Laudensium Apostasia: OR A DIALOGUE In which is shown, That some Divines risen up in our Church since the greatness of the late Archbishop, are in sundry Points of great Moment, quite fallen off from the DOCTRINE Received in the CHURCH of ENGLAND.  
By HENRY HICKMAN Fellow of Magd. college Oxon.  Stand ye in the ways and see, and ask for the old paths, Where is the good way? and walk therein, Jer. 6. 16. My Son, fear thou the Lord and the King, and meddle not with them who are given to change, Prov. 24. 21. 
LONDON, Printed by D. Maxwell, for SA. GELLIBRAND, at the Sign of the Ball in St. Paul's Churchyard. 1660.   

A PREFACE To the READER.  
Christian Reader,  
PErhaps thou art not ignorant that I set forth a little Pamphlet entitled, A Justification of the Fathers and Schoolmen; the drift whereof was to show That the generally received opinion of the Privative Nature of sin, was neither so absurd nor so impious as it had been represented by a Luxuriant pen. After about a twelve months' labour and travail Mr. T. P. conceived and brought forth something which he called the Discoverer Discovered, elemented of such palpable untruths, as did scarce ever drop from the pen of any person pretending to learning or ingenuity. In way of Appendix to that monstrous piece, something was added relating to me, but so worded and managed, as if the author's design had been only to make an essay, whether it were not possible when he despaired to subdue my judgement by reason, at least to conquer my patience by clamour. I had hoped, that after he had shot so many bitter words against my credit and reputation, we should at last have received something from him savouring if not of the meekness of a Christian, yet of the candour of a Scholar. But contrary to my desire I still find him foaming out his own shame; and as is the nature of seducers, waxing worse and worse, deceiving, and being deceived. In such a case what is most adviseable? Should I pay him with words as bad as he brings? that were impossible; unless I would have been at the charges to keep and maintain for some time a factor at Billingsgate. 2. If such a course had pleased some wanton wits, yet it must needs have much displeased the more sober and judicious, to whom I must strive to approve myself and my writings. Should I chastise the folly of the man with a more innocent satire? Mr. Bagshaw hath so done, and what is the effect of it? why, (after an Apologetical Parenthesis for bringing so unclean a thing into a gentlewoman's presence) he is arraigned before the Tribunal of Mris. Peito, and is told, that it is the honour of her Sex that they read Mr. P's writings, and the shame of ours that we so much slight them: in which way, if Mr. Bagshaw should follow him, it would be such a piece of— as scarce hath had its parallel since the time that the two Kings after some years fighting about Religion, left the controversy at last to be decided by the fisti-cuffs of their two— For what though Mris. Peito be a gentlewoman made up of grace, and every thing that may render her amiable (as I believe she is) yet being but a Gentlewoman, she cannot well be presumed to be a meet Umpire in so great a controversy as that of God's Decrees. Shall I therefore take notice of the Argumentative part of his book? then there's nothing for me to do, he having never ventured to make the least assault on the rational part of my book; save that he once saith, That I make no difference betwixt an action and a quality: and why so? because, forsooth, I say, the Action of hatred; as if they who say, the act of Adultery, or actus adulterii in Latin, do presently make adultery not a quality but an action. The folly of such reasonings are already made manifest; but the huge plot is to make the world believe I am a Compilator, a Plagiary. Is this worth writing a book about? then sure we are prodigi temporis, cujus solius honesta est avaritia. If Mr. P. be of the temper of the Cardinal in the Council of Trent, who said, That he could willingly consent to a Reformation, but only he liked not that it should be brought about by means of such a poor Monk as Luther: or if he have any thing of the humour of Bucephalus in him, who would be mounted by none but Alexander. If he can be content to acknowledge that his cause is fallen to the ground, I can easily so far gratify his ambition, as to let it be thought that the blow was given by a learneder hand than my own. Let Mr. P. have as low thoughts of me as he pleaseth; I shall always endeavour to have lower thoughts of myself. I daily more and more see how far I fall short not only of what others have attained unto, but also of what I myself might have attained, had I but spent my time with that diligence and industry which for the future I shall aim at. Yet shall I not altogether leave that blot which Mr. P. and his egregious advocates Dr. H. and M. O. have let fall, to dry on my name. I am charged to have played the Plagiary, and to make good the charge Mr. P. hath employed I know not how many hands to pick up any words or phrases that they could meet with in any author that had affinity with my words and phrases; and when they were so picked, to faggot them up together, with an intent that they may by him be made public for my disgrace. Had he made it appear that I had borrowed any set continued discourse from any Author, he had then, though not helped his own cause, yet sufficiently disgraced me. But seeing he only chargeth me with taking here and there a quotation and applying it to my purpose, naming the first author though not the second: the matter is not much if the charge were true. Whether it be so or no will shortly be tried. But,  
