that the Church founded the Rite of baptizing Infants upon the Tradition of the Apostles or what wise men that ever sided with the Reformation ever observed that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating Infants upon us as we do of baptizing Infants upon them Cardinal Perron indeed being about to prove the insufficiency of the written Word and to establish the necessity of unwritten Traditions brings among other things Infant Baptism as an instance of a point that may be proved by Tradition and not by Scripture Adv. Reg. Mag. Brit. p. 571. but Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacram. Bapt. cap. 9. disputes for Paedobaptism and that by such arguments as are taken out of Scripture which he saith Nullâ ratione solvi nullâ arte eludi possunt Laud To the Baptism of children I add the Communion of women Id. ibid. Pacif. Do you then think that the Communion of women cannot be proved out of Scripture as well as out of Tradition I believe there is no express instance of a woman receiving the Sacrament but we have reasons grounded on Scripture that make it the duty of women as well as men and it would be perversness seeing {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifieth a woman as well as a man to affirm that both sexes are not included But let us to the Controversie of Episcopacy Are all Ordinations invalid which are done by meer Presbyters without a Bishop what think you of the Reformed Churches Laud For my part I know not what to think the question hath been so often asked with so much violence and prejudice and we are so bound by publick interest to approve all they do that we have disabled our selves to justifie our own Episcop asser p. 190. Supposing that Ordination by a Bishop is necessary for the Vocation of Priests and Deacons and therefore for the founding and perpetuating of a Church either God hath given to all Churches opportunity and possibility of such Ordinations and then necessity of the contrary is but mockery or if he hath not given such possibility then there is no Church there to be either built or continued but the Candlestick is presently removed Id. p. 193. Pacif. Our Church did alway retain Episcopacy and so she might have done still had not Bishops been more faulty then ever Episcopacy was But that Ordinations by meer Presbyters were not valid was never affirmed by our Church or any of her eminent members but rather the contrary which will appear if we consider that the transmarine Churches have alway been acknowledged as true Chnrches and their Ordinations justified and maintained to be valid against the oppugners of them by our English Controversie Writers and Professors Dr. Holland Dr. Willet Dr. Field Dr. Downham Mr. Mason If at any time any ordained by meer Presbyters were made Bishops in our Church their Ordination by Presbyters was supposed to be valid and was not renewed at least not till of late years but what think you of Bishops being made Lords and taking secular employment Laud It was not in naturâ rei unlawful for Bishops to receive an Office of secular employment St. Pauls tent making was as much against the calling of an Apostle as sitting in a secular Tribunal is against the Office of a Bishop Episc. Asserted p. 352. The same Author in sundry following pages much endeavoureth to prove that Bishops may take upon them the affairs of Secular Interest Pacif. Bishops taking upon them secular affairs hath been alway exclaimed against by our Divines as well Prelates as others that have been sensible of the charge of souls committed to them this it will not be amiss to exemplifie in several ages John Wickliffe in the raign of Edw. 3. taught That Popes Cardinals Bishops might not Civiliter Dominari absque mortali peceato and that no Prelate ought to have any Prison to punish offenders and that no King should impose upon any Bishop or Curate any secular matter for then both the King and Clerk should be Proditor Jesu Christi Wals. in R. 2. p. 205. William Swinderby also a Professor in Rich. 2. time held That the more Lordship a Priest hath the neerer he is to Antichrist and that the Priests of the old Law were forbidden Lordship and that Christ himself refused and forbad his Priests Lordship saying Reges Gentium c. the Kings of the Heathen bear rule c. but you shall not so do Acts and Mon. p. 451 453. Tindall in his works p. 124. writes That it was a shame of all shames and a monstrous thing that Bishops should deal in civil causes and p. 140. What names have they My Lord Bb. my Lord Archbishop if it please your Lordship if it please your Grace Bishop Hooper in his Comment on the Commandments hath these words p. 184 185. Edit. 1548. look upon the Apostles chiefly and upon all their Successors for the space of 400. years and then thou shalt see good Bishops and such as diligently applyed that painful office ofa Bishop to the glory of God and honour of the Realms they dwelt in though they had not so much upon their heads as our Bishops have yet had they more within their heads as the Scriptures Histories testifie for they applyed all the wit they had unto the Vocation Ministry of the Church whereunto they were called our Bishops have so much wit they can rule and serve as they say in both States of the Church and also in the civil Policy when one of them is more then any man is able to satisfie let him do always his best diligence If he be so necessary for the Court that in Civil Causes and giving of good counsel he cannot be