even the lake of Gehenna and so to the place of the neerest Denomination Epis. Asser. p. 379. Pacif. Your wit lying in the affinity of sound betwixt Geenna and Geneva is much like that of Campian Elizabeth and Jezabel But as for Lay-Elders I am not much solicitous about them thinking the Church may be well enough without them only I cannot think they are so destitute of all Antiquity and Scripture as you imagine that of 1 Tim. 5. 17. hath more for Lay-Elders than many places in Scripture urged by our Bishops have for Episcopacy Dr. Whitgist is said to have these words That he knoweth that the Primitive Church had in every Church certain Seniors to whom the Government of the Congregation was committed and in a Book against Mar-Prelate subscribed by the Archbishop of Canterbury the Bishop of Winchester Lincoln and London it is affirmed That the Government by Elders was used under the Law and practised under the Gospel by the Apostles though not fit for our times Though afterwards repenting this plain Confession they caused certain words importing the contrary to be printed in a sheet of Paper which paper was pasted in all the books of the first impression to cover and conceal the former assertion This I take on the Testimony of an Author who so printed in Queen Elizabeths time in a Tract called A Petition directed to her most Excellent Majesty but Mr. Nowel is plain in his Catechism in Latine p. 155. Edit. 1570. Grotius also acknowledgeth that Geneva did not first institute these Officers but only restored them nor may it be amiss for the learned Reader to consult about this point of Elders Bodins Method cap. 6. p. 245. Le ts on to the third Commandment Land Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain This our blessed Saviour repeating expresseth it thus It hath been said to them of old Thou shalt not forswear thy self to which Christ adds out of Numb. 30. 2. But thou shalt perform thy Oaths unto the Lord the meaning of the onewe are taught by the other We must not Invocate the Name of God in any promise in vain i. e. with a lie this is to take the Name of God i. e. to useit to take it into our mouths for vanity i. e. according to the perpetual stile of Scripture for a lie and this is to be understood only in promises for so Christ explains it out of the Law Thou shalt perform thy Oaths for lying in judgement which is also with an Oath or taking Gods Name for a witness is forbidden in the ninth Commandment Grand Exemp part 2. p. 114. Pacif. At this rate indeed write Maldonate and the Composer of the Racovian Catechism but without any reason for it is gratis dictum that our Lord doth repeat or give the sense of the third Commandment Exod. 20. 7. It is more probable that he intends those words Levit. 19. 12. As for the words in the third Commandment they have alway been so interpreted by Protestant Commentators as to forbid not only false swearing but vain swearing yea all irreverent use of the Name of God whether with an Oath or without an Oath So the Catechism in King Edward the 6ths raign so Bishop Hooper in his Exposition of the Decalogae so the Common Church Catechism so the Homily part 1. p. 45 46. No one that hath but a smattering skill will deny {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} sometime to signifie mendacium or falsum but it doth also signifie gratis in vanum as often if not more often The LXX Exod. 20. 7. render {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Aquila {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Yet I can more easily excuse this if you will but acknowledge that vain and unnecessary Oaths were unlawful to the Jews as well as us Laud By the Natural Law it was not unlawful to swear by an oath that implyed not Idolatry or the belief of a false God I say any grave or prudent oath when they spake a grave truth And it was lawful for the Jews in ordinary entercourse to swear by God so they did not swear to a lye to which also swearing to an impertinence might be reduced by a proportion of reason for they that swear by him shall be commended saith the Psalmist Psal. 63. 11. And swearing to the Lord of hosts is called speaking the Language of Canaan Isa. 19. 18. Great Exem part 2. p. 114. Pacif. This is Theology that a sober Heathen would startle at How do you prove that by the Natural Law it was not unlawful to swear an Oath when they spake a grave truth Doth any Scripture say so Do the more sage sort of profane Writers say so or do not all rather say who have not blinded Natural Conscience That it is not lawful to swear in the gravest matter if a man may be credited without an oath or if his oath be not like to be an end of strife Or what man who knows that God was alway tender of his Name and Glory canthink that it was lawful for the Jews to swear by God in ordinary entercourse They did ordinarily swear but it was not lawful so to do The son of Sirach reproves it Heathens condemn it it is indeed said They that swear by him shall glory Psal. 63. 11. but it is not said They that swear by him in ordinary entercourse shall glory if they should they would glory in their shame As for the place Isa. 19. 