1. Were I a Plagiary, I should not be alone; others and those none of the meanest, are impeached of the like crime, by Authors who are at least as much to be regarded as Mr. P. Concerning some of the Ancients, let Dr. Brown be heard, inquiries into vulgar and common errors. Lib. 1. ch. 6. Not a few of the Ancients have written transcriptively, subscribing their names unto other men's endeavours, and merely transcribing almost all they have written; the Latins transcribing the Greeks, the Greeks and Latins each other: Thus hath Justine borrowed all from Trogus Pompeius, and Julius Solinus, in a manner transcribed Pliny. Thus have Lucian and Apuleius served Lucius Pratensis, men both living in the same time, and both transcribing the same Author in those famous Books, entitled Lucius by the one, and Aureus Asinus by the other; in the same measure hath Simocrates in his Tract de Nilo dealt with Diodorus Siculus, as may be observed in that work annexed unto Herodotus, and translated by Jungermanuus. Thus Eratosthenes wholly translated Timotheus de infulis, not reserving the very Preface: The same doth Strabo report of Eudorus, and Ariston in a Treatise, Eutituled de Nilo. Clemens Alexandrinus hath observed many examples hereof among the Greeks, and Pliny in his Preface spcaketh very plainly, that conferring his Authors, and comparing their works together; he generally found those that went before verbatim transcribed by those that followed after and their original never so much as mentioned. To omit how much the wittiest piece of Ovid is beholding unto Parthenius Chius; even the magnified Virgil hath borrowed almost in all his works: in his Eclogues from Theocritus, his georgics from Hesiod and Aratus, his AEneads from Homer, the second Book whereof containing the exploit of Sinon, and the Trojan Horse (as Macrobius observeth) he hath Verbatim, derived from Pisander. Our own procession is not excusable herein. Thus Oribasus, Etius, and AEgineta have in a manner transcribed Galen. But Marcellus Empiricus, who hath left a famous work, de medicamentis hath word for word, transcribed all Scribonius Largus de compositione Medicamentorum, and not left out his very Peroration. Thus Plagiary had not its Nativity with Printing, but began in times when thefts difficult, and the paucity of Books scarce wanted that invention.  
Rhodiginus a famous writer, is chastised by the Varro of our age Gerh. Vossius de Orig. Idol. lib. 3. c. 84. for not relating the names of those, to whose labours he had been beholden. Unde ista hauserit non addit. Quam facile fuerat Athaenei nomen apposuisse. Nempe hoc actum Rhodigino passim, ut dissimulatis scriptoribus, unde sua hausisser, non alias quam ipse, testis laudaretur; & hic nos etiam fontes, unde quidque hauserint, dissimulandi, summis aliquot viris saeculo nostro est perfamiliaris. And the learned and pious Barthol Keckerman telleth us in his praecognita Logica, that the admired piece of Peter Hispan, is not Hispan's own, but taken out of Psellus, an Author ancienter than himself; yea, and that the very doctrine of Supposition which we look upon as a School invention, is by him handled in a whole Chapter. The same Keckerman also somewhere tells us, the censures passed upon Aristodes logic by Ramus are most of them taken out of Ludovicus Vives; and that the Methodus Theologiae made by Hyperius, was reprinted under the name of Laurentius Villavincentius an Augustinian Monk. It is a most undoubted truth, that the commentaries of the Papists, especially of the Jesuits, do owe very much to Bucer, Mercer, Bullinger, Lavater, Beza, Calvin. Martyr; yet these men are never mentioned, except with censure and blame. Bishop Laud stands charged by Mr. Prynne, for having stolen all his supposition out of Bellarmine, and that with so little Art, that the whole school could not but take notice of it. The learned Dr. Downham, is said by his answerer to have taken his arguments for Episcopacy out of Bishop Bilson; Mr. Montague indeed hath told us, that the day was yet to come, in the which he ever read word of any of Arminius his works, but his antagonists have showed the same Testimonies and Authorities commended by one and the other: and not to disturb the ashes of men in their graves, Mr. Bagshaw hath vontured to call Dr. Hamond, Grotius his Interpreter, how justly the Dr. best knows; yet thus far I will venture to say, that the learned Annotator hath ploughed more with Grotius his heifer, and made more use of his labours, than I have done of any, or of all the men with stealing from whom Mr. P. hath charged me. Dr. Jer. Taylor is a great master of Language, and one of vast