spared let him use that Vocation and leave the other for it is not possible he should do both well And a great oversight it is of the Princes and higher Powers of the earth thus to charge them with two burdens when none of them is able to bear the least of them both they be the Kings Subjects and meet for his Majesty to choose the best for his Court that be of the Realm but then they must be kept in their Vocation to preach only the Word of God and not to put themselves or be appointed by others to do things that belong not to a Bishops Vocation I will not now relate the speeches of old holy Father Latimer to the same purpose though far exceeding any that have been yet mentioned because they are many and may be easily seen in his Sermon of the Plough But now that we are on the business of Church-government What think you of the persons commonly called Lay-Elders Laud Lay Judges of Causes Ecclesiastical as they are unheard of in Antiquity so they are neither named in Scripture nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came
such is his graciousness that he will accept of what we can do and what we cannot do that he will set on the score of Christ But let me hear you speak plainly Whether a man can keep the Law and be without sin Land There are who I hope out of ignorance teach the people such doctrine as not accidentally and occasionally but directly and per se causeth them to sin such is that Catechetical doctrine that no man is able either by himself or by any grace received in this life perfectly to keep the Commandments of God but doth daily break them in thought word and deed Dr. Gell. p. 247. Pacif. What then do you think a man may be without sin Laud They are justly to be reproved who plead for their spots and stains and alledge for themselves that they must be defiled with them while they live here but when shall they be cleansed from them cleansed they must be they say they shall be purified at the end of this life yea when they can sin no more then they shall be cleansed from their spots what Scripture can they alleadge for this Sure I am there 's none in the whole Word of God besides they attribute more to their own natural death then they do the death of Christ and our conformity thereunto If therefore the spots cannot be washed out in this life nor at the end of this life it must then follow that there must be a time after this life and before we enter into the holy City when these spots be washed out and when and where must that be but in Purgatory Mark now Beloved whither this unclean doctrine of necessity leads the Authors of it they who are great enemies to Popery are by this their Tenent the greatest Patrons of Purgatory Id. p. 750. Pacif. What then think you of those places Eccles. 7. 20. There is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not and 1 Joh. 1. 8. If we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us Laud Solomon speaks of such a just man as is under the first dispensation that of the Father which is the fear of God p. 768. But those children of the Father who have their sins forgiven them through his Name and are now brought unto the Son and grown so strong in him that they overcome the Evil one these at length attain to the old age in the Spirit and experimentally know him who is from the beginning This is that state {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} that is without sin such an estate is possible and attainable through the grace of God and his Holy Spirit that men may be without sin p. 790. Pacif. I shall hereafter know whence some of our Quakers and Antinominans get their canting language But doth not this discourse of yours quite pull down what was laid by our first Reformers Artic. 15. Sin was not in him i. e. Christ but all we the rest although baptized and born again in Christ yet offend in many things and if we say we have no sin we deceive our selves and the truth is not in us If you think this Doctrine be false no better way for confuting it then by bringing out some of your Saints that have attained the full age of the Spirit and so live without sin such a one could I never meet with never hear of yea I have observed that those who have made the greatest pretensions to perfection have been so far from perfection of grace that they have discovered themselves to have no Religion at all But I have heard of certain new Precepts by which Christ did perfect the Moral Law concerning the perfection of which I have alway had high thoughts Laud Christ hath perfected the Law and set it higher then any the most studyed Doctor did think himself obliged by it formerly Prac Catec 2. Ed. p. 93. God is light and in him is no darkness at all 1 Joh. 1. 