18. it proves not that swearing to the Lord in ordinary entercourse is speaking the Language of Canaan but it is a Prophecy only of the calling of Egypt that sundry of that Nation should make the same Profession and Confession of Faith that Gods people did and that they should by solemn Oath engage themselves to depend on the living Lord alone How doth this prove that it was lawful for the Jews to swear by God in ordinary entercourse or that their ordinary communication ought not to be yea yea and nay nay as well as ours Pass we on to the fourth Law of the Decalogue Laud There was nothing Moral in it but that we do Honour to God for the Creation and to that and all other purposes of Religion separate and hallow some portion of our time Great Exem part 2. p. 119. Pacif. Surely this is the way to rob us of one of the laws of the Decalogue for either the fourth Commandment is moral for a determinate time or for nothing at all some time being moral by the other Commandments and it would be strange that the Church of England should appoint this fourth Commandment to be publickly read and teach her members to pray Lord have mercy upon us and encline our hearts to keep this Law and yet think it had only that latent morality you speak of if the fourth Commandment be not in force in the words of it according to their literal and Grammatical
not as for the Act Quest Dr. Wallis knows and so did Mr. Whittingh when alive that I took them out of the Congregation books and that I had the sight of Pounols Catechism it self long before I printed my book Mr. Cooper Fellow of N. C. knows for he lent it me Mr. Burscough of B. C. will witness that I did read that cheat of putting out Champneys book and that I shewed him the opinion that Crowley had of that patron of Free-will not out of Mr. Prynne but out of Crowley himself I also profess that I read Dr. John Bridges and took not his words upon Mr. Prynnes credit and so I did the works of T. F. and B. Balaeus also I consulted about our Ancient Protestant Divines thence I had their Characters and this as it proves our Library-keeper can witness for I came to him to direct me to that book having searched for it among the Divinity whereas it is placed among the Humanity books Now after I had taken all this pains and trusted nothing but my own eyes was I bound to tell the world that such quotations might be found in Mr. Prynne Yet I have made use of his History of the Tr. of the A. and have acknowledged my self so to have done or if I had made no such acknowledgment yet all would have thought that I had lighted my candle at his Historie no man having written those transactions but himself As for what he chargeth me to have stolen from Dr. W. or Mr. M. or Mr. Good I am told that they are but sentences or Apothegmes and truly it is hard that a man should be bound if he have read a sentence or Apothegme twenty times to quote the last Author Let any one in the behalf of those Gentlemen implead me and if it be made appear that I have used any thing that is properly theirs and not given them the credit I shall soon acknowledg my fault and cry them pardon As for a phrase or expression I labour not to acquit my self knowing that it is not possible to read an Author but that something of his stile will stick upon the memory and ming'e it self with whatever a man shall write till those impressions are blotted out I thank God that whatever I am defective in yet I did never find my self at any great loss for sit and apt words to express the conceptions of my mind Perhaps the world may expect that I should take notice of a late Whifler who notifieth himself by two letters M. O. and because else he would have been taken to be but a mechanick tels us That he is a Batchelor of Arts but his lewd Pamphlet I did never read nor did ever meet with that Scholar who thought it worth my reading All Brackley knows that I had relinquished the profits of that place long before I came to St. Aldates in Oxon and all Oxford knows that St. Aldates is not worth 150 l. per annum And there are but few in Magdalen Colledge who know not that Mr. P. his book did never put me into a fit of the toothach and all my Scholars will say That I never forewarned any of them from reading of Mr. P. his book The Printer and Stationer know that the Review was never intended to come forth in my name yea that it was almost off the Press before Mr. P. his book came to Oxon. And therefore that poor Creature hath done nothing but only gratified the Devil by raising groundless calumnies and I heartily wish he may have time and grace to see how much he hath abused not only me but himself in so unfortunate an attempt As for the following Tract the Lord knows and some men do know that I send it into the world with a very unwilling mind For I know they are mostly my superiours upon whose writings I have made Animadversions I know that my undertaking may possibly be interpreted a sounding of an Alarum to War whereas it becomes us to study all possible wayes and means of accord and reconciliation that so our pens and hearts may be united against the common adversaries of Christianity Papists and Atheists c. But I consider that well-meaning people are drawn into opinions Diametrically opposite to the Doctrine by Law and Authority established among us and that by