reading, and yet he borroweth sufficiently from Mr. Hales in his Preface to Liber. of Prophe. from Episcopius he borroweth almost every thing in his unhappy Tract of Original sin; but sure, Dr. Heylin who hath cast so many stones at Mr. Hickm. for filching, is frce from that fault; nay, if ever man was guilty of that crime, he is. I will not blot Paper with making parallels in many particulars, take him but in his master piece, his Fides veterum his whole p. 16. and half the 17. is almost Verbatim, transcribed out of Dr. Thom. Jackson, his Original of unbelief; as any one may easily see who will but be at pains to compare them; and how much he hath made use of the same Author, in the Articles of our saviour's Resurrection, Ascension, Session at the right hand, he is not ignorant; so that if he were so willing to show his reader a Plagiary, he needed not to have sent him so far as Mag. Col. he might have found one as near as Seneca was wont to find a fool; the truth 
Meipsum invenio  is, this Dr. is Felo de se, he robbeth his own Preface to adorn his Book. In the Preface to the Reader, he serveth us up these words; My opinions, as they are but opinions, so they are but mine; as opinions, I am not bound to stand to them myself, as mine, I have no reason to obtrude them on another man, &c. and these he brings a second time to the Table in his Book, p. 283. and yet he thrasonically enough tells us in the Preface, That whatsoever other censure might be laid upon his Book, that of nil dictum est, quod non dictum fuit prius, could find no place. But we need not much trouble ourselves, that what he takes out of others, he carrieth, as if it were his own, seeing that he is so unhappy when he doth quote an Author: Quis nescit qualia demens AEgyptus portenta colat, He ascribes to Lucan in his Pharsal. lib. 10. And yet I believe there's many a boy in M. School who knows that it was Juven. and not Lucan who in those words upbraided the Egyptians with their Idolatry.  
I have sufficiently proved that if I am guilty of what Mr. P. and Dr. H. charge me with, yet I am not the first that did offend in this kind. But I farther plead, Not guilty to the accusation; and do here confidently aver, That what he chargeth me to have borrowed from Mr. Prynne, I borrowed not from him, but took from the books that I quote them out of: those questions and answers in the Bible printed 1607. I saw and read before I knew there was such a Tract in the world as Mr. Prynne's Anti-Armin. and all my father's house can bear me witness, that they are in the very Bible that we constantly made use of as oft as we read Chapters in the Family. And I must now inform Dr. Heylin, That he is much mistaken if he think (what he would feign have others think) that those questions and answers are no older than 1607. for I myself can direct him to a Bible printed twenty years before that time, that hath them, and how many Bibles there may be older than that, I know not: as for the Act Quest. Dr. Wallis knows, and so did Mr. Whittingh. when alive, that I took them out of the Congregation books; and that I had the sight of Pounols' Catechism itself long before I printed my book, Mr. Cooper Fellow of N. C. knows, for he lent it me; Mr. Burscough of B. C. will witness that I did read that cheat of putting out Champneys book, and that I showed him the opinion that Crowley had of that patron of freewill, not out of Mr. Prynne, but out of Crowley himself. I also profess that I read Dr. John Bridges, and took not his words upon Mr. Prynne's credit, and so I did the works of T. F. and B. Balaeus also I consulted about our Ancient Protestant Divines, thence I had their Characters, and this as it proves, our Library-keeper can witness, for I came to him to direct me to that book, having searched for it among the Divinity, whereas it is placed among the Humanity books. Now after I had taken all this pains, and trusted nothing but my own eyes, was I bound to tell the world that such quotations might be found in Mr. Prynne? Yet I have made use of his History of the Tr. of the A. and have acknowledged myself so to have done; or if I had made no such acknowledgement, yet all would have thought that I had lighted my candle at his history, no man having written those transactions but himself: As for what he chargeth me to have stolen from Dr. W. or Mr. M. or Mr. Good. I am told that they are but sentences or apothegms; and truly it is hard that a man should be bound if he have read a sentence or apothegm twenty times to quote the last Author. Let any one in the behalf of those Gentlemen implead me, and if it be made appear that I have used any thing that is properly theirs, and not given them the credit, I shall soon acknowledge my fault and cry them pardon. As for a phrase or expression I labour not to acquit myself, knowing that it is not possible to read an Author but that something of his stile will stick upon the memory, and ming'e itself with whatever a man shall write, till those impressions are blotted out. I thank God that whatever I am defective in, yet I did never find myself at any great loss for sit and apt words to express the conceptions of my mind.  
