us as was proper and peculiar to those who lived before the flood but I do not not think that that age of the world which had in it Preachers of Righteousness was without promises of rewards in another world sure I am there was at that time the Prophesie of Enoch which doth speak plain enough of judgement to come But of this more hereafter when we come to discourse about the Covenants of Works and Grace the Old and New Covenant I pray what think you of the Covenant of Works Laud The Covenant of Works was not impossible because it consisted of impossible Commandments for every Commandment was kept by some or other and all at sometimes but therefore it was impossible to be kept because at sometime or other men would be impotent or ignorant or surprized and for this no abatement was made in that Covenant Unum Necess p. 53. Pacif. That no abatement was made in the Covenant of Works for the failings of men is therefore certain because in it there was no Mediator to make satisfaction to Divine Justice for any transgression but that it consisted of such Commandments as are impossible to be kept by fallen man of such Commandments as the grace we attain unto in this world cannot enable us fully to observe I affirm so do all Protestant Divines Laud The Law of Moses was a part of the Covenant of Works some little it had of Repentance Sacrifice and Expiations were appointed for small sins but nothing at all for greater Every great sin brought death infallibly Vnum Necess p. 3. Pacif. That the Law as delivered by Moses on Mount Sinai was not a Covenant of Works but a Covenant of Grace is abundantly proved by some Neotericks who have made it their business to search into the nature of the Covenants And as for that notion that Sacrifice and
their nature and no more a punishment then to be a child is Unum Necess p. 371 372. Pacif. This is such Divinity as I should never have expected to hear from any but a Socinian for though in a sense Adam might be said before his fall to be mortal in regard he was compounded of matter the princeiple and root of corruption yet that power of corruption was so remote and God gave him such an excellent temper of body that the remote power could never be brought into a proxime and immediate disposition much less into actual death that death could enter any other way then by sin or that ever any one dyed without some respect to sin is so strange that none who reads the Scripture without prejudice can bear it or count it worth confuting Laud We cannot guess at what degree of knowledge Adam had before the fall certainly if he had had so great a knowledge it is not likely he would so cheaply have sold himself and all his hopes out of a greedy appetite to get some knowledge Unum Necess p. 372. Pacif. That man though now become like to the beasts that perish was at first made for knowledge little inferior to the Angels is easily proved his being tempted through a desire to get more knowledge doth not argue him to have been created with little knowledge but with much for who more desirous to gain knowledge than they who have a great deal already Laud If man had not before the fall had a rebellious appetite and an inclination to forbidden things by what could he have been tempted and how could it have come to pass that he should sin Unum Necessar 373. An evil there is upon us and that is concupiscence this also is natural but it was actual before the fall it was in Adam and tempted him p. 374. Pacif. To say there was a rebellious appetite in man before the fall or an inclination to forbidden things is too bold a reflection on the most holy and wise Creator of man nor can there a Protestant be instanced in that hath so spoken except we call the Remonstrants Protestants who make the rebellion of the sensitive appetite to the rational to arise from the very constitution of man insomuch that one of them is not afraid to say that it was in Christ himself because a man Nothing is more easie to conceive then that these inclinations though divers yet are not contrary unless it be where sin hath made an ataxy The Angels did fall though there was in them no sensitive appetite at all and therefore sure it is not impossible that the creature should fall though there be no rebellion in the inferior appetite to the superior But it may be you and I agree not about the nature and effects of Original sin Laud The evil of death descending upon Adams posterity for his sake went no further then till Moses Unum Necess p. 367 Pacif Would you have me think that what you say is agreeable to those words in the second Sermon of the Passion p. 184. Is not sin think you a grievous thing in Gods sight seeing for the trausgression of his precept in eating of one Apple he condemned all the world to perpetual death and would not be pacified but only with the blood of his own Son Land Original sin is not an inherent evil not a sin properly but metonymically i. e. it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many a stain but no sin 2. It doth not destroy our liberty which we had naturally 3. It doth not introduce a natural necessity of sinning 4. It does not damn any Infant to the eternal pains of Hell Fur. p. 475. In Scripture there is no signification of any corruption or depravation of our souls by Adams sin Vn. Necess p. 392. Pacif. Either I understand not Grammar or this is expresly contradictory to the 9th Article Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam as the Pelagians do vainly talk but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the off-spring of Adam whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness and is inclined to evil so that the flesh lusteth against the spirit and therefore in every person born into the world it deserveth Gods wrath and damnation and this infection of nature doth remain yea in them that are regenerated whereby the lust of the flesh called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} which some do expound the wisdom some the sensuality some the affections some the desire of the flesh is not subject to the Law of God And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptized yet the Apostle doth confess that concupiscence and lust hath of it self the nature of sin And I pray you Sir do you not think seeing you say that Original sin is not properly a sin that a man is under no obligation to repent of it Laud Our share of Adams sin either being in us no sin at all or else not to be avoided or amended it cannot be the matter of repentance As Adam was not bound to repent of the sins of all his posterity so neither are we tyed to repent of his sins Neither did I ever see in any ancient Office or Form of Prayer publick or private any Prayer of Humiliation prescribed for Original sin they might deprecate the evil consequent but never confess themselves guilty of the formal sin Unum Necess p. 425 426. No man ever imposed pennance for it So God himself in Nature never did for it afflict or affright the Conscience and yet the Conscience never spares any man that is guilty of a known sin and why the Conscience should be for ever at so much peace for this sin that a man shall never give one groan for his share of guilt in Adams sin unless some or other scare him with an impertinent proposition Why I say the Conscience should not naturally be afflicted for it nor so much as naturally know it I confess I cannot yet make any probable conjecture save this only That it is not Properly a sin but Metonymically and Improperly Deus Justis p. 128 129. Pacif. That no Form of Lyturgy takes notice of Original sin so as to confess it or be humbled for it you will never perswade him who hath the Administration of Baptism in our own Common-Prayer-Book and is it not great pride or uncharitableness or both to say that no mans Conscience did ever afflict him for Original sin never any groaned for it or under it Have all those eminent Protestant Divines that have so often in their Prayers before their Sermons bewailed the corruption that we brought into the world with us been scared with impertinent propositions or did they play the Hypocrites so as to groan where they felt no burden But if you really think that all the Disputations and Questions about Natural Sin and Corruption
Expiations were appointed for small sins but none for great ones 't is a notion borrowed from the Socinians but hath nothing of truth in it forif we look into Levit. 6. 1 2 c. We shall find a trespass-offering appointed for sins done wittingly for a mans lying in that which was delivered to him to keep and swearing falsely which sure are not small sins And in the Feast of Expiation of which mention is made Levit. 16. we find very general tearms used v. 16 21 30 34. and therefore God promising to his people the remission of their sins that were very grievous Isai. 1. 18. useth a metaphor say the Rabbins taken from that which hapned in the Feast of Expiation when the thread by which the Scape-goat was led into the Wilderness did miraculously change its colour and become white Every great sin say you brought death infalibly What death do you mean temporal or eternal All men were not cut off by death temporal who did fall into soul gross sin much less did they all suffer the vengeance of eternal death witness David who scaped notwithstanding adultery and murder whereas Volkelius saith this was not by vertue and efficacy of Sacrifices but by the singular mercy of God he 's well answered by Maresius among others that he makes a faulty opposition betwixt that pardon which was by the typical efficacy of Sacrifices and that which proceeded out of the singular mercy of God whereas that pardon of sin which was obtained by any Expiatory Sacrifice whether typical or real was ever to be ascribed to the special mercy of God and indeed seeing it cannot be denyed but that some very enormous crimes were pardoned under the Law it seems very irrational to deny that such pardon was signified to those who were guilty by some Sacrifices if not particular yet common and universal especially seeing David himself being about to ask the pardon of his sin expresseth himself in terms taken from Ceremonies and legal Sacrifices Psal. 51.4 5 7. Purge me with hysop But I pray you tell us more of your mind about Moses his Law Laud As it had a little image of Repentance so it had something of Promises to be as a grace and auxiliary to set forward Obedience But this would not do it the Promises were temporal and that could not secure Obedience in great instances and there being for them no remedy appointed by Repentance the Law could not justifie it did not promise life Eternal nor give sufficient security against the temporal only it was brought in as a paedagogy for the present necessity Unum Necess p. 3. Pacif. How to make sense of those words the Law did not promise life Eternal nor give sufficient security against the temporal I know not but I suppose your meaning in the whole that you said is this That under the Law the Promises were temporal not of matters Spiritual or Eternal Now if you mean that the Law considered barely as a law had no promises of Eternal life I cannot