those who esteeme themselves the only obedient sons of the Church of England and therefore thought it not amiss to let our Country-men understand that the plants they so greedily feed upon are exotick not planted by our first Reformers and that it is a sad sign their temper and constitution is altered if they can digest such Positions as I have manifested old Protestants would have nauseated All along thou hearest men speaking in their own words and therefore certainly no wrong is done them if their meaning be mistaken I hope it will teach them to express themselves more warily and to abstain not only from that which is Popery but also from every thing that hath the appearance of it If any of them will so far take notice of what I have done as to give a fair reconciliation of their sayings to our Artic. Homil. c. I shall therein rejoyce having this testimony within me That I never desired to make differences where I found none But alas it is but too evident that some of our Canterburians I call them so not to disgrace but to distinguish them have removed the old Land-marks placed by our Protestant Forefathers and are gone over into the Tents and Camps of our adversaries It was of old reckoned Popery to hold That the Virgin Mary was borbn free of Original sin we have now one risen up among us who holds that and holds also that every one else is born so too Who also maintains That she ever kept a dominion over her Passions which never had been taught to rebel beyond the meer possibilities of Natural imperfection Gr. Ex. p. 13. cap. 19. He entitleth her To a Faith that had no scruple And that Though she was Espoused to an honest and just person of her Kinred and Family and so might not dispair to become a Mother yet she was a person of so rare sanctity and so mortified a Spirit that for all this desponsation of her according to the desires of her parents and the Custome of the Nation she had not set one step forward toward the consummation of her Marriage so much as in thought and possibly had set her self back from it by a Vow of Chastity and holy celibate p. 14. p. 19. We are further told Of her being brought up in the Temple eleven years in her childhood p. 22. Of her body being Aery and Vegete and of the burden which she bare not hindring her And p. 26. That she had no pain in the production for to her alone did not the punishment of Eve extend That in sorrow she should bring forth and that as He came from the Grave with a stone
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
shalt love thy neighbour as thy self Laud It is evident by infinite Texts of the Law that a mans neighbour in this Precept extends no further then to Israelites whether by birth or Religion that is to say those that are engraffed into the Covenant by being circumcised E. G. let me ask How the Law could forbid the Israelites to seek the good of the Moabites and Ammonites and yet to love all men under the quality of neighbours as themselves let me demand of any man how Mordecai was tyed not to do that honor to Haman that his Soveraign commanded to be done How could he in conscience disobey his Prince in a matter of indifference had it not been prohibited by the Law of God H. T. Principles of Christian Truth p. 86. Pacif. So far is it from being evident by infinite Texts of Scripture that by a mans neighbour is meant only an Israelite that I never yet could meet with one Scripture to that purpose nor I believe ever shall To love all men as our selves is as natural a Law as for a Father to seek the life and welfare of his children or for a man not to steal the goods of another these are all natural laws necessary and indispensable if God command Abraham to Sacrifice his child the Israelites to take away the goods of the Egyptians the same Israelites to take away the lives of the Ammonites c. God in such cases doth not dispense with his Law but only there is as the Schools call it immutat o materiae which immutation is made by God say they not as a Legislator but as Dominus it is not doubted but that we Christians are bound to love others of whatsoever Nation as our selves yet it may fall out and sometime doth so fall out that we are under command not to seek the good or preserve the life of some who have by rebellion forfeited their lives and fortunes The Jews had a particular command to root out the Canaanites at least if they did not submit themselves had they not had that particular command they had been as much bound to seek their good as I am bound to seek the welfare of any one of a different Religion from the people of God Laud When our Saviour saith Be not angry without cause he forbiddeth not the first motions the twincklings of the eye as the Philosopher calls them the propassions and sudden irresistible alterations for it is impossible to prevent them unless we could give our selves a new nature any more then we can refuse to wink with our eye when a sudden blow is offered at it or refuse to yawn when I see a sleepy yawning person but by frequent and habitual mortification by continual watchfulness and standing in readiness against all inadvertencies we shall lessen the inclinations and account fewer sudden irreptions Dr. J. T. Part. 2. G. E. p. 122. Pacif. You