Expiations were appointed for small sins but none for great ones 't is a notion borrowed from the Socinians but hath nothing of truth in it forif we look into Levit. 6. 1 2 c. We shall find a trespass-offering appointed for sins done wittingly for a mans lying in that which was delivered to him to keep and swearing falsely which sure are not small sins And in the Feast of Expiation of which mention is made Levit. 16. we find very general tearms used v. 16 21 30 34. and therefore God promising to his people the remission of their sins that were very grievous Isai. 1. 18. useth a metaphor say the Rabbins taken from that which hapned in the Feast of Expiation when the thread by which the Scape-goat was led into the Wilderness did miraculously change its colour and become white Every great sin say you brought death infalibly What death do you mean temporal or eternal All men were not cut off by death temporal who did fall into soul gross sin much less did they all suffer the vengeance of eternal death witness David who scaped notwithstanding adultery and murder whereas Volkelius saith this was not by vertue and efficacy of Sacrifices but by the singular mercy of God he 's well answered by Maresius among others that he makes a faulty opposition betwixt that pardon which was by the typical efficacy of Sacrifices and that which proceeded out of the singular mercy of God whereas that pardon of sin which was obtained by any Expiatory Sacrifice whether typical or real was ever to be ascribed to the special mercy of God and indeed seeing it cannot be denyed but that some very enormous crimes were pardoned under the Law it seems very irrational to deny that such pardon was signified to those who were guilty by some Sacrifices if not particular yet common and universal especially seeing David himself being about to ask the pardon of his sin expresseth himself in terms taken from Ceremonies and legal Sacrifices Psal. 51.4 5 7. Purge me with hysop But I pray you tell us more of your mind about Moses his Law Laud As it had a little image of Repentance so it had something of Promises to be as a grace and auxiliary to set forward Obedience But this would not do it the Promises were temporal and that could not secure Obedience in great instances and there being for them no remedy appointed by Repentance the Law could not justifie it did not promise life Eternal nor give sufficient security against the temporal only it was brought in as a paedagogy for the present necessity Unum Necess p. 3. Pacif. How to make sense of those words the Law did not promise life Eternal nor give sufficient security against the temporal I know not but I suppose your meaning in the whole that you said is this That under the Law the Promises were temporal not of matters Spiritual or Eternal Now if you mean that the Law considered barely as a law had no promises of Eternal life I cannot gain-say but in that sense neither had it any promises temporal for a law as a law promiseth nothing but only declareth what is to be done or avoided but if you should mean that God under Mos s his Law did not encourage his people to Obedience by promises of Eternal life as well as of a Temporal our Divines against the Socinians and Papists have said enough to confute you and you plainly contradict the 7th Article of our Church in which the words are these The Old Testament is not contrary to the New for both in the O d and New Testament everlasting life is offered to mankind by Jesus Christ who is the only Mediator between God and Man being both God and Man wherefore they are not be heard which fain that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises Laud At first there were no promises at all of any good nothing but a threatning of evil to the transgressors and after a long time they were entertained but with the promise of good things temporal which to some men were performed by the pleasures and rewards of sin and then there being a great imperfection in the nature of man it could not be that man should remain innocent and for Repentance in this Covenant there was no regard or provisions made Unum Neces p. 2. Pacif. Either I understand you not or this is uncouth Divinity you say at first there were no promises at all of any good nothing but a threatning of evil what mean you by at first if while Adam was innocent Can any one think that the most holy and merciful Creator should threaten death to Adam upon his disobedience and not promise him life and happiness on condition of obedience if by the first you mean that time in which the world consisted of Adam and Eve Abel and Cain and some few other sure you cannot think that in that period of time there was no promise of good things there was the promise of the seed of the woman and God tells it Cain as a thing well known to him that if he did well he should be accepted the Hebrew word there used cometh from {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} a root saith Pagnin of very vast and comprehensive signification if any other in all the Hebrew tongue it may carry these three significations in that place 1. If thou do well shalt thou not be pardoned 2. Shalt thou not lift up thy count nance i. e. have access to God with boldness 3. Shalt thou not receive i. e. receive the things thou askest and standest in need of How any of these were or could be performed to any by the pleasures and rewards of sin I wot not But what may one think of the faith of them who