5. This is to be understood of Gods Law and Commandment that they had before some mixture of imperfection but now have none had before some vacuities in them which are now filled up by Christ p. 94. Of this the same Author may be seen in his Letters to Dr. Cheynell Pacif. That our Saviour in the 5 of Matthew doth but expound the Law and clear it from the absurd glosses and interpretations of the Scribes and Pharisees seems to be plainly resolved by our Church in the Homilies p. 41. p. 79. Part. 1. Edit. Lond. 1623. which Edition I all along follow and had Christ acted the part of a new Law-giver and not of an Interpreter only it is not like he would have said Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees but except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of Moses and the Prophets you cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven Maldonate indeed tells us that Christ doth all along tacitely oppose himself to Moses by that form of speech but I say unto you only ad declinandam invidiam he names him not but who can think our Lord opposeth himself to a servant that was faithful in all his house but whether Christ did intend to fill up the vacuities of the Moral Law by adding new Precepts will best appear by examination of particulars and shewing that the Moral duties which are supposed to be de novo enjoyned in that chapter were duties enjoyned to Israelites as well as us to some Precepts no addition is pretended to be made but yet because there is Controversie made and raised about them all it may not be amiss to take all into consideration you know the Church of Rome is commonly charged with Idolatry and made to transgress both first and second Commandment the first by worshipping the Bread in the Eucharist the second by making Images of the the true God c. what think you of these matters Laud Idolatry is a forsaking the true God and giving divine worship to a creature or Idol that is to an imaginary god who hath no foundation in essence or existence Libert. Prop. p. 258. Pacif. You seem already to forsake the Doctrine of our Church as also doth Mr. Mountague who saith in his Gagge that Ido's and Images may be two things whereas the Homily saith expresly Part. 2. p. 12. That the Scriptures use the words Images and Idols indifferently for one thng alway and in the said Homily it is further asserted that there may be Idolatry in worshipping the true God in an undue manner Laud It is evident that the object of the Papists Adoration in the blessed Sacrament is the only the Eternal God hypostatically joyned with his holy humanity which humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the Sacramental signs and if they thought him not present they are so far from worshipping the Bread in this case that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to do so which
Narrative which we may find exemplyfied in Mr. Rush. Collections from p 438. to 462. assirmeth that he thrice complained of Mr. Mountagues Arminian Book but he was held up against him by the prevalence of the Duke of Buckingham who magnified him as a well-deserving man that the whole Narrative if he that will read shall have a key put into his hand to unlock several misteries of our Church declining and a character of the men who were most busie to advance the Remonstrant opinions Laud The Doctrine of Praedestination is the root of Puritanism and Puritanism the root of all rebellious and disobedient untractableness in Parliaments and of all schism and sauciness in the Countrey nay in the Church it self this hath made many thousands of our people and too great a part of our Gentry Laytons in their hearts Last Parliament they left their Word Religion and the Cause of Religion and begun to use the name of Church and our Articles of the Church of England and wounded our Church at the very heart with her own name Dr. Brooks his Letter to the Archbishop extant in Can. Doome p. 167. there were then some who were tantum non in Episcopatu Puritani they saw their holy cause would not succeed by opposition therefore they came up and seemed to close with the Church of England in her Discipline to use the Cross and wear the Clothes but for her Doctrine they wave it preach against it teach contrary to what they had subscribed that so through foraign Doctrine being infused secretly and instilled cunningly and pretended craftily to be the Churches at length they might wind in with foraign Discipline also and so fill'd Christendem with Popes in every Parish for the Church and with Popular Democracies and Democratical Anarchies in State App. p. 111. el 43 44. Pacif. The wrathful expressions you are continually using against the Puritans do not work the righteousness of God and they are the more to be disliked because it is sufficiently known that Puritans have been as conscientious as any that ever lived in our Church Laud Puritanism had indeed a form of godliness but denyed the power and for any thing I can discern is as dangerous as Popery the only difference being Popery is for Tyrannie Puritanism for Anarchy Popery is original of Superstition Puritanism the high way to profaneness both alike enemies unto piety Ap. p. 320 321. Pacif. Puritanism the way to profaness How came it then to pass that there was so little of profaneness in Puritans so much of it in those who gloried in their Anti-Puritanism but I leave this to be decided by the Judge of quick and dead who shall render to all according to what they have done in the flesh How is it that of late years you have learned to call all Puritans who will not say a confederacy with you in your Popish and Arminian Errors which have been so generally reputed contrary to the Doctrine of our Church Laud What you call Error that seems to me to be Truth and because the doubts hung in the Church of England unto the Publick Doctrine of the Church of England do I appeal contained in those two authorized and by all subscribed Books of the Articles and Divine Services of the Church let that which is against them on Gods Name be branded with Error and as Error be ignominiously spunged out App. p. 9. Pacif. What ever is against the Word of God or contrary to any opinion which hath been maintained in the Catholick Church by all in all places at all times