gain-say but in that sense neither had it any promises temporal for a law as a law promiseth nothing but only declareth what is to be done or avoided but if you should mean that God under Mos s his Law did not encourage his people to Obedience by promises of Eternal life as well as of a Temporal our Divines against the Socinians and Papists have said enough to confute you and you plainly contradict the 7th Article of our Church in which the words are these The Old Testament is not contrary to the New for both in the O d and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Jesus Christ who is the only Mediator between God and Man being both God and Man wherefore they are not be heard which fain that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises Laud At first there were no promises at all of any good nothing but a threatning of evil to the transgressors and after a long time they were entertained but with the promise of good things temporal which to some men were performed by the pleasures and rewards of sin and then there being a great imperfection in the nature of man it could not be that man should remain innocent and for Repentance in this Covenant there was no regard or provisions made Unum Neces p. 2. Pacif. Either I understand you not or this is uncouth Divinity you say at first there were no promises at all of any good nothing but a threatning of evil what mean you by at first if while Adam was innocent Can any one think that the most holy and merciful Creator should threaten death to Adam upon his disobedience and not promise him life and happiness on condition of obedience if by the first you mean that time in which the world consisted of Adam and Eve Abel and Cain and some few other sure you cannot think that in that period of time there was no promise of good things there was the promise of the seed of the woman and God tells it Cain as a thing well known to him that if he did well he should be accepted the Hebrew word there used cometh from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a root saith Pagnin of very vast and comprehensive signification if any other in all the Hebrew tongue it may carry these three significations in that place 1. If thou do well shalt thou not be pardoned 2. Shalt thou not lift up thy count nance i. e. have access to God with boldness 3. Shalt thou not receive i. e. receive the things thou askest and standest in need of How any of these were or could be performed to any by the pleasures and rewards of sin I wot not But what may one think of the faith of them who lived before Christs Incarnation Laud That both the Patriarchs and the Jews did rely on God for the accomplishment of his promise touching their salvation I do nothing doubt but that they were acquainted with the means and method which God did purpose to make use of in so great a work or did rely on Christ to come for their justification as the Scripture no where saith it for ought find so is there no reason to believe it for ought I can see Dr. Hey Fid. Apost. p. 96. after a long discourse to that purpose Pacif. The Writers of our Homilies seem to be of another mind for Part. 1. p. 25. we find these words All these Fathers Martyrs and other holy men had their faith surely fixed in God when all the world was against them they did not only know God to be the Lord Maker and Governor of all men in the world but also they had a special confidence and trust that he was and would be their God their Comforter Aider Helper Maintainer and Defender This is the Christian Faith which these holy men had and we also ought to have And although they were not named Christian men yet was
but that where any sin is forbidden there the contrary duty is enjoyned is a rule given and allowed by all the Expositors of the Decalogue nor can you instance in any one Moral affirmative Precept of the Gospel which was not Obligatory to believers under the Old Covenant Laud The Affirmative Precepts of the Gospel being propounded in general terms and with indefinite proportions for the measures are left under our choice and liberty to signifie our great love to God whatsoever is over and above the Commandments that shall have a great reward God sorbids unmercifulness he that is not unmerciful keeps the Commandment but he that besides his abstinence from unmercifulness according to the Commandment shall open his hand and his heart and give plentifully to the poor this man shall have a reward he is among those servants whom his Lord will make to sit down and himself will serve him when God in the Commandment forbids uncleanness and fornication he that is not unchast and doth not pollute himself keeps the Commandment but if to preserve his chastity he useth fasting and prayer if he mortifieth his body if he deny himself the pleasures of this world if he useth the easiest or the hardest remedies according to the proportion of his love and industry especially if he be prudent so shall his greater reward be To follow Christ is all our duty but if that we may follow Christ with greater advances we quit all the possessions of the world this is the more acceptable because it is a doing of the Commandment with greater love We must so order things that the Commandment be not broken but the difference is in finding out the better wayes and doing the duty with the more affections Unum Necess 48 49. Pacif. All this goeth quite against the hair with me I do not think that the Affirmative Precepts of the Gospel for the measure are left under our liberty and choice to signifie our greater love Whatever the Law of