Perhaps the world may expect that I should take notice of a late whiffler who notifieth himself by two letters, M. O. and (because else he would have been taken to be but a mechanic) tells us, That he is a bachelor of Arts: but his lewd Pamphlet I did never read, nor did ever meet with that Scholar who thought it worth my reading. All Brackley knows that I had relinquished the profits of that place long before I came to St. Aldates's in Oxon: and all Oxford knows that St. Aldates's is not worth 150 l. per annum: And there are but few in Magdalen college who know not that Mr. P. his book did never put me into a fit of the toothache; and all my Scholars will say, That I never forewarned any of them from reading of Mr. P. his book: The Printer and Stationer know that the Review was never intended to come forth in my name; yea, that it was almost off the Press before Mr. P. his book came to Oxon. And therefore that poor Creature hath done nothing but only gratified the Devil by raising groundless calumnies; and I heartily wish he may have time and grace to see how much he hath abused not only me, but himself in so unfortunate an attempt.  
As for the following Tract, the Lord knows, and some men do know, that I send it into the world with a very unwilling mind. For I know they are mostly my superiors upon whose writings I have made Animadversions. I know that my undertaking may possibly be interpreted a sounding of an Alarum to War, whereas it becomes us to study all possible ways and means of accord and reconciliation, that so our pens and hearts may be united against the common adversaries of Christianity, Papists and Atheists, &c. But I consider that well-meaning people are drawn into opinions Diametrically opposite to the Doctrine by Law and Authority established among us, and that by those who esteem themselves the only obedient sons of the Church of England; and therefore thought it not amiss to let our countrymen understand, that the plants they so greedily feed upon, are exotic, not planted by our first Reformers; and that it is a sad sign their temper and constitution is altered, if they can digest such Positions as I have manifested old Protestants would have nauseated. All along thou hearest men speaking in their own words, and therefore certainly no wrong is done them; if their meaning be mistaken; I hope it will teach them to express themselves more warily, and to abstain not only from that which is Popery, but also from every thing that hath the appearance of it. If any of them will so far take notice of what I have done, as to give a fair reconciliation of their sayings to our Artic. Homil. &c. I shall therein rejoice, having this testimony within me, That I never desired to make differences where I found none.  