I am content should be called an error but you know I hope that no Church of Particular Denomination is Infallible and therefore I shall not grant that whatever is against the Tendries of the Church of England is erroneous for I know that our first Reformers and the Composers of our publick Records of Doctrine did place the Nature of Faith in Assurance or a perswasion that our sins are actually pardoned which you will grant to be a mistake but a mistake that was scarce seen by any till of late except Mr. John Fox who indeed placed the Nature of Faith in Recumbence nevertheless in those matters wherein you and I differ I am very willing to be tryed by the Articles and Lyturgy but then I premise this that I take the Homilies to be part of our Churches Lyturgy for the Rubrique in the Communion Office speaks affirmative enough After the Creed shall follow one of the Homilies and the Preface to the first Book of Homilies commandeth all Parsons Vicars Curates c. every Sunday and Holy-day in the year c. after the Gospel and Creed in such order and place as is appointed in the Book of Common-Prayer to read one of the said Homilies Evidently implying as Mr. Lestrange notes they were no more to be omitted then any other part of the Service but where the Rubrique gives a toleration Laud I willingly admit the Homilies as containing certain godly and wholesome exhortations to move the people to honor and worship Almighty God but not as the publick Dogmatical resolutions confirmed by the Church of England the 33. Article giveth them to contain godly and wholesom Doctrine and necessary for these times which they may do though they have not Dogmatical Positions or Doctrine to be propagated and subscribed in all and every point as the Books of Articles and of Common-Prayer have They may seem to speak somewhat too hardly and stretch some sayings beyond the use and practice of the Church of England both then and now and yet what they speak may receive a fair or at least a tolerable construction and mitigation well enough App. 260. Paeif I am glad to hear you acknowledge that the Homilies do contein certain godly and wholesom exhortations which if all had thought we had not been pestered with a vain discourse pretended to be made by a Lady in defence of Auxiliary Beauty or Artificial handsomeness the which are so expresly condemned by the Homily against excess in Apparel But I am sorry to find you saying that the Homilies are not the avowed Doctrine of the Church for the Preface tells us they were set forth for the expelling of erroneous and poisonous Doctrines and more fully the Orders of K. James The Homiles are set forth by authority in the Church of England not only for a help of non-preaching but withall as it were a pattern for preaching-ministers I have read among the Romanists that there is fides temporum a Faith that followeth the Times It is no marvel saith Cusanus though the practise of the Church expound the Scripture at one time one way and at another time another way for the understanding or sence of the Scripture runneth with the practise and that sense so agreeing with the practise is the quickning Spirit and therefore the Scriptures follow the Church but contrariwise the Church followeth not the Scriptures ad Bohem. Epist. 7.
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
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
saying St. Laurence pray for me Gagg p. 200. 'T is most probable there are Angel keepers if thus my self resolved do infer Holy Angel-keeper pray for me I see no reason to be taxed with point of Popery or Superstition much less of absurdity or impiety Invocation of Saints p. 99. in principio Save all other labour in this point prove but only this their knowledge of any thing ordinarily I promise you straight I will say Holy St. Mary pray for me Answ. to Gagg p. 229. Pacif. Here are sundry things wherein you seem to me to depart from our Church and from Scripture which is worse for to pray St. Laurence pray for me in such a sense as the Papists do must needs be great impiety no less than Idolatry because they do ascribe that unto the creature which is only proper unto the Creator I judge it also absurd and impious to pray to the Angel Gardian to pray for us for 't is not possible that any one without a Revelation from Heaven should attain to any certainty that there are any Angel Gardians and to go upon opinion and probability in my prayers is impiety but I do not in the least think that if it were proved that the Saints departed had knowledge ordinarily of what we do and are that therefore we might presently pray to them to pray for us If you ask me why not as well as to the Saints on the earth the Homily will answer for me Part. 2. p. 116. Christ our only Mediator is sufficient in Heaven and needeth no others to help him Why then do we pray one for another in this life some men may perhaps here demand Forsooth we are willed so to do by the express Commandment both of Christ and his Disciples to declare as well the Faith that we have in Christ towards God as also the mutual charity that we bear one towards another in that we pity our brothers case and make our Petition to God for him But that we should pray unto Saints neither have we any Commandment in Scipture nor yet example which we may safely follow so that being done without authority of Gods Word it lacketh the ground of Faith and therefore cannot be acceptable to God For what soever is not of faith is sin And