the Gospel requires us to do it requireth that we do it cum omni valdè in the highest degree and measure Nor doth he keep the Commandment that is not unmerciful for the very Commandment is that a man open his hand and heart and give plentifully to the poor he that sows plentifully shall reap more plentifully than he that sows but sparingly not because he doth more then the Commandment requireth but because that merciful God who hath promised to reward the least grace with Heaven hath yet promised to reserve higher Mansions in Heaven for those that out-strip their fellow Christians in zeal nor is it acceptable to God that a man should quit the possessions of the world to follow Christ except it so happen that a man cannot follow Christ and keep the possessions of the world too and if such a case happen I trow the Law of the Gospel requireth that a man should rather forsake the world then not follow Christ if a man do not follow Christ to the forsaking all he hath when he is by providence called so to do he performeth not all his duty if you gainsay this you introduce counsels of perfection and works of supererogation quite contrary to the Articles of our Church Artic. 14. Voluntary works besides over and above Gods Commandments which they call works of supererogation cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety for by them men do declare that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do do but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required whereas Christ saith plainly when ye have done all that are commanded you say we be unprofitable servants Laud They are highly mistaken that think any thing of this nature is a work of supererogation for all this is nothing but a pursuance of the Commandment but some Commandments are propounded as to friends some as to servants some under the threatning of horrible pains others not so but with the proposition and under the invitation by glorious rewards it was commanded by St. Paul to preach the Gospel if he had not obeyed he should have perished he was bound to do it but he had another Commandment also to love God as much as was possible to love his neighbour which Precepts were infinite and of an unlimitted signification and therefore were left to every servants choice to do them with his several measures of zeal and love p. 49. Unum Neces Pacif. You are well aware thar Protestant ears cannot hear of works of supererogation and therefore you abstain from those terms but in vain is it to disclaim and renounce the name so long as you own the thing What Reformed Divine ever said that there are Commandments which are not propounded under the threatning of horrible pains to those that disobeyed them and repented not of that disobedience Is not the transgression of every commandment a sin and doth not every sin deserve eternal death had not Paul perished if he had not loved his neighbour as well as if he had not preached the Gospel Are there not several measures of affection and zeal in preaching the Gospel as well as in loving God or our neighbours or how are the Precepts of loving God and our neighbour left more to every servants choice as to the degree than the Preaching of the Gospel is But as to this matter I refer my self to what is written by Papists and Protestants about Councils What think you of the possibility of performing the Law in this life Laud To every Christian it is enjoyned that they be perfect i. e. according to the measure of every one which perfection consists in doing our endeavour He that does not do that must never hope to be accepted because he refuseth to serve God by something that is in his power But he that does that is sure that God will not refuse it because we cannot be dealt withall upon any other account but by the measures of what is in our power and for what is not we cannot take care Unum Necess 43. The highest severity of the Gospel is to love God with all our soul i. e. to love him as much as we can love him and that is certain we can do Every man can do as much as he can and God requires no more Unum Necess p. 20. Pacif. That the perfection which God hath promised to accept of lieth in doing our endeavour and stirring up the grace of God which is in us I deny not but I deny that we cannot be dealt with upon any other account but by the measures of what is in our power or that we cannot take care for what is not in our power God may deal with us upon the account of what was once in our power God in the Gospel doth require more than we can do for his Law is regula officii not mensura facultatis it shews what we ought to do not what we can do but yet
Christian man sinning is to consider the horrible threatnings of the Gospel the severe intermination of eternal pains the goodnese of God leading to repentance the severity of his justice in exacting great punishments of criminals the reasonableness of this justice punishing such persons intolerably who would not use so great a grace in so pleasing a service for the purchase of so glorious a reward The terrors of the Law did end in temporal death they could affright no further but in the Gospel Heaven and Hell were opened and laid before all mankind and therefore by these measures a sinner is to enter into the sorrows of contrition and the care of his amendment And it is so vain a thing to think every sinner must in his Repentance pass under the terrors of the Law that this is a very destruction of that reason for which they are fallen upon the opinion the Law is not enough to affright sinners and the terrors of the Gospel are