lived before Christs Incarnation Laud That both the Patriarchs and the Jews did rely on God for the accomplishment of his promise touching their salvation I do nothing doubt but that they were acquainted with the means and method which God did purpose to make use of in so great a work or did rely on Christ to come for their justification as the Scripture no where saith it for ought find so is there no reason to believe it for ought I can see Dr. Hey Fid. Apost. p. 96. after a long discourse to that purpose Pacif. The Writers of our Homilies seem to be of another mind for Part. 1. p. 25. we find these words All these Fathers Martyrs and other holy men had their faith surely fixed in God when all the world was against them they did not only know God to be the Lord Maker and Governor of all men in the world but also they had a special confidence and trust that he was and would be their God their Comforter Aider Helper Maintainer and Defender This is the Christian Faith which these holy men had and we also ought to have And although they were not named Christian men yet was
of it after the mind of some Jew hired to be their God-father call it the Sabbath This name Sabbath is not a bare name or like a spot in their fore-heads to know Labans sheep from Jacobs but indeed it is a mystery of iniquity intended against the Church Others also for the plots sake must uphold the name of Sabbath that stalking behind it they may shoot against the Services appointed for the Lords Day Hence it is that some for want of wit too much adore the Sabbath as an Image dropt down from Jupiter and cry before it as they did before the Golden Calf This is an holy day to the Lord whereas indeed it is the Great Diana of the Ephesians as they use it whereby the minds of their Proselytes are so perplexed and bewitched that they cannot resolve whether the sin be greater to bowl shoot or dance on their Sabbath then to commit murther c. All which doubts would soon be dissolved by plucking off the Vizzard of the Sabbath from the face of the Lords Day which doth as well and truly become it as the Crown of Thorns did the Lord himself This was plotted to expose him to damnable derision and that was plotted to impose on it detestable Superstition yet they will call it a Sabbath presuming in their zealous ignorance guiltful zeal to be thought to speak the Scripture phrase when indeed the dregs of Asded flow from their mouth With us the Sabbath is Saturday and no day else No ancient Father nay no learned man Heathen or Christian took it otherwise from the beginning of the world to the beginning of their Schism in 1554. Dr. Pocklington Sunday no Sabbath p. 7. 13 21 22. compared Pacif. Here 's bitterness enough and though it be expresly directed against none but Puritans yet must it needs redound on the Church of England who in her Homilies gives the Lords Day the name of Sabbath as also sundry of her most eminent sons have done But whereas you say so confidently thatno learned man till 1554 ever called any other day but Saturday by the name of Sabbath you must give me leave to question whether your reading be so great that you have perused all learned men since the beginning of the world till 1554. For I can in my little reading produce a considerable Author who lived in the 4th Century and another who lived in the beginning of the 12th Century who both call the Lords Day a Sabbath and how many others have done so neither you nor I without more search then such a thing is worth shall be able to say but it is to little purpose to contend about a name or word provided we be agreed in the thing and this I am sure of that our Church in the Homily for the time and place of worship commends and enjoyns the Lords Day to be kept as a Sabbath with rest from all week-day and worldly labours and to be spent wholly in the service of God and of this I think none can doubt who comes to the reading of that Homily unprejudiced Laud In that Homily it is thus Doctrinally resolved Albeit this Commandment of God doth not bind Christian people so straightly to observe and keep the other Ceremonies of the Sabbath day as it was given unto the Jews as touching the forbearing of work or labour in time of great necessity and as touching the precise keeping of the seventh day after the manner of the Jews yet notwithstanding whatsoever is found in the Commandment appertaining to the Law of Nature as a thing most godly most just and needful to the setting forth of Gods glory it ought to be retained and kept of all good Christian people Dr. Heyl. Res. Pet. Pacif. These words do indeed occur in that Homily but mark the words that follow therefore by this Commandment we ought to have a time as one day in the week wherein we ought to rest yea from our lawful and needful works Doth not the Church here resolve that by vertue of the fourth Commandment Christians ought to observe one day in seven and that with cessation from lawful and needful works and this is if not the all yet the most that Puritans contend for Laud It is here said that there is no more of the fourth Commandment to be retained and kept of good Christian people then whatsoever is found in it appertaining to the Law of Nature but there is nothing in the fourth Commandment but that sometime be set apart for Gods publick Service the Precept so far forth as it enjoyns one day in seven or the seventh day precisely from the Worlds Creation being avowed for ceremonial by all kind of