the Apostle saith That faith cometh by hearing and hearing by the Word of God Yet thou wilt object further That the Saints in Heaven pray for us and that their prayer proceedeth of an earnest charity that they have toward their Brethren on earth Whereto it may well be answered First that no man knoweth whether they do pray for us or no And if any man will go about to prove it by the nature of charity concluding that because they did pray for men on earth therefore they do much more now in heaven then may it be said by the same reason that as oft as we do weep on earth they do also weep in Heaven because while they lived in this world it is most certain and sure they did so And whereas some of late have much endeavoured to re-introduce into our Church the antiquated custom of praying for the dead I shall only say at present there is nothing in any of our Articles Homilies Lyturgies enjoyning or so much as approving or commending Prayer for the dead there is rather something that makes against any such kind of prayer Part. 2. of Homil. p. 116. The like I say about Canonical hours of Prayer no mention made of them by our Church therefore no obligation upon us to observe and yet 1637. there was a Sermon printed with Licence by one Mr Wats who would needs perswade us That King David observed all Canonical hours for these are his words upon that speech of the Royal Psalmist Psal. 119. 62. At midnight will I arise to give thanks unto thee Mark here that he praised not God lying but used to rise to do it at other hours the Saints may sing aloud on their beds but when a Canonical hours comes of which mid-night was one David will rise to his Devotion the morning watch was another Canonical hour And this David was so careful to observe that he oft-times waked before it Psal. 149. 5. Were this true I should think it were a fault not to appoint some one to awake me at midnight that I might rise up out of my bed to put up some prayers unto my Creator but till there be some proofs of such Canonical hours I shall bless God for undisturbed rest and sleep Laud It seems by Clement Epis. ad Corin. p. 52 53. edit. Junia that no small part of that {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} or good order required by St. Paul whose mind he might best know as one of his Disciples 1 Cor. 14. 40. doth consist in the due observing of those times and hours limited and prescribed by authority for our prayers and devotions The use of Dayly Publick Prayers printed 1641. p. 5. Pacif. How much the scope of this place is mistaken might easily be shewn but I refer any learned man to the Observations of Mr. William Burton upon that Epistle p 77 78. I think the main that Christians are now to look after is that when they pray they pray for things agreeable to Gods Word and with fervency Laud There is but one thing in the world that God hates besides sin that is indifferency and lukewarmness which although it hath not in it the direct nature of sin yet it hath this testimony from God that it is loathsom and abominable and excepting this thing alone God never said so of any thing in the New Testament but what was a direct breach of a Commandment Dr. Tayl. Ret. of Prayer p 61. Pacif. I am glad to hear you say that luke-warmness and indifferency in Religion are loathsom to God but wonder to find you averring that these have not in them the direct nature of sin or that they are not a direct breach of a Commandment for doth not the Commandment require that we serve God with all our might strength and power Are we not commanded to be fervent in spirit serving the Lord nor do I think that God would hate these tempers if they were not directly sinful and direct breaches of his Law Laud Christians consider that God forbad to the Jews the very having and making images and representments not only of the true God or of the false and imaginary Deities but of visible Creatures which because it was but of temporary reason and relative consideration of their aptness to superstition and their conversing with Idolatrous Nations was a command proper to that Nation part of their Covenant not of eternal indispensable reason not of that which we usually call the Law of Nature Grand exem part 2. p. 111. Pacif. I do not think that God ever forbad to the Jews all images or representments of Creatures but as Vasquez saith Omnem imaginem seu effigiem modo
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
Saviour I deny it necessary that they were therefore in Hell that Region I call Abrahams Bosome which though it be not Heaven yet is it higher then Hell Gagg 281. Pacif. The souls of the godly separated from the body do and alwayes did go immediately into Heaven Our Homilies as you cannot but know make but two places after this life Homily of Prayer p. 122. Laud It appears from S. August de civ. Dei lib. 20. cap. 15. that it was then an opinion generally received in the Christian Church and such as might well be believed as himself acknowledgeth without any absurdity that the Patriarchs and others of the Saints of the Old Testament were detained in some lower places amongst the inferi but without any sense of those infinite torments which were endured by the wicked and that they were detained there till the coming of Christ till he by his descent thither did release them thence This makes me to consider it as a matter questionable only I shall not dare to say it is false or impious Dr. Heyl. Fid. vet. p. 221. Pacif. You may if you will choose