are not sure ignorant that the Protestants do generally hold against Papists that the motus primo-primi to any thing that is evil are forbidden the Law forbids not only that which is possible for us to avoid but also that which it ever was in our power to avoid and sure if frequent and habitual mortification will lessen the inclination before the fall we had no inclination and if those inclinations and first stirrings are not forbidden it is to no purpose that a man should take any pains to mortifie them if those propassions be not forbidden how is a man more holy when he accounts fewer sudden irreptions than when more what is not forbidden defileth not Laud The holy Jesus forbids to Christians all revenge of injuries which was a perfection and endeerment of duty beyond what either most of the old Philosophers or the laws of the Nation or of Moses ever practised or enjoyned for revenge was esteemed to unhallowed unsanctified nature as sweet as life a satisfaction of injuries and the only cure of maladies and affronts Only laws of the wisest Common-wealths commanded that revenge should be taken by the Judge a few cases being excepted But Christ commanded his Disciples rather then to take revenge to expose themselves to a second injury rather to offer the other cheek then to be avenged for a blow on this for vengeance belongs to God Gr. Ex. P. 2. p. 30. Pacif. If you speak of private revenge that is forbidden by the law of Nations and by Moses his law and condemned by many of the old Philosophers for though Tully say justitiae primum munus est ut ne cui noceas nisi lacessitus injuriâ which made Lactantius write of him that simplicem veramque sententiam duorum verborum adjectione corrupit yet with Seneca immane verbum est ultio qui ulsciscitur excusatius peccat So Moses Levit. 19. 16. Thou shalt not avenge or bear any grudge against the Children of thy people but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thy self And Solomon Prov. 24. 29. Say not I will do to him as he hath done to me I will render to the man according to his works If you speak of publick revenge prove that more unlawful under the Gospel then under the Law Prove that Christ when he saith If any man strike thee on the one cheek giveth rule to Magistrates and not to private Christians or that vengeance did not belong to the Lord under the Old as well as under the New Testament But what think you Is it lawful to kill rather than to be killed Laud Although we find this nowhere forbidden yet it is very consonant to the excellent mercy of the Gospel and greatly laudable if we choose rather to loose our life in imitation of Chist then save it by the loss of anothers in pursuance of the permissions of nature When Nature only gives leave and no Law-giver gives command to defend our lives and the excellency of Christianity highly commends dying for our enemies and propounds to our imitation the greatest example that ever could be in the world it is a very great imperfection if we choose not rather to obey an insinuation of the holy Jesus then with greediness and appetite pursue the bare permission of nature Great Ex. part 2. p. 131. Pacif. I grant it would be not only a great imperfection but a very great sin with greediness and appetite to pursue the permission of nature he that kills another though unavoidably put upon it for his own necessary defence must do it with a bleeding heart so must also the Judge upon the Bench justis suppliciis illachrymare ingemiscere but that when I am assaulted no law should command me to defend my life or that if I should suffer him who without any warrant or authority assaults me by the High-way side to take away my life rather then take his I should in such a case loose my life in imitation of Christ is Divinity unheard of in the Protestant Schools How can Christs laying down his life as a
and they answer the objections of the despairing as well as of the presumptuous concluding at last thus God which hath promised his mercy to them that be truly repentant although it be at the later end hath not promised to the presumptuous sinner either that he shall have long life or that he shall have true repentance at the last exd And I pray you why may not God work the habit of saving grace and give the Holy Ghost to those who are ready to give up the ghost are not such habits infused Laud We may as well say there can be a habit born with us as infused in to us for as a natural habit supposeth a frequency of actions by him who hath natural abilities so doth an infused habit if there were any such it is a result and consequent of a frequent doing the works so that to say that God in an instant infuseth into us an habit of chastity is to say that he hath in an instant infused into us to have done the acts of that grace frequently Un. Necess p. 272. Pacif. I see not any absurdity in saying a habit may be born with us Original righteousness is thought to have the nature of an habit yet had not the Protoplast lapsed it had been born with us and been natural to us and me thinks it is no strange thing that there should be habits in the soul which are not the result and consequence of frequent actions for what think you of the gratiae gratis datae are not