Catholic Communion Doubly Defended by Dr Owen, Section 3
SECT. 3.
IV. BUt somewhat, Reverend Sir, you oblige me to say about my supposed Doctrinal Errours, which you have found in my praises of Dr. O. (Had I dispraised him as much, you might have found more.)
I said, that [I doubt not but his Soul is now with Christ, and though Heaven have no sorrow, it hath great Repentance, and that Dr. O. is now more against the receiving of this mistake than I am, and by defending it, you far more displease him than me.] Here my supposed Errours are three.
I. That I suppose him to know so much in Heaven. This being but played with as in jeast, I answer the more briefly to it in earnest.
1. I am not of the Socinians mind, that lay the Soul as in nuda potentia to sleep till the Resurrection: Nor do I believe that Souls in Paradise with Christ, are more ignorant than they were in the Body. 2. And therefore I think the Doctor knoweth what he wrote, and did on Earth, and is not fallen into forgetfulness. 3. And that he knoweth into whose hands he gave those Papers, and what mind the men were of, and how they were received while he lived, if they have been so long extant as you seem to intimate, and that they were justifyed then. 4. And if the Saints shall judge the world, and be like, or equal to the Angels, I do not think that the concerns of this life are any more below their regard, nor more impertinent to them, than to the Angels: Nor that they live as unconcerned Strangers to Earth (when a Sun-beam can reach so far.) The Souls under the Altar, that cryed how long, knew that their blood was unrevenged on Earth. 5. Nor do I believe that Christ, with whom they are, and the Angels that here attended them, are so strange to them, as to tell them nothing of the Earth. But lest you feign that I suppose them to have News-books, Gazetts, or Post-letters hence, I only advise you that justly extol his Learning, and Wisdom on Earth, not to bring him too low in Heaven, in comparison of us imprisoned Sinners, nor make him an ignoramus: And then we will but agree, that if he know of our faults here, he is against them, but if he think you are all changed since he died, there is mistake in Heaven. It followeth not that Souls in Heaven know nothing by Angels, because they know not all things: Nor that of themselves they know not what a man here may know by common reason, that the effects will be like the Cause, and his many Friends that owned his mistake on Earth, will some of them yet own them.
I can but be sorry (for I am not so presumptuous as to think to change your Judgment) if the contrary supposition be [your best Weapon] against the Popish Superstition of praying to Saints: For all this I will hope that you do not pray to Dr. O. for so much as you believe he knoweth, nor yet feign him stark ignorant for fear of praying to him? Do you think he hath forgotten the …ase of England? Or will you pray to him to intercede for it.
II. My second supposed Errour is, that the Saints in Heaven have any displeasure: And this is said to be [a Contradiction to the generally received Opinion of all that you have met with.] I doubt not but your Acquaintance is large, but I perceive it is not with all sorts of men. I am sorry they should generally deny so great and clear a truth.
1. Let us examine the Controversy, as of the Matter, and 2. As of the Name [Displeasure.] 1. Complacence is the first act of the will upon Good as Good, before it come to Election of Compared Goods, (which is usually de Mediis:) Displicence is its contrary, and its object is Evil as Evil. One is called Volition, or Willing, the other Nolition, or Nilling. As Pleasedness, and Displeasedness are in the Passions, and signify Ioy and Trouble, we have nothing here to do with them, (having expresly excluded sorrow) but as they are in the Will. I thought till now, that all sober Divines had been agreed (Protestants and Papists) that not only in Saints and Angels, and Christ as Man, but in God himself (who is most remote from imperfection) there is Complacence, and Displicence, Willing, and Nilling, which though in Creatures that have Accidents, they really differ as Acts, yet in God who is most simple, they are (say the subtiler part of the School Doctors) but the Essence of God by extrinsick denomination from relation of the effects, differenced from the Essence simply considered, and from each other; or as the Scotists formaliter, or as the Thomists ratione ratiocinata; but none deny these to be in God. I suppose that Volition or Complacence you deny not: As to Displicence or Nolition, answering the Judgments dislike, I prove that it is in Heaven, in God and Creatures.
2. If the will of God, Angels, and Spirits, have any Act about Evil, it is Displicence,: But some Act about Evil they have, Ergo, &c.