But alas! it is but too evident that some of our Canterburians (I call them so not to disgrace, but to distinguish them) have removed the old landmarks placed by our Protestant Forefathers, and are gone over into the Tents and Camps of our adversaries. It was of old reckoned Popery to hold, That the Virgin Mary was borbn free of Original sin; we have now one risen up among us who holds that, and holds also that every one else is born so too: Who also maintains, That she ever kept a dominion over her Passions, which never had been taught to rebel beyond the mere possibilities of Natural imperfection Gr. Ex. p. 13. cap. 19 He entitleth her, To a Faith that had no scruple: And that, Though she was Espoused to an honest and just person of her kindred and Family, and so might not despair to become a Mother, yet she was a person of so rare sanctity, and so mortified a Spirit, that for all this desponsation of her, according to the desires of her parents, and the custom of the Nation, she had not set one step forward toward the consummation of her Marriage so much as in thought, and possibly had set herself back from it by a Vow of Chastity and holy celibate. p. 14. p. 19 We are further told, Of her being brought up in the Temple eleven years in her childhood, p. 22. Of her body being airy and Vegete, and of the burden which she bare not hindering her. And p. 26. That she had no pain in the production, for to her alone did not the punishment of Eve extend, That in sorrow she should bring forth: and that as He came from the Grave with a stone and signature, and into the college of Apostles, the doors being shut, and into the glories of his Father through the solid orbs of all the Firmament, so he came also into the world without doing violence to the Virginal and pure body of his Mother. He contents not himself to assert the perpetual Virginity of Mary, which is not denied by any Protestant, but will abuse Scripture to prove it; viz. that of Ezek. 44. 2. p. 27. & Ibid. He adopts the uncertain conceit of Christ's being laid in a Manger between Sheep and Oxen: and for this quotes Hab. 3. 4. whence no such thing is deducible. And p. 28. he writes in favour of Vows of Poverty; for he saith, That many wise men make such Vows: whereas no wise man did ever make such a Vow, or if he did, the making of the Vow was no part of his Wisdom. I'll not follow that Author any further, though seeing his books are so greedily bought up by our Gentry, it would be pains well spent if some one who abounds with leisure, would pick up his Popish passages, that the world might see what a kind of man he is whom they so much admire. For my part I think I could produce hundreds of Papists that were less Popish than he; though I do not take him to be a perfect, through-paced Tridentine Papist. Nor would I be thought to impute all his opinions to every one with whom I deal in the ensuing Tract; they are not all of a mind in all things: But they have all (if I mistake not) departed more or less from the Protestant Doctrine, by which means the Papists will be hardened in their errors, and some scandal be cast on our Reformation.  
Reader, I shall finish thy trouble when I have only minded thee of two or three things relating to the temper of those Divines whose Opinions I relate.  
1. I have observed they are hugely nncharitable to those that are of a different mind from them, though in smaller matters. 'Tis notorious that they have unchurched all the Transmarine Churches for want of such an Officer as they are not convinced that Christ did ever Institute: And 'tis also well known that Mr. Montague condemns those Churches of great impiety which do not observe Christmas.  
2. They do pretend great Antiquity for their Opinions; whereas if all things were well observed and examined, no such Antiquity could be pleaded. I had thought to exemplisie this in Mr. Montague's Discourse about the time of Christ's Nativity, but that is already done to my hand by Gisber. Voetius, whom if thou wilt consult, thou wilt be abundantly satisfied. Let me instance in the observation of the Lent Fast, concerning which Dr. Heylin, Fid. Veter. p. 163. thus declares himself, The Lent Fast was not alone of special use to the advancement of true godliness and increase of Piety, but also of such reverend Antiquity, that it hath good right and title to be reckoned among the Apostolical Traditions which have been recommended to the Church of God. To prove this he allegeth the Canons of the Apost. Can. 69. and Ignatius in his Epistle to the Philippians. But he might have done well to consider that of August. Epist. 86. ad Casul. As for the authorities he quoteth, they are both spurious, as is proved by the most learned Usher. Tertullian also is by the doctor produced: But what Tertullian? not Tertullian the Orthodox Father, but Tertullian turned Montanist, and grown to such a degree of pride, that he ventured to call the Orthodox Psychicos: and it may well be questioned whether his magnifying the quadragesimal Fast had not in it a spice of Montanism; for we find in Eusebius, Hist. Eccl. lib. 5. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. in. That Montanus is by Apollonius branded for an heretic, because he was {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Let any one who counts it worth his labour consult Eusebius, lib. 5. cap. 25, 26. Socrates, lib. 5. cap. 21 Sozom. lib. 7. cap. 19 Nic. Calis. lib. 4. cap. 39 he will see that the Primitive Church did not impose the observation of the forty days Fast as a matter of necessity; yea, he will be of the mind of Cassian. Collat. 21. cap. 30. Observantiam quadragesimae quamdiu Ecclesiae illius primitivae perfectio inviolata permansit. penitus non fuisse, &c. If any one think that the example of Christ's fasting doth oblige us to imitation, let him pause upon that of Chris. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} In Mathae. Homil. 47.  