far more to persevering impenitent sinners then the terrors of the Law were to the breakers of it the cause of the mistake is this The Law was more terrible then the Gospel is because it allowed no mercy to the sinner in great instances but the Gospel does But then if we compare the state of these men who fell under the evils of the Law with those who fall under the evils threatned in the Gospel we shall find these to be in a worse condition then those by far as much as Hell is worse then beeing stoned to death or thrust through with a sword Un. Neces p. 41. Pacif. All men will grant that Heaven and Hell are more clearly opened under the New than under the Old Testament But this I cannot digest That the terrors of the Law did end in Temporal death and could affright no further or that the Law is not enough to affright sinners For what mean you by the Law the Covenant of Works or the Law administred by Moses either of them sure is enough to affright sinners or else God had been wanting not threatning terror sufficient to affright people from wickedness Christ freeth us from the wrath to come and yet he freeth us but from that wrath which as transgressors of the Law we have incurred What think you of those sinners who never heard of the Gospel shall they die only a Temporal death If so Hell will be more empty then is generally believed If they dye an Eternal death then the Law threatneth more then Temporal death for they can suffer only as transgressors and offenders of the Law But I pray you what do you think of Satisfaction is not that made only by Christ Laud He that is ready to be cast away upon the Sea may well be taught to pray Be pleased to unite my death to the death of thy Son and to accept it so united as a punishment for all my sins that thou mayest forget all thine anger and blot my sins out of thy book Rules and exercis of Holy Liv. p. 393 394. Pacif. This is sure Popery if any thing in the world be Popery For it plainly tendeth to bring those Papal satisfactions which are so abundantly proved by our Protestant Controversie writers to be derogatory to the worth and value of that perfect Satisfaction made by Christ on the Cross for all the sins of the whole world both Original and Actual Vid. Art 31. Why should I pray to God to unite my death to the death of Christ Is not Christs death sufficient to expiate the guilt of all my sins How can I think that my being cast away at Sea should be accepted by God as a punishment for all my sins What am I to think of Justification not unmeetly called by Luther Articulus stantis aut cadentis Ecclesiae Laud A sinner is then justified when he is made Just i. e. Translated from state of Nature to state of Grace Ans. to Gag p. 142. Justification consisteth in forgiveness of sins primarily and grace infused secondarily both the acts of Gods Spirit in man Id. p. 143. To Justifie hath a threefold extent 1. To make just and righteous 2. To make more just and righteous 3. To declare and pronounce just Justification properly is in the first acception a sinner is then justified when he is made just i. e. transformed in mind renewed in soul regenerate by grace Id. p. 140. 142 141. compared Pacif. That we are not justified before we are changed is certain enough and proved by many Scriptures and reasons but that Justification doth primarily in Scripture signifie the making of us just that 's the error of the Church of Rome and directly contrary to the Church of England which placeth it in forgiveness of sins alone Artic. 11. and makes it to signifie the declaring or pronouncing of us just for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us And I pray you tell me what is it according to your Principles that procureth our acceptation with God Laud What else but doing well If thou do well shalt thou not be accepted Psa. 15. Isa. 1. 16 20. Ezek. 18. 1. 9. Dan 4. 27. Mic. 6. 6 7 8. If this be well considered it will cause us to set a price and value upon well doing and upon good works which of late have been undervalued and decryed under the names of Popery and Arminianism c. Are they not the end of our Creation Ephes. 2. 10. Are they not the end of our Redemption Tit. 2. 14. Dr. Gell. p. 33. Pacif. What else procures acceptance with God himself but well-doing The death of Christ doth it for we are accepted in the Well-beloved He being the Well-beloved in whom God is well-pleased Our well-doing doth not procure our acceptance with God but it is only conditio sinè quâ non it is but causa dispositiva had we done never so well without the suffering of Christ there had been no acceptation with God since the Fall I know none who call good works Popery or Arminianism but they who press good works so as to make them the sole procurers of our Justification are deservedly concluded to be Popish We are the workmanship of God created in Christ Jesus unto good works which God hath ordained that we should walk in them And yet his meaning is not by these words to induce us to have any affiance or to put any confidence in our works as by the merit and deserving of them to purchase to our selves and others the remission of our sins and so consequently everlasting life for that were meer Blasphemy against Gods mercy and great derogation to the blood-shedding of our Saviour Jesus Christ Homil. Part. 2. p. 81. We have not much agreed in matters of Doctrine hitherto I hope we may better agree about the State of Souls after death and the condition of the wicked after the general Judgment Laud Let it be so That the souls of the Fathers were not in Heaven before our