For the Major, if they have any Act, it is Displicence, or Complacence, for the will hath no other primary Acts before Election, (even frui & intendere, presupposing this Complacence:) But God and good Spirits have no Complacency in sin or evil as such: Ergo they have a Displicence: Aut placet aut displicet, being the first in nature.
That God or Spirits at least have some Act of will about evil as such, is commonly agreed: Else all the sin and evil in the world would come to pass, without any Act of God, or good Spirits in Heaven about it: Sure they that for Predetermination have written so many Volumes, (and one against me) are not of that mind. They say this is to feign God, and all in Heaven asleep, or having nothing to do with Earth: I have my self proved indeed (with others) that God hath no Volition or Complacency of Evil as such, but a Displicence I have proved.
2. If God have no Displicence as to sin, then there is no effectual impediment to it, but all the world would be drowned in wickedness: For the Creature would presently run into evil. But sin is restrained—
If any in excess of subtilty say, that Nolitions are not in God, but Volitions of the Good, are instead of Nolitions of Evil, this is bold, and at least the language unfit, and reductively these Volitions are Nolitions of their Contraries. And however none of this can be feigned of Souls.
3. If God be not disp'eased with sin, then his prohibitions are no signs of his displeasure; any more than his Commands. But, &c.
4. Then his Judgments and Execution in Hell, are no effects of his displeasure.
5. Then Christ came not to reconcile us to a displeased God, nor is he any more displeased with Persecutors then Saints, nor with Cursing than with Blessing▪ nor with any man for doing it.
6. If the subtilty which I have taken notice of in my Catholick Theology, asserting Volitions without Nolitions in God, were defensible, it would, as I said, be of no truth as to Creatures; if Souls in Heaven have no displicence against sin, how is their will holy in the Image of God, that hateth Iniquity? Devils love sin; Stones, and Brutes neither love, nor hate it. Saints in Heaven hate it, and love it not: meerly not-loving it is not their full holiness.
7. If Saints there are not displeased with sin, how can they glorify Christ for dying for it, or God for punishing it.
8. Or how can they be everlastingly thankful to Christ for saving them from it.
9. What a change must they impute to Christ that came so low, and suffered as in a sort forsaken, to destroy the works of the Devil, and now hath not so much as the least displeasedness with sin.
10. Then Christ and Saints there are no more displeased at Persecution, Prophaneness, Murder, Adultery, then at Piety and Love.
11. Then it no more displeaseth Souls there, that they here sinned, then that they did well: Pauls mind is much changed then about his Persecution. The best is, though you and yours are offended with me, it is not displeasing to Dr. O. if he know it. But if your reason be, because that all displeasedness hath some suffering of the mind, or trouble, 1. As to my meaning you know I excluded sorrow. 2. And it is not true that you suppose. Pure Displicency of the will in God, and the blessed, hath no trouble: It is not exercised in a body that hath a Heart, or Head troubled by commotion of the Blood and Spirits, nor yet in an imperfect Soul that hath hurting passions. It is the pure perfection of the will; and nothing but its Aversation from sin; and contrary to Love: Love and Hatred are names that may well here be used, but Complacence, and Displicence being the same, sound as less to signify Passion. And if there be Passion in Heaven, (which you cannot disprove) it might be without diminution of felicity.
II. But I am not hopeless that you will deny none of all this as to the matter, but turn all into a quarrel at words, and say that the name of Displeasure is not fit for any Act of God or Saints, or Angels in Heaven: If that be the worst (which is bad enough) let us next try that wordy Controversy. I. By Scripture. II. By School Divines. III. By common practical Divines.
I. Scripture use of words in Sacred Things is our best Dictionary. He that is our great Teacher, knoweth how to speak: If you dislike his words, methinks you should not accuse Men of Errour, and that against the common sense of all that you meet with, for imitating God, and speaking as he doth: And that at the same time when you are defending one that would have no Mode, or Accidentals in Worship used, which God prescribeth not. If by my words I must be Justified, or Condemned, I hope God will not condemn me for speaking as he taught me, no more then for doing as he bid me, though all your party should do it▪ And I can bear their Condemnation.
The Hebrew phrase which we translate by Displeasing God or Man, is oft [It was Evil in his Eyes] which speaketh a positive Act of the Understanding de malo: And that there was no answerable Act of the Will, let him say that dare.