Writers Dr. Heyl. 245. Hist. Sabba p. 2. p. 245. Pacif. It is not said that there is no more to be retained and kept of good Christians but what is required of the Law of Nature this only is said that whatever is of the Law of Nature that is to be retained c. Now Logick tells us that these Propositions are heavenly wide and the Homily sufficiently implyeth that the Precept so far as it enjoyneth one day in seven was not an utter Ceremony for it saith that we by vertue of that Precept are bound to have a time as one day in seven Laud 'T is not said that we should spend the day wholly in heavenly exercises for then there were no time allowed us to eat and drink which are meer natural employments but that we give our selves wholly that is our whole selves body and soul to the performance of those heavenly exercises which are required of us in the way of true Religion and Gods Publick Service Sab. Hist. Part. 2. p. 247. Pacif. What a strange gloss is this you say it was Ceremonial that one day of seven be spent wholly Why do you not also argue that there was not any such Law given to the Jews because then there would no time have been allowed for eating and drinking Works of natural necessity do consist and alway did consist with the Sanctification of the Day of Rest and whereas you say the Homily doth only require that for the time appointed to Gods Publick Worship we wholly sequester our selves from all worldly business I believe you do not think that is all the meaning of the Homily for are not the words plain Gods obedient people should use the Sunday holily and rest from their common and dayly business and also give themselves c. The Sunday not a part of it should be used holily and with rest from common dayly business But what do I trouble my self about this had the Homily said just the whole day you would also have found out some evasion as you do for St. Chrysostomes {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and his {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} Part. 2. p. 80. We will proceed to the Commandments of the 2d Table the sum of which is comprised in those words Thou
is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that 's Idolatrical if their confidence and fancyful opinion hath engaged them upon so great mistake yet the will hath nothing in it but what is a great enemy to Idolatry Et-nihil ardet in inferno niso propria voluntas Liber Prop. p 258. Pacif. Belike then if any man can make a shift to be so ignorant as to think that the Sun is God and so give Divine Adoration to the Sun he shall be no Idolater I think that the will of the Papists hath something in it that is no great enemy to Idolatry and had they not been wilful in so absurd an opinion so much reason hath been offered against it that they must needs before this time have recanted such a senseless Tenent Laud Although they have done violence to all Philosophy and the reason of man and undone and cancelled the Principles of two or three Sciences to bring in this Article yet they have a Divine Revelation whose Literal and Grammatical sense if that were intended would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the Circle and indeed that Transubstantiation is openly and violently against Natural Reason is no argument to make them disbelieve who believe the Mysterie of the Trinity in all those niceties of Explication which are in the School and which now a dayes pass for the Doctrine of the Church with as much violence to the principles of Natural and Supernatural Philosophy as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation Liber Prop. p. 258 Pacif. Here 's as fair quarter for the Socinians as could be wished that the niceties of the School as you are pleased to call them about the Trinity are as contrary to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as Transubstantiation Prove this and our New Arians will thank you prove it and I 'le never more believe the Mistery of the Trinity For I am sure God the first Truth did never command or oblige any one to believe that which offers violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy but I confess I have a long time been offended at some passages that I have met with in sundry Divines who call themselves Protestants Dr. Laurence in his Sermon before the King le ts us know That as he doth not like those who say Christ is bodily present in the Sacrament so he likes not those who say his body is not there because Christ saith t is there and St. Paul saith it is there and the Church of God say ever 't is there and that truly and substanlially and essentially These words though I think they may be expounded to a good sense yet they do malè sonare and should not be used nor know I what made men so much delight to call our Sacrament a Sacrifice or the Communion Table an Altar or our Ministers Priests especially seeing Dr. Heylin hath told us that it is no improper Sacrifice no improper Altar Sure I am our Church never took pleasure in calling it an Altar never made any injunction the Table should be placed Altarwise nay Queen Elizabeths injunctions made the first year of her raign do appoint That the holy Table in every Church be decently made and set in the place where the Altar stood and so to stand saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed at which time the same shall be so placed in good sort within the Chancel as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his Prayer and