Therefore when ever thou sindest Antiquity pleaded mark well, and by comparing Editions inquire whether that which is brought be as ancient as is pretended, and not something foisted into the writings of the Ancients by men of later times. See also whether the Testimonies do prove that for which they are produced: for it would be great weakness to think that every Father who mentioneth or commendeth Episcopacy, doth presently allow or approve of such an Episcopacy as did here obtain in England, and as some would fain have restored. The question is not whether Antiquity had Bishops, but whether Antiquity did believe a Bishop to be of a superior order to a Presbyter; and if that were proved, it would be a second question whether that superiority of order were founded on human or Divine institution; and if it could be proved that there is a Divine Institution of and for a Bishop, it may still be questioned whether that divine institution do make him so necessary and essential to Ordination, that any Ordination which is made by mere Presbyters is in naturâ rei, null and void. I am fully convinced that Imposition of hands is a Rite no way to be omitted in Ordination; yet if any apprehending that Ceremony to have been proper and peculiar to the Apostolical times, should omit it, I should be loath to say that the person Ordained without it was no true Minister; there are examples for many things in Scripture for which there is no precept; and there may be necessitas praecepti for many things which yet are not necessary necessitate medii: multa fieri non debuerunt quae tamen facta valuerunt. I conclude all with an earnest desire and prayer, That such a spirit of Love may be poured out upon us, as that whereunto we have already attained we may walk by the same rule, and bear with one another in those lesser things in which we differ; fer; and that we may have them in high esteem who first sealed our Reformation with the loss of their lives, and not meddle with those who are given to changes. Unto which ends, if what I have done may contribute any thing, I shall account I have not laboured in vain.  
H. H.   

ERRATA.  
PAge 3. l. 28. read great. p. 5. l. 5. r. scrutemur. l. 16. r. tractatum. p. 10. l. 17. r. that whole narrative he that will read. p. 11. l. 27. r. hang. p. 16. l. 16. r. or. p. 17. l. 20. after controversy add, to. p. 19 l. 4. r. Horn. l. 12. r. Smalcius. l. 14. r. docentur. l. 19 r. etiam. p. 22. l. 10. r. verita. l. 11. r. quotidie. p. 24. l. 22. r. Manducaveritis. p. 40. l. 7. r. I find. p. 41. l. 34. after would, add not. p. 42. l. 37. after such, add thing. p. 67. l. 11. r. their own. l. 30. r. plaited. p. 69. l. 11. dele 245. P. 74. l. 35. r. hath God. p. 77. l. 22. r. wherefore. l. ult. r. is.   

Laudensium Apostasia; OR The Canterburians apostasy from the Doctrine Received in the Church of ENGLAND.  Pacificus. 
HAving found myself inclined to the work of the Ministry, and being by my Parents thereunto designed, and having also put my hand to that Plough, I dare not (notwithstanding the high affronts and base indignities that are daily offered to Preachers) look back, lest I should render myself unworthy of the Kingdom of Heaven: yet as oft as I think upon that pungent Interrogation, Who is sufficient for these things? I cannot choose but tremble in sense of my own weakness, and humbly implore the assistance of Divine Grace, that I may be enabled to stir up the gift that is in me, and so show myself a skilful workman that need not be ashamed, rightly dividing the Word of God; and do therefore most gladly take all opportunities of discoursing with those who may be any way helpful to me in improving my parts; and I account it no small happiness that I have met with you Mr. Laudensis, whom common fame hath voiced to be very able, and whom I must in charity presume to be very willing to further me in my studies.  Laudensis. 
I am glad to find that you are not of the number of those who account themselves sufficiently qualined for the work of the Ministry, as soon as they have got a good measure of impudence, and four or five Sermon Note-books; and shall according to the best of my skill give you some directions; the which if you will use, your five talents may gain five other talents: My first counsel is, That you would not address the course of your studies to modern Epitomizers; balk if you be wise the ordinary and accustomed by-paths of Bastingius his Catechism, &c. and betake yourself to Scripture, the Rule of Faith interpreted by Antiquity, the best Expositor of Faith, and Applyer of that Rule: for I hold it a point of discretion, to draw water as near as a man can to the wellhead, and to spare labour in vain in running further off to Cisterns and Lakes. I always went to inquire, when doubt was, of the days of old as God himself directed me, and hitherto I have not repented me of it. I have not found any Canon, Order, Act, Direction in the Church of England against it; for it I have found many. I never held it wisdom, to tire myself with haling and tugging up against the stream, when with ease enough I might, and with better discretion should secundo flumine navigare: we know, the further the current is, the more muddy, troubled, and at length brackish the water is, App. p. 11. 12.  Pacif. 