Prov. 24. 17, 18. Rejoyce not when thy Enemy falleth, and let not th… heart be glad when he stumbleth, lest the Lord see it, and it displease him—] No, say you, fear not that any in Heaven should be displeased.
Gen. 38. 10. The thing that he did displeased the Lord, wherefore he slew him.
Num. 11. 1. When the people complained, it displeased the Lord—his anger was kindled—
2 Sam. 11. 27. The thing that David had done displeased the Lord, (Murder, and Adultery.) No, say you, God is not displeased with any sin, there is no displeasure in Heaven.
1 Chr. 21. God was displeased with this thing, therefore he smote Israel.
Psal. 60. 1. O God—thou hast been displeased.
Isa. 59. 15. The Lord saw it, and it displeased him.
Zech. 1. 2. 15. The Lord hath been sore displeased, or displeased with displeasure—I am very sore displeased with the Heathen—I was but a little displeased.
Psal. 6. 1. O Lord rebuke me not in thine anger, neither chasten me in thy hot displeasure.
Psal. 2. 5. He shall speak to them in his anger, and vex them in his sore displeasure.
Deut. 9. 19. Moses saith, [I was afraid of the great anger, and hot displeasure wherewith the Lord was hot against you to destroy you.] I am sorry that you all differ from Moses.
And Expositors suppose that when God is said to have no pleasure in fools, or in wickedness, &c. Eccl. 5. 4. Ps. 5. 4. it signifieth displeasure.
But the Scripture ascribeth to God not only Displeasure, but Hatred, which signifieth the greatest displeasure, Deut. 16. 22. Psal. 11. 5. The wicked, and him that loveth violence, his Soul hateth, Isa. 1. 14. Mal. 2. 16. Psal. 5. 5. Thou hatest all the workers of Iniquity, & 45. 7. thou hatest wickedness, Rev. 2. 6. 15. The Doctrine of the Nicolaitans—which I also hate, Zech. 8. 17. Amos 5. 21 & 6. 8. Jer. 44. 4. O do not this abominable thing which I hate, Isa. 61. 8. Prov. 8. 13. & 6. 16. I thought those that overstretch [Esau have I hated] would not have denyed all displeasedness in God.
But if I should go further, and cite all the Texts that ascribe even Anger and Wrath to God, and say he is angry every day, &c. and that his wrath shall punish the Wicked, I suppose it would do more to weary the Reader, that knoweth this already, than to convince your Party.
II. But my 2d Appeal is to the Accurate Scholastick Writers, because I suppose you will say that the Scripture speaketh popularly, & after the manner of Men. Ans. (Or else it must not speak to Men.) But here I should much more confound most Readers, if I should call them to Metaphysicks, or Metaphysical Writers; I should cite to them many sheets out of Aquinas, Scotus, Ockam, Durandus, Bonaventure, and all their followers, who commonly ascribed Displicency, as well as Complacence to God. If you need Witness in this case, read them, and seek it, and pardon me for not abusing the Reader with such Citations.
III. The same I say of the consent of Practical Protestant Divines. I do not think the Reader would forgive me, if I should prove that Luther, Calvin, Melancthon, Bucer, and all the Forreign Reformers, and all our Martyrs, and English Divines, Episcopal, Presbyterian, and (whatever you say against it, to their injury) Independants also ascribe Displicence to God: Sure they that translated the Bible did. And surely the Writings of Hildersham, Dod, Greenham, Rogers, Preston, Sibs, Bolton, Whateley, Allen, and hundreds such, are far from disowning such expressions.
But methinks I should not need to suppose you to object that it is not God, but Man that you speak of: No, I will not abuse you so much as to suppose that you take man to be more perfect, and less Passive then God. Indeed Displicence, and Complacence in God, are Active ad extra, and signify but the perfection of his will, and exeuntèr, the expressions and effects, and no Passivity: But all Creatures are Passive as well as Active, and they are receptive ab objectis, both in their Ideal Conceptions, and their Appetites: And therefore Displeasure in a far grosser Passive sense, must be ascribed to the Creature, then to the Creator: and yet without any diminution of felicity.