Ministration the Communicants also more conveniently and in more number communicate with the said Minister And after the Communion done from time to time the same holy Table to be placed where it stood before And Bishop Jewel doth peremptorily maintain That the Communion Table ought to stand in the middle of the Church among the people and not Altarwise against the wall Reply to Harding And as I could never satisfie my self about placing the Table Altarwise so neither could I ever satisfie my self about bowing to the Altar why should we more bow towards the empty Table or Altar more then towards the empty Pulpit from whence the word is wont to be preached to us or towards the Bible or towards the Font Laud The Altar is the greatest place of Gods residence upon earth I say the greatest yea greater than the Pulpit for there 't is hoc est Corpus meum but in the Pulpit 't is at most but hoc est Verbum meum and a greater reverence no doubt is due to the Body then to the Word of our Lord and so in relation answerable to the Throne where his Body is usually present then to the Seat where his Word useth to be proclaimed and God keep it there at his Word for as too many use the matter 't is hoc est verbum Diaboli in too many places witness Sedition and the like to it A. Laud his Speech in the Star-Chamber Pacif. If this be all you can say I shall never be troubled that bowing towards the Altar is disused for when you say that in the Altar 't is hoc est Corpus meum either you mean that it is the Body of Christ in a gross carnal way or in a spiritual Sacramental way if in a gross carnal way you shall excuse me if I cannot swallow that opinion in defiance and detestation of which our Martyrs in Queen Maries dayes did lose their lives If you mean only in a Sacramental way is not the bloud of Christ and whole Christ and so by consequence his Body exhibited and represented to us in Baptism as well as in the Supper Why then were men enjoyned rather to worship towards the Table or the Eucharistical Bread then towards the Baptismal water or the Baptistery Besides when there was no Sacrament there was upon the Table or Altar neither the Body of Christ nor any sacred Symbole of Christ nay if there were a Sacrament yet I hope the Bread was not in any sense the Body of Christ till it was consecrated by the Word and Prayer but as I take it we were bound to bow towards the Table not only when there was a Sacrament and after the consecration of the Elements but at all times And when the Sacrament was administred in private houses might not it be said that there it was hoc est Corpus meum and yet I trow men were not under obligation to bow towards that Table upon which the Bread did stand when it was consecrated This sufficiently invalidateth your argument and therefore I need not further ask whether that honor which you expressed by bowing towards the Altar were civil or divine and religious though which soever part you should choose you would run into most grievous absurdities and inconveniences What are your thoughts of Invocation of Angels and Saints departed this life Laud Perhaps there is no such great impiety in
sense it is not in force at all for both Lawyers say and reason it self shews that a law is no longer in force then the words of it are in force at least those that contain the substance of it Laud The Primitive Church kept both the Sabbath and the Lords day till the time of the Laodicaean Council about 300 years after Christs Nativity and almost in every thing made them equal and therefore did not esteem the Lords day to be substituted in the place of the obliterated Sabbath but a Feast celebrated by great reason and perpetual consent without Precept or necessary Divine injunction Gr. Ex. part 2. p. 119. Pacif. There are in the few words by you uttered certain things that you must pardon me if I cannot presently close with 1. You say that the Primitive Church till the Laodicaean Council kept both the Sabbath and the Lords Day Quanta est haec propositio Do you mean that the whole Primitive Church did so that will be hard if not impossible to prove for the Books that are come to our hands have neither declared nor do they pretend to declare what all the Churches of Christ did nay it appears from Socrates that the Roman and Alexandrian Church kept not the Saturday at all as I think is acknowledged by Dr. Heylin himself Part. 2. But dato sed non concesso that there had been such an universal custom of observing both dayes how doth it hence follow that the Lords Day was not substituted in the place of the obliterated Sabbath Would you argue that Baptism came not in the place of Circumcision because to gain over the weak Jews they used Circumcision for some season They might use the Saturday as a meeting day that by complying with the Jews and Proselytes they might obtain familiar access and gain opportunity to instruct them in the Christian Faith by reason that the people had been accustomed to meet together on that day Laud Ignatius would have both dayes observed the Sabbath first though not as would the Ebionites in a Jewish sort and after that the Lords Day which he so much magnifieth the better to abate that high esteem which some had cast on the Sabbath Hist. of Sab. Part. 2. p. 41. Pacif. I know the place you intend though you refer us not to any Epistle but you are not ignorant that Ignatius his Epistles are much corrupted and have been so accounted by all great Scholars who have