I hugely like your advice to study the Fathers, and should have far worse thoughts of the Lutherans, Calvinists, and our English Puritans, than as yet I have, if they did so exceedingly undervalue the authority of the ancient Doctors, as Canus, Lessius, Possevinus, Becanus, Grotius, Montague charge them to do: But the truth is, none have more aviled the Fathers than the Remonstrants, and Papists: that in the account of the former they stand for little more than cyphers; these speeches of theirs, Apol. cap. 2. Vanum est, quia purior & impurior antiquitas non nisi inanes voces sunt. Puritatem & impuritatem quisque pro arbitrio suo, & prout usu venit aestimat. & in Dedic. f. 3. Quare nec pro dignitate, &c. Vt Declarationem Remonstrantium non tam erroris convincerent, quam similitudinis cum iis quos errasse olim antiquitas, & nunc communis credit opinio. Hoc eorum est qui cum causae suae diffidant, adversarios suos speciosis autoritatibus, &c. with many others scattered up and down their Apology and Answer to the Professors of Leyden, do sufficiently evince. How little the same men do reverence Synods and Assemblies, I leave to any to judge, who will but be at pains to read what Vedelius hath collected out of them, Arcan. Remon. l. 2. c 6. As for the Papists, they do mostly speak loud in the mendation of the Fathers; but if one examine their mind to the bottom, he shall find they call none Father but their Pope; for they say his determination is to be followed, though contrary to the judgement of all the Fathers. Suarez. in 3. come. 1. qu. 2. Art. 2. Disp. 42. Sect. 1. Desinitio Pontificis omnino vera est: Etsi dictis omnium sanctorum esset contraria, illis esset praeferenda. It is one thing to interpret the Law as a Doctor, another thing as a Judge: of the one is required learning, of the other authority; the opinion of the Doctors is to be followed according to reason, but the judge's opinion is to be followed of necessity. St. Augustine and the Fathers in their Expositions, supplied the places of Doctors, which we may follow as we see cause; the Pope and Council supply the places of Judges, with a Commission from God, and therefore they must be observed and followed of necessity. To the Pope and his Cardinals, or 
Bell de ver. Dei lib. 3. cap. 10.  others employed by him, they allow a liberty of correcting the Fathers, and expunging out of them such passages as suit not to the mystery of iniquity working in that Romish Synagogue. If a Father in any thing dissent from the Pope, and be forbidden to be read, the reading of a Father is not forbidden; for in that case he is not Pater, but Vitricus. Grot. de jure & more prohib.. libros malos lib. 2. c. 10. Yea we are told, that when the Church reviews the writings of her sons, and where need requires, corrects them, she doth a work of mercy. cap. 2. of the same Book. Voetius tells us out of the Summa Bullarii seu Constitut. Pontif. p. 256. of a Constitution of Sixtus 5. appointing the Fathers (pretending them to be in many places to be corrupted) to be put forth in more correct Editions, but with this condition; S: graviores dubitationes & difficultates in veterum codicum autoritate, librorum correctione & emendatione inciderint, rebus prius in congregatione examinatis ad nos referant ut in lectionuns varietate id quod Orthodoxae veritati maxime consonum erit, ex speciali Dei privilegio huic sanctae sedi concesso, statuamus.  Laud. 