And 2. It is certain that Christ himself was much displeased with sin on Earth, Mark 10. 14 & 3. 5. And surely he is not any less perfect, nor more reconciled to sin in Heaven. He was displeased with it, when he died for it: and is his will changed since to favour it? Yea, if you should say that [sin is nothing, and therefore no object of a Divine Act] of Nolition, or hatred, but God is said to will or hate it, only because he doth not will or love it, but punish it; yet the Church hath long ago Condemned the Monothelites as Hereticks, and determined that Christ hath two Wills and Operations: And therefore as Man, his knowledge and will must have somewhat of Passivity, though not of Pain.
2. And it's strange that Christ is made our Captain, and manageth a War against Satan in the world, and Michael and his Angels are engaged in it, and yet have not the least displeasure against Sin and Satan.
3. And that Christ hath such terrible threatnings against Sin and Sinners, even everlasting fire prepared for the Devil and his Angels, the Worm that never dieth, and the fire that is not to be quenched, and that he shall come in flaming fire, rendring vengeance, &c. that all they might be damned that obeyed not the truth, &c. that the Wrath of God is revealed from Heaven against all Ungodliness, and Unrighteousness of men, &c. that fiery indignation shall devour the Adversaries, all Kindreds of the Earth shall wail because of him, and he will say, Those mine Enemies that would not I should Reign over them, bring hither, and slay them before me: Depart from me all ye that work Iniquity, &c. And yet hath not the least displeasure at Sin or Sinners. That most of the World must lye in Hell, and feel no effects of Christs displeasure, because he hath none.
And Angels and Saints are not perfecter than Christ, but are of his mind, and are displeased with Sin, and Persecutors, and Devils in conformity to Christ.
The Saints in Heaven have not forgotten their former sins: The remembrance of them hath some effect: It is not Pleasedness with the evil; therefore it is Displeasedness; they are not ignorant of all the Wickedness, Injustice, Violence, Persecution, and Blood-shed on Earth, and all the sufferings of the Just: They love not this with Complacency: Therefore they hate it with Displicence; or else they are senseless neuters.
Do the Angels pour out the Vials, do the Souls under the Altar pray for revenge, are the Heavens and the holy Apostles and Prophets bid rejoyce over Babylon, Rev. 18. 20. and yet none of them so much as displeased at Babylons sin, or the Churches suffering?
Sure you do not so far disagree from us in all this, as to deny the matter: I hope it is but a false Conceit of the unfitness of the word: And if the word [Displeasure] do displease you, why would not so accurate a Reprover once tell us what word it is that he would have used instead of it? We that are accused, know that [Nolition, Displicence, Aversation, Hatred (or as Campanella calls it Disamor) are words of the same signification as to the will, answering dislike in the understanding, (yea, dislike oft signifieth both.) If you cannot bear these, sure you are less patient at the words [Wrath and Anger of God] &c. what is it that you would have? Even Nothingness is an object of Nolition to the blessed; for they are averse to annihilation, so that the quibble that malum est privatio, will be here of no use to you; for what is more displeasing than Privation?
Dear Brother, I am so far from perceiving any Conviction in your Accusation in this matter, that I must say that you have in this made your self to me what Dr. O. did in the case of Concord. You constrain me to bear my publick Testimony against you, when you pretend herein to speak the mind of so great a number of your Acquaintance, when I remember the Sermons that are commonly talkt of, and the Collections made by the Friendly Debater, and many such others, I look to hear e're long from Prefs and Pulpits, [That the Nonconformists teach that no Rebellion, Treason, Perjury, or Wickedness is at all displeasing to God▪ to Christ, to Angels, or to any Saint in Heaven▪ Though they call Adulterers, Murderers, and such others to Repentance, and Mourning for Sin, and separate from others as too bad for their Communion, indeed at the same time they tell all the wicked, neither God, nor any in Heaven is displeased with them.]
Fore-seeing this scandal, I humbly address my self to such Accusers with this answer following.