impartially spent their judgement upon them this place particularly which you quote out of this Epistle to the Magnesi is depraved and if you will take the pains to consult either the old Latine Manuscript of Ignatius published by the Right Reverend Archbishop Usher or the Greek Edition published by Isaac Vossius which undoubtedly are the truest that ever were printed you will find no such thing can be drawn out of Ignatius as is by you inferred yea rather it will appear that Ignatius is against the keeping of the Saturday Sabbath at all Laud 'T is true that in some tract of time the Church in honour of Christs Resurrection did set a part that day on which he arose to holy exercises But this upon their own authority and without warrant from above that we can hear of more then the General warrant which God gave his Church that all things in it be done decently and in comely order Hist. Sab. Part. 2. p. 7. Pacif. Our Homily saith it plainly appears that Gods Will and Commandment is to have a solemn time and standing day in the week wherein the people should come together and have in rememberance his wonderful benefits Part. 2. p. 125. And that the Apostolical Church would not change the day from the seventh to the first without authority and Commission from Christ so to do is certain enough 'T is to me sufficient that the Lords Day is of Divine Institution whether immediate by Christ or mediate by his Apostles and that it is of Divine Institution one of these wayes is I take it easily proved by Antiquity and Reason The Homilie entitled De Semente hath these plain words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} This testimony is made use of by Archbishop Usher for the purpose to which I bring it Laud Neither the Author whom he cites nor the authority by him cited will evince the point 1. The Author will not do it the Homily being supposed by the Learned not to have been writ by Athanasius but put into his Works by some that had a mind to entitle him to it 2. The authority or words cited will not do it though at first fight they seem to come home to make proof of it for the words {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} are to be understood not as if the Translation of the day were made by his commandment but on his occasion the Resurrection of our Lord upon that day being the principal motive which did induce his Church to make choice thereof for a day of Worship Res. Pet. Pacif. Do you make this gloss upon the words in jest or earnest Do you really think that the meaning of of {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} is this that the Church did translate the day with relation to Christs Resurrection Laud Yes for otherwise the false Athanasius whosoever he was must cress and contradict the true who having told us that it was commanded at the first that the Sabbath should be observed {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in memory of the accomplishmrnt of the Worlds Creation ascribes the Institution of the Lords Day to the voluntary usage of the Church of God without any Commandment from our Saviour {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} c. We celebrate saith he the Lords Day as a memorial of the beginning of the new Creation which is plain enough Resp. Pet. p. 7. Pacif. The words you refer to I acknowledge to be found in Athanasius de Circum Sabbatho and confess them to be plain enough but neither plain enough nor plain at all for the evincing of that for which you produce them for how doth it follow that if Athanasius say {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that he must mean we celebrate the Lords Day by the voluntary usage of the Church without any Commandment from our Saviour may we not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} though there be a Divine Institution of the day But for satisfaction in these points Irefer any indifferent person to what is said by Mr. P. Caw in Sabbat Rediv. fourth Part. Laud What shall we think of Knox and whittingham and their fellows who in their Letter to Calvin depart from the Constitution Ordinance and Practice of the Apostles and Apostolick men and call not this day the Lords Day or Sunday but with the Piety of Jeroboam make such a day of it as they have devised in own their hearts to serve their own turn and Anabaptizing
opportunity of being baptized where these are not baptism is but the washing away of the filth of the flesh It is not Baptism but Gods Covenant of grace that gives the first right and title to Justification Adoption Salvation and that Covenant gives them on the like terms to all upon our first unfeigned repentance all past sins are pardoned upon the renewal of our repentance after relapses they also are pardoned and the guilt of them presently done away and this pardon God did never recal never will he recal Laud God who knows the weaknesses on our part and yet the strictness and necessity of conferring Baptismal Grace by the Covenant Evangelical hath appointed the auxiliaries of the Holy Spirit to be ministred to all baptized people in the holy rite of confirmation that it might be made possible to be done by Divine aids which is necessary to be done by the Divine Commandments and this might not improperly be said to be the meaning of those words of our Blessed Saviour He that speaks a word against the Son of Man it shall be forgiven him but he that speaks a word against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him