Selected quad for the lemma: lord_n

Word A	Word B	Word C	Word D	Occurrence	Frequency Band	MI	MI Band	Prominent
lord_n	incline_v	law_n	mercy_n	16,188	5	9.8317	5	false

Text snippets containing the quad

ID	Title	Author	Corrected Date of Publication (TCP Date of Publication)	STC	Words	Pages
A67875	Laudensium apostasia: or A dialogue in which is shewen, that some divines risen up in our church since the greatness of the late archbishop, are in sundry points of great moment, quite fallen off from the doctrine received in the Church of England. By Henry Hickman fellow of Magd. Colledg Oxon.	Hickman, Henry, d. 1692.	1660 (1660)	Wing H1911; ESTC R208512	84,970	112

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

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