[Take not verbal differences for real: No doubt but this Persons Errour is meerly verbal: All Mens Studies go not one way: It's like he is not vers'd in Philosophers, and Schoolmens Writings, that use Displicence and Complacence for meer Nolition and Volition, Hatred, or Aversation, and Love. And though he knew that Scripture, and Christian Writers commonly speak that which he accuseth, he was someway byassed to think that I used the same words in a worse sense than Scripture, and all Writers do (though I excluded sorrow:) And his interesting in his Errour, [The general received Opinion of all that he hath met with] doth but signify what sort of Men, and how few he hath met with, or how few Writers on such Subjects he hath read, and remembred, (for doubtless he doth not knowingly abuse them.) And when did all the Protestants, or Nonconformists chuse him to represent them? why is not my word as valid on the contrary, who remember not one Man, Protestant, or Papist, or Heathen that is for the Immortality of the Soul, that is, of the Opinion which he expresseth; except those few that hold that non datur verè malum, There is no Evil in the World, but all that we call sin and punishment is good, and miscalled evil by us in darkness, but all willed by God, and those in Heaven? yet even Hobbs, and Peter Sterry confess a good fort of Evil. And I doubt not but this Brother is against what he speaketh himself.
And to stop your Censures, let me ask you, if one mistaker accuse us all, whom we never authorized to represent us, doth this lay so great a blot on us, as an erring Council of Bishops doth on the Clergy, whom they represent: And yet how great a number of Councils have falsly reported the Doctrine of the Church.
I will stop your mouth now but with the last words of Sulpitius Severus. History. [Ac inter nostrios perpetuum discordiurum bellum exarserat: quod jam per quindecim annos faedis dissentionibus agitatum nullo modo sop…ri poterat? Et nunc cum maximè discordiis Episcoporum turbari ac misceri omnia cernerentur, cunctaque per eos odio: aut gratiâ, metu, inconstantia, invidia, factione, libidine, avaritia, arrogantia, somno, desidia essent depravata, postremo Plures adversum paucos bene consule…tes infanis conciliis & pertinacibus studiis certabant: Inter haec plebs Dei & optimus quisque probro at que …dibri… habebatur.] Read the Author, lest you think I made these words for our times. And of their Captain Bishop he saith, [Certe Ithacium nihil pensi, nihil sancti habuisse definio: Fuit enim audax, loquax, impudens, sumptuosus, ventri & gulae plurimum impertiens, hic stultitiae eo usque processit, ut omnes etiam sanctos viros quibus aut studium in erat lectionis, aut propositum erat certare jejuniis tanquam Priscilliani socios in crimen arcesseret.] (And yet saith that the Persecution of the Priscillianists did but increase them.) Pardon this digression, by which you may see that if you be not responsible for all that Councils, and the Major part of Bishops say or do, much less are we for the verbal Errour of one or a few men, though fathered by them on many▪ whereby they necessitate these our open disclaimings of their words.
III. My third supposed Errour is much like the former, saying, that [Though Heaven have no sorrow, it hath great repentance.] In this [all Protestants] are (falsly) said to be against me. Here also the Errour is either Verbal or Real. And, 1. He knows that as to the word all Protestants own the Scripture, which ascribeth Repenting to God himself, Exod. 32. 12. Deut. 32. 36. Psal. 135. 14. Ier. 18. 8, 10. & 26. 3. 13. Ion. 3. 9, 10. Gen. 6. 6. Iudg. 2. 18. 1 Sam. 15. 35. 2 Sam. 24. 16. Am. 7. 3, 6. Ioel 2. 13. Ier. 15. 6. It's true that this is not spoken of God, as if he had any mutability as man hath; But God being infinitely more perfect then man, the phrase is further fetcht, and less proper of God then of man: Therefore it is not the Name that he blameth, seeing he owneth the Word of God.
II. And if it be not the Name, but my sense of it, do you find where he proveth any wrong sense that I express, or doth he give a better?
I said in a Book [There is not such a thing as grief or sorrow known in Heaven.] The Vindicator citeth this as if it were contrary to, [There is no sorrow, but displeasure and repentance:] If he mean not that [no sorrow, and no sorrow] are Contradictions, he need to have gone no further then the present sentence for it. And if he had proved that [no sorrow,] and Displicence, or Repentance are Contradictions, he would have done that against the Scripture itself, which he intended not, nor can do.