they habits and yet were they not instantaneously produced in the souls of Prophets and Apostles it would be strange that there should be from a natural man any supernatural action were not the natural faculty first elevated by some supernatural habit infused into us we being only the recipients Laud This device of infused habits is a fancy without ground and without sense without authority or any just grounds of confidence and it hath in it very bad effects for it destroys all necessity of our care and labour in the wayes of godliness all cautions of an holy life it is apt to minister pretences and excuses for a perpetually wicked life till the last of our dayes making men to trust to a late repentance it puts men upon vain confidences and makes them relie for salvation upon dreams and empty notions it destroys all the duty of man and cuts off all entercourse of reward and obedience Unum Necess 273. Pacif. This is high language especially seeing it must needs concern almost the whole Protestant Church whose suffrage certainly will gain an opinion some credit and esteem among sober modest persons verily why there should be more non-sense in infused habits then in acquired habits I know not and cannot reject a distinction generally received without some very pregnant reason as for what you pretend that the doctrine of infused habits doth produce sad effects destroying all necessity of care and labour c. it moves me not you hold I suppose that the soul is not ex traduce but by immediate creation Creando infunditur infundendo creatur yet none ever thought on this account that marriage and due benevolence among married people is needless the new creature is the workmanship of God but yet there are certain antecedaneous preparatory works wrought by attendance on Ordinances whereby the soul is qualified and made a fit and meet receptacle for supernatural grace if we resist these we make a bloudy adventure upon the patience forbearance and long sufferance of God But this conceit of destroying labour and endeavour of making Exhortations needless and useless is an old stale objection of the Pelagians and Massilians the grand adversaries of divine grace confuted by Austin Prosper Fulgentius Laud A special confession unto a Priest of all our sins committed after Baptism so far forth as we remember is necessary unto salvation in the judgement of Fathers Schoolmen and almost all Andquitie not only Necessitate praecepti but also necessitate medii so that according to the ordinary or revealed means appointed by Christ there can be no salvation without the foresaid Confession Mr. Adams referente Pryn. in Canterbury's Doom p. 192. Pacif. I shall now know what to think of those who cry all Fathers Schoolmen Antiquity that they do but boast of things that they never examined for he that is any way conversant in the writings of the Fathers cannot but know that no such doctrine is generally delivered by them nor do all the Schoolmen deliver any such Doctrine sure I am the Church of England hath imposed no such burden on her sons and members nay she hath most clearly determined against the necessity of this Confession in her Homilies Part. 2. Of the Sermon of Repentance p. 266 267. And in her Lyturgy she only adviseth it where a mans conscience is so perplexed that he cannot extricate himself without calling in the assistance of another Laud Men are taught that they must pass through the terrors of the Law before they can receive the mercies of the Gospel The Law was a Schoolmaster to bring the Synagogue to Christ it was so to them who were under the Law but cannot be so to us who are not under the Law but under Grace for if they mean the Law of Works or that imposition which was the first entercourse with man they lose their title to the mercies of the Gospel if they mean the Law of Moses then they do not stand fast in the liberty by which Christ hath made them free but whatsoever the meaning be neither of them can concern Christians Unum Neces p. 42. Pacif. Do you then think that the Law is of no use to us Christians Laud The use that we Christians are to make of the Law is only to magnifie the mercies of God in Jesus Christ who hath freed us from so severe a Covenant who does not judge us by the measures of an Angel but by the span of a mans hand But we are not to subject our selves so much as by fiction of Law or fancy to the curse and threatnings of the Covenant of Works or of Moses his Law though it was of more instances and less severity by reason of the allowance of Sacrifices for Expiation Un. Neces p. 41. Pacif. I judge with all Divines that we are to make another use of the Law then that you mention we are to use it as a regula officii to shew us our duty how much we owe to God and how much God may justly require of us and so it will be a Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ for whilest we see how much short we fall of our duty we shall see a necessity of closing with Christ upon the terms and conditions of the Gospel we are as much under the Law of Moses the moral part of it as ever were the Jews and the Jews were as much under grace as we aeque I say though not aequaliter Laud Every
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