whether you 'l say that opinion is false but the Church of England hath plainly expressed her self in the third part of the Sermon of the fear of death The holy Fathers of the Old Law and all faithful and righteous men which departed before our Saviour Christs ascension into heaven did by death depart from troubles unto rest from the hands of their enemies into the hands of God from sorrows and sicknesses unto joyful refreshingin Abrahams bosome a place of all comfort and consolation as the Scriptures do plainly by manifold words testifie Laud The opinion carryeth no impiety with it nothing derogatory to the Gospel or Kingdom of Christ but rather seems to add much lustre to our Saviours person and much conduceth to the honour of the Faith and Gospel For what can be more honourable to the person of Christ then that the Patriarchs and other holy men of God who dyed under the Law were kept from being admitted into a participation of the joyes of heaven till he by his divine power took them by the hand conducted them into the blessed gates of Paradise What could add more to the dignity and reputation of the Gospel of Christ then that all such as faithfully believe the same and frame themselves to live thereafter should have a greater priviledge then their Father Abraham and all the rest who dyed before in the fear of God before the coming of our Saviour and be admitted presently into the joyes of Paradise Id. ibid. Pacif. It is strange if the opinion tend so much to the honor of Christ and the glory of the Gospel that the Church of England should give her children no notice of it but rather express her self against it And seeing you have laboured to make it appear that both the Greek Hades and the Latin Inferi signifie Hell and the place of Torments how can the Patriarchs and other holy men of God be said to be in or amongst the inferi and not participate of the Torments of that wretched place Laud In answer to this it may be replyed That there might be some part or region of the inferi wherein the greatest or rather the only punishment was poena damni a want of those Celeftian comforts which were reserved for them in the land of Paradise which to a soul that longed for the sight of God could be no small infelicity 2. It may be said That though the inferi in it self were a place of punishment yet God was able to command the fire that it should not burn them and the torments of the pit that they should not touch them Nor is this all that may be said in justification and defence of those ancient writers c. Id. ibid. p. 222. Pacif. It is well this is not all that may be brought in defence of them if it were I should venture to say That just nothing could be alledged in their justification But what can be said else Laud Possibly they might mean no more by those expressions of bringing back the souls of the just from Hades then that by the descent of Christ into Hell all the claim and challenge which the devil could pretend unto them were made void and of none effect Id. ibid. Pacif. Very good Then it seems till Christ descended into Hell the claime of the Divel to the souls of the just was not made void and of none effect but I had thought that the death of Christ though he had never descended into Hell had been sufficient to have vacated all the claim that the Devil could make to the souls of those who dyed in the fear of God And this death of Christ had its effects and operations upon those who dyed before Christ as well as upon those who dyed since he actually offered himself upon the Cross But the truth is all this discourse of Christs bringing of the souls of the Fathers out of Hades doth depend upon that which is hugely uncertain and inevident viz that Christ did descend into Hell Now this I humbly conceive can neither be proved from Scripture nor yet from the Apostles Creed nor yet from any Article of our Church Laud If we search into the publick Monuments and Records of the Church we shall find thisDoctine of Christs local descent into Hell to have been retained and established amongst many other Catholick verities ever since the first beginning of her Reformation Fid. vet. p. 223. Pacif. That this was the mind of the major part of those who met together for the composing of the Articles in 1552. is certain but it is as certain that there were then men of eminent parts and in all probability men imployed in that Synod of a contrary mind I instance only in Bishop Hooper who in his Exposition on the Creed doth most expresly and in terminis write against the Local descent of Christ into Hell As for the Articles of 1562. they are so worded as to leave to all their liberty to opine in this matter as in their own minds they shall be perswaded and so much is asserted by Mr. Rogers in his Exposition of the Articles As for the Apostles Creed it is and that most deservedly of great credit and esteem in all the Churches of Christ throught the whole world but then it must be considered that the Symbol of the Apostles hath not been alwayes the same particularly Ruffinus assures us that this additament descendit ad inferos is neither found in the Creed used by the Roman Church nor yet in the Creeds of the Eastern Church Vid. Mr. Peirs on the Creed p. 456. Amyraldus also hath observed that in some Creeds where these words He descended into Hell are found there is no mention of Christs Burial nay the Learned observe That in the very Aquileian Creed where this Article was first expressed there was no mention of