He hath prevented my labour in transcribing other Authors that use foreign and foreign usually for a meer change of the mind, purpose, and practice, without any signification of sorrow, and he appealeth to Scripture use of the words: But is there any thing besides sorrow, that by all his words he labours to exclude? And did not I expresly exclude it: And yet is this Reverend man thus puzled at this as a dangerous Doctrine? Doth he attempt in one syllable to blame any thing but the word? When I excluded his misliked sense? And he will not deny the ordinary use of the word as without sorrow? But let us willingly take the Scripture use: which speaketh of Repentance in Heaven, and on Earth. It is not Repetance on Earth that we have now to treat of: And do you think its a good Argument that there is no Repentance in Heaven without sorrow, because there is none on Earth without it? But even on Earth, Repentance is either the Act of the Intellect, and Will, alone, or an Act of these joyned with divers Passions. It is sometime so largely taken, that the Passions of grief, shame, and fear, and specially anger against our selves, are parts of it: But in all common Authors, and ordinary use, and even in Scripture, it is taken for the change of Mind and Will, the Passions being but effects, or concomitants of it. To Repent, in the common and prime sense, is but to change our Mind and Will, and wish we had not done what we did. When a thing was well done of us, and yet sped not well, we repent and wish we had not done it for the sake of the event: but we blame not our selves for the Act, nor grieve for that, but for the event. But usually we have cause of Sorrow, as well as of Repentance, and must joyn them together. But where the Gospel frequently promiseth Repentance, pardon, and life together, and Preacheth both Repenting and Believing in order to present joy, there is little mention of the sorrow in the Converts, save for the murdering of Christ, or some great sin. And Sorrow, and Repenting are distinguished in Scripture as two things, 2 Cor. 7. 9, 10. I rejoyce, not that ye were made sorry, but that ye sorrowed to Repentance—For Godly sorrow worketh Repentance to salvation, not to be repented of.] Is the sense [Godly sorrow worketh Godly sorrow?] No, but a change of mind and life, Heb. 6. 1. It is not called [Repentance for dead works,] but [from dead works,] as speaking the change, rather than the grief.
Exod. 13. 17. Lest the people repent when they see war, and they return to Aegypt: Hence sear is the moving Passion, and Repenting is wishing they had not left Aegypt, and returning is the effect. I am readier to think that sorrow is no part, but an adjunct of Repentance in the strictest, properest sense, then that it is no Repentance without sorrow: sure the specifying faculties of Man are the Intellect and Will; and I think the specifying Acts of Rational true Repentance; are the Acts of the same faculties, and Sorrow is but such an adjunct as shame and anger at our selves are.
But it is Repentance in Heaven that is our subject: And I have cited you Texts enough which speak of Gods Repenting: And do you believe that he hath sorrow? You'l say, that's but metaphorically spoken? Ans. No more is knowledge, or will, or any such Act that we can speak of God: But if it be not a name unmeet to be spoken of God; are Souls there greater, or happier then he.
But we find no talk in Scripture of any in Heaven Repenting, save God: No wonder: How little hath God told us of the particular state and action of separated Souls, before the Resurrection; when it pleaseth God so sparingly to mention their present state, (yea, and their immortality in the old Testament▪) shall we feign that he must tell us of all their thoughts?
But all these Acts of Repentance Souls in Heaven have. 1. They know more of their sins both as to the matter and evil, then ever they did on Earth. 2. They own their Culpability, that is, that they are the Souls that committed these sins, and deserved Death and Hell for them. 3. They know the goodness of all the ways that are contrary to their sin. 4. They love all that good, and hate all their sin more than they did here. 5. They wish they had never committed them. 6. If it were to do again, they would not do it.
This is proper true Repentance: Either you deny the Things, or but the Name. If the Thing, which of these deny you.
1. If Saints in Heaven know not sin better then they did here, Heaven is to them as dark as Earth.
2. If they know not that they themselves were the Subjects, and Actors of these sins, they are ignorant, or erroneous.
3. If they know not that Gods way is better than sin, they are brutish.
4. If they love Good, and hate Evil no better then here, then they are no better.
5. If their will do not wish that they had not done it, then their will is not holy and averse to sin: Either they review it with approbation, (which you believe not) or with dislike, or senselesly with no act of will. If with dislike, and displicence, as before is proved, that hatred, or aversation contains a wish, they had never done it. Else David, Peter, Paul, &c. were better Men on Earth then in Heaven: For here they wisht they had not been guilty of Murder, Persecution, &c. And if they wish it not there, their wills are more unholy than here.
