A29696:245
London's lamentation, or, A serious discourse concerning the late fiery dispensation that turned our…
London's lamentation, or, A serious discourse concerning the late fiery dispensation that turned our (once renowned) city into a ruinous heap also the several lessons that are incumbent upon those whose houses have escaped the consuming flames / by Thomas Brooks.
London: printed for John Hancock and Nathaniel Ponder, 1670
Modern spelling is a reading aid: the words are the author’s, only the spelling is modernized. Original shows the page as printed, with the transcription marks.
But before I close up this Particular, give me leave to say, That this trade, this course of Lying that brings that sore Judgment of Fire upon Cities and Countries, I cannot charge with any clear evidence upon those that did truly fear the Lord, whose habitations were once within or without the Walls of London, before it was turned into a ruinous heap; and that upon these grounds.
First, Because a trade, a course of Lying is not consistent §1with the truth or state of Grace. A trade, a course of drunkennes•, 1of whoring, of swearing, of cursing, is as inconsistent with a state of Grace, as a trade, a course of Lying is. I know Jacob lied, and David lied, and Peter lied; but none of these were ever given up to a trade of lying, to a course of lying. The best Saints have had their extravagant motions, and have sadly miscarried as to particular actions: but he 2that shall judge of a Christians estate by particular acts, though notorious bad, will certainly condemn where God acquits. We must always distinguish between some single evil actions and a serious course of evil actions. It is not this or that particular evil action, but a continued course of evil actions that denominates a man wicked. As it is not this or that particular good act, but a continued course of holy actions that denominates a man holy. Every man is as his course is; if his course be holy, the man is holy; if his course be wicked, the man is wicked. There is a Maxim in Logic, viz. That no general Rule can be established upon a particular Instance. And there is another Maxim in Logic, viz. That ⟨p. 124⟩no particular Instance can overthrow a general Rule. So here, look as no man can safely and groundedly conclude from no better premises then from some few particular actions (though in themselves materially and substantially good) that this or that mans spiritual estate is good; so on the other hand, no man ought to conclude because of some particular sinful actions and extravagant motions, that this or that mans spiritual estate is bad. A trade of Lying can never stand with a trade of Holiness, a course of Lying can never stand with a course of Godliness. Though the Needle of the Seamans Compass may jog this way and that way; yet the bent of the Needle will stll be Northward: So though a Jacob, a David, a Peter may have their particular sinful joggings this way or that way; yet the bent of their hearts will still be God-wards, Christ-wards, Heaven-wards, and Holiness-wards. But,