i. e. those sins which were committed in infidelity before we become Disciples of the holy Jesus are to be remitted in Baptism and our first profession of the Religion but the sins committed after Baptism and Confirmation in which we receive the Holy Ghost and by which we grieve the Holy Ghost are to be accounted for with more severity Id. part 2. p. 64. Pacif. The holy rite of Confirmation hath been but too much disused by us in England were it but practised in such a way as learned Chemnitius hath described it would undoubtedly much tend to the setling and reforming our Churches but you speak a little too like the adversary when you say that God hath by the Covenant Evangelical appointed auxiliaries of the HolySpirit to be ministred to all baptized people in the holy rite of Confirmation as also when you say that in Confirmation we receive the Holy Ghost for if you speak of adult persons they are at least supposed to have received the Holy Ghost before Baptism or Confirmation yea the very miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost came upon men before Baptism as is plain Acts 10. 44. But as for your Explication of the place of the Evangelist concerning the sin or word against the Holy Ghost that the meaning should be only this that the sins we commit after Baptism and Confirmation must be accounted for with more severity then those committed by us in infidelity it is both singular and hugely uncouth the Articles of the Church as now we have them mention nothing of the sin against the Holy Ghost but in that old Copy I have of them as they were agreed upon in the dayes of King Edward I find that which is now our 16th Article thus worded and entitled Of Sin against the Holy Ghost Every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism is not sin against the Holy Ghost and unpardonable where the place for Penitents is not to be denyed to such as fall into sin after Baptism after we have received the Holy Ghost we may depart from grace given and fall into sin and by the grace of God we may rise again and amend our lives and therefore they are to be condemned who say they can no more sin as long as they live hear or deny the place for penitents to such as truly repent and amend their lives Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is when a man of malice and stubbornness of mind doth rail upon the Truth of Gods Word manifestly perceived and being enemy thereunto persecutoth the same and because such be guilty of Gods curse they entangle themselves with a most grievous and hainous crime whereupon this kind of sin is called and affirmed of the Lord unpardonable Laud That the duty of Repentance if of such extent and burden that it cannot be finished and performed by dying persons after a vicious life is evident and therefore if we make dying mens accounts upon the stock of Gods usual dealing and open revelation their case is desperate Unum Neces p. 332. Pacif. If Repentance be such a work as cannot possibly be done on a death bed how then can dying persons be called upon to repent It is in vain to repent if it be impossible to hope but if it be possible to do the work of repentance on our death bed but only that it is very difficult there is in this affirmative no great matter Every one confesseth that and all evil men will put it to the venture Laud Whatsoever is known or revealed is against these persons and doth certainly condemn them Why then are they bidden to hope and repent I answer once for all it is upon something that we know not and if they be saved we know not how they cannot expect to be saved by any thing that is revealed in their particular When St. Peter had declared to Simon Magus that he was in the gall of bitterness and yet made him pray if peradventure the thought of his heart may be forgiven him he did not by any thing that was revealed know that he should be pardoned but by something that he did not know there might be hope It is at no hand to be dissembledout of tenderness and pity to such persons but to be affirmed openly there is not revealed any thing to them that may bid them be in any measure confident Unnum Neces p. 333. 4. Pacif. This is in my opinion not only uncomfortable doctrine but also very unsound Is it not plainly revealed that nothing is required to pardon and salvation but only repentance true and unfeigned and is not faith and repentance such though wrought but at the last Our Martyr of blessed memory Mr. Bilney Acts Mon. Vol. 2. p. 271. thus expresseth himself I dare be bold to say that as many as I have heard of late to preach have preached such repentance that if I had heard such repentance in times past I should utterly have been in despair and to speak of one of those famous men after he had sharply inveighed against vice he concluded Behold thou has lien rotten in thy own lusts by the space of 60 years and wilt thou presume in one year to go forward towards heaven and that in thine age as much as thou wentest backward from heaven toward hell in 60 years Is not this think you a goodly argument Is this the preaching of Repentance in the Name of Jesus or rather to tread down Christ with Antichrists Doctrine for what other thing did he speak in effect than that Christ dyed in vain for thee he will not be thy Jesus or Saviour thou must make satisfaction for thy self or perish eternally As for our Homilies they plainly declare that there is a revealed Word for the pardon of late Penitents