Perhaps you'l say, It's a vain wish of an impossibility? Ans. No such matter: I talk not of a prayer, or a desire that factum non factum fiat; but a Vellem or Mallem me non peccasse: I had rather I had not sinned: And that is not vain, which is the Wills perfection or Holiness itself.
6. And that they would not do the like again, I need not prove.
I were a greater dishonourer of Heavenly felicity, if I denyed any of these, then you feign me to be. I doubt not but those aforesaid that are disposed to obloquy, will take occasion from your words (yea, the Papists from your entitling all Protestants to it) to say [The Nonconformists (or the Protestants) hold that Murder, Rebellion, Perfecution, and all sin is so small a matter to their Saints in Heaven, that they do not so much as Repent of it, or will or wish they had never done it. Therefore they either justify it, or are neuters to it.]
They say that the Mother of Lombard, Gratian, and Pet. Comestor being a Whore, said she could not repent of the Fornication that had begot three such Sons: If any say that the Saints in Heaven do not so much as wish, or will that they had not sinned, because Christ is glorifyed by saving them from it, they pervert the Gospel Doctrine of Grace, and would teach the justifyed on Earth to be impenitent.
But if you return to wordy Quarrels again, and say all these Acts ought not to be called Repentance, if they have not sorrow. 1. I durst not so make my self Master of Languages, against the use of all the world. 2. And against the Scripture that speaketh of Gods Repenting. 3. Nor against Etymology. 4. And against the nature of the Case. Men in flesh have sin and danger, and Bodies lyable to sensible commotion of Spirits, and so to grief. Those in Heaven are not such: They have no cause of grief, and yet have renewed faculties of mind and will, which disgust sin, and hate it, and are turned from it to a contrary love and life. Even here, if a man by his own sin and folly had shut up himself twenty years in a Dungeon, or put out his Eyes, and never seen the light, suppose this man suddenly delivered into the light, and he would not stay to mourn for his former state, but the sudden joy would exclude sorrow: And yet his change would be a true Repentance for what he did.
But as you have wronged all Protestants by fathering your Errour on them, you have made it my duty to vindicate them with my self.
But I am grown such a Prodigal of my Reputation with Men of such a judging disposition, that I will cast away a little more of it on your Censure. The Scripture speaketh so much more of our Glory after the Resurrection, then before, and purposely keepeth us so low in our knowledge of the particular state of Souls before, and Calvin, (whom I suppose you take not for an Heretick) for all his Treatise against the sleep of Souls, did think the difference was so great between the state of the separated Souls, and that at the Resurrection, that I must profess my ignorance to be so great, that I am uncertain whether this first state do set all the blessed so high, as that no thought is consistent with it, that hath the least degree of suffering.
For, 1. I know that all Creatures are Passive. 2. If felicity be imperfect till the Resurrection, it must be privatively, or positively, or both. If privatively, how can I prove that nothing positive may concur, when privation is as bad. 3. I think that Protestants mostly agree, that Christs own Soul, while his Body was in the Grave, was in Paradise, in Joy, and yet in a state that was partly Penal, as it was a separation from the Body by death. And that all Souls in Heaven are happy, and yet in a state partly Penal in Heaven itself, as they are separated from the body, and short of the Resurrection: For not only the minute of dying, but the state of death is Penal, to a Soul that desireth a return to the body: And yet Heaven may be to it unconceivable felicity. I only hence conclude, that we must not take on us to know more than we do of separate Souls, nor to make a measure or manner of blessedness for them of our own heads, nor to apply every Text to them that is spoken of the state after the Resurrection: There is enough besides to feast our joyful hopes.
IV. Some few other practical Doctrines we differ about, as where pag. 30. you say [I doubt not to affirm that doing that which a Law requires, so far as the intention is moved by the Law, is a justifying of it. And submitting to any Law on the consideration of its Penalties, is so far a justifying its preceptive part, as not so great an evil as the Penal.]
Ans. I first premise that this is little or nothing to the Cause I pleaded for: For whereas you say [None that I know of say it is a duty simply, or without any dependence or human Sanction.] I have largely told you that taking publick Communion to be but do facto, what it is, and the Lyturgy as commonly used, I take it to be a duty to hold such Communion (where no better at least is) though there were no human Sanction, but voluntary Concord; and this by vertue of Gods great Commands of glorifying him with one mind and mouth in Unity, Love, and Peace; not an immutable duty, but a duty rebus sic stantibus. It is in obedience to Gods Commands more than Mens, that I have gone to the Parish Churches; and would have gone as much, if the Law had not commanded it, but only had deprived me of better.
But as to your undoubted affirmation, I am as much past doubt that it is not true as you unlimitedly express it. The intention may be moved by a Law for the effects. or consequents sake, and not justify the Law, but only justify the Act of the Subject: Yea, it may be moved by the formal Authority of the Law-giver, exprest by his Law, and yet not justify the Law.
Ioseph and Mary were Taxed with others by Augustus Law: They were moved by that Law, and its effects to pay the Tax: And yet justifyed not the Law, nor decided the Case, whether it were by Right or Usurpation: All Conquered People by unjust War, may obey a Taxing Law: The Israelites might obey the Philistines, that forbad them Smiths, and Swords, &c. They may labour, and Travel, and pay Taxes, moved by unjust Laws, and yet not justify the Law, but only their own Acts. When Christ sent Peter to take a Fish with Money in his Mouth, and pay Tribute, the Law moved his intention, because of the offence that would follow the breaking of it: And yet his answer intimateth that he justified not the Law: If he carried his Cross at their Command, that justified not their Command. If he bid us give our Coat to him that sueth us for our Cloak, if the Law be against us, it proveth not he bids us justify the Law. If a Confessor go to Prison, or Banishment, or to the Gallows, or fire without resistance, to do this as moved by the Law, is no justifying of the Law. If the Protestants in France should pay each man a yearly Tribute for liberty of Conscience, or the Christians under the Turk pay Pos…-mony, moved by the Law, this justifieth not the Law. I am persuaded your Church would gladly pay somewhat for liberty of Worship, and yet not justify the Law that required it.
If the Law required us to meet for Gods Worship at an inconvenient place or time, or to use a version of Psalms in Meeter, or a Translation of Scripture that is not the best, he that useth these in obedience to this (because Concord in these according to Law, is better then a better Version, Translation, Hour, Place, with Discord, and because Obedience may do more good then better circumstances would without it) yet doth not hereby justify the Law. If the Law bid you appear before Justices or Judges that are bad men, and unjust, you may obey the Law, and not justify it.
Dear Brother, I will not aggravate your Errour by its ill Consequences: But you and I tell the world, what need all men have of pardon in our mistakes, even when we are most confident.
2. And as to your second affirmation, it is not true without limitation, [That submitting to a Law, on consideration of the Penalties, is so far a justifying its preceptive part, as not so great an evil as the Penal.]
This is confused work: The pr…ceptive part of the Law is actus praecipientis, the Commanders Act; The instances before mentioned tell you that this may be obeyed for the Penalty sake, when yet the evil of the Command, or Law, is sinful, and so worse than the Penalty or Obedience, which are not sin: Forgive me for telling you that you should have distinguished the preceptive part of the Law from the matter Commanded by it, and the evil of the Law and Law-maker, from the evil of the Obeyer; and then only have concluded that he that obeyeth a Precept only to avoid the Penalty, professeth the Penalty to be worse then his Act of Obedience. But he doth not make it worse then the Law, or the Lawmakers sin.
If a Law did Command me to appear before a Lay-Civilian, who useth the Keys of the Church, and this on pain of Death, or Imprisonment, I may be moved both by Precept and Penalty to appear, as being better then either refusal, or penalty, and yet not think that the Law or Precept is a less evil in itself, or its ends, to the Law-maker, or the publick? (Whether this thought be right or wrong, is nothing to our question) so if I were by Law commanded to joyn in the Lyturgy, on pain of Death, or Imprisonment, or being deprived of all other Church Worship, I may think this Law worse than my sufferings, and yet think my Obedience to it my Duty.
Yea, if a Law bid me play with Childrens Bubbles, or any such trisling, on pain of Death, the Case would be the same.
And if any should take occasion by your confident judgment to refuse to obey, wherever he may not justify the preceptive part of the Law, the effect would be worse then of my naming Dr. O.