I am a little jealous that some body hath done me no good office; for methinks your former implieth, that you look upon me as Arminian or Popish; but be it known to you, That I disclaim all aspersion of Popery, and am further from it than any Puritan in the Kingdom. I am indeed well acquainted with such imputation as Popish, and I know not what, the ordinary language of our precise Professors against any man that is not as themselves More furioso Calvinista; and having had this measure often meted out to me, from their very great zeal and very no charity, I contemn their malice; (a Scold cannot any better be charmed than by contempt;) As for Arminius, if he in tenants agreeth unto Scripture plain and express: if he hath agreeing unto his Opinions the Practice, Tradition, and Consent of the ancient Church, I embrace his opinions; let his person, or private ends, if he had any, alone: I nor have, nor will have confarreation therewith. If Calvin, so far in account and estimation before Arminius, dissenteth from Antiquity and the Universal ancient Church, I follow him not. No private man, or peculiar spirit ever did, or ever shall tyrannize upon my belief. I yield only to God and the Church. App. p. 4, 5, 12.  Pacif. 
Your flings at Puritans, Precise Professors, Furious Calvinists, might well have been spared; so might your apology for yourself as to Popery and Arminianism, with which my discourse did not in the least charge you: I could easily quote you sentences out of Sacred and profane Writers, concerning such as make defences before they are impleaded; but being resolved not to exasperate, I forbear any thing of that nature, and humbly take leave a little further to explain myself, lest I should be mistaken in what before I said.  
1. I make not consent of Fathers, but Scripture the Rule of my Faith.  
2. Nor do I account the father's fit to be appealed to, in some Controversies now a foot in Christendom. 1. Because there are some Heresies newly sprung up, of which they took no notice in their writings, yea in the favour of which they may seem to speak, being engaged against such as were in the contrary extreme. That none should be pressed with the judgements of Fathers in matters that were not throughly discussed till after they were dead and gone, hear not me, but St. August. de Praed. Sanct. cap. 14. Quid igitur opus est, ut corum secrutemur opuscula, qui priusquam ista haeresis oriretur, non habuerunt necessitatem in hac difficili ad solvendum questione versari, quod procul dubio facerent, si respondere talibus cogerentur, unde factum est, ut de gratiâ Dei quid sentirent, breviter quibus dam Scriptorum suorum locis & transeuntes attingerent; immorarentur vero in iis quae adversus alios inimicos Ecclesiae Disputabant. To the like purpose writeth he in his Euarration on the 54. Psal. Nunquid enim perfecte de Trinitate tractatum est antequ an eblatrarent Arriani? nunquid perfecte de poenitentiâ tractatum est antequam obsisterent Novatiani? sic non perfecte de Baptismate tractatus est, antequam contradicerent foris positi rebaptizatores: nec de ipsâ Christi unitate enucleate dicta sunt quae dicta sunt, nisi posteaquam separatio illa urgene cepit fratres informos, ut jam illi qui noverant haec tractare atque dissolvere, ne perirent infirmi sollicitati quaestionibus impiorum, sermonibus suis & disputationibus obscura legis in publicum deducerent: yea the very Appealer, p. 131. hath these words, That the Fathers (those before Augustine) being to deal against Fatal Necessity, urged by Paynims, Philosophers in those days; as also against the execrable impiety of the Manichees, extended the power of freewill unto the uttermost, and set it upon the tenters; especially having than no cause to fear any enemy at home, unto the contrary, ante mota certamina Pelagiana: there being yet no Pelagians sprung up in the world, enemies to Grace, advancers of Nature and Natural Power, beyond degree of Power and of possibility: Yea p. 129, 130. He professeth plainly, that in, and concerning this point of freewill, those Fathers did so far out-lavish, and speak so inlargedly, that the very Jesuits, post mota certamina Pelagiana, fore fear of seeming to Pelagianize, dare not say so much as they have said. 2. The Fathers of Prime Antiquity did either write nothing at all, or but very little; and what of theirs is come to our hands, is so interpolated, that it is extremely difficult to find out their meaning; yea, the Editions are so various, that I know not which to prefer. e. g. If I follow Vedelius his Edition of Ignatius, I could not but think the Father to be of the opinion, that the making of any one a true Christian is a work not of moral suasion, but of strength and power; for these are his words according to him, {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} yet should I quote this passage in the controversy about freewill, I should be told, that the words do not run so in some other Editions, and so occasion much strife of words.  Laud. 
You must expect nothing from the Geneva Printers, but deceits and impostures; nor hath that importune Vedelius brought any thing to fill his Pages with, but impudence and singular ignorance. Montacutius, Apparat. 1. p. 19  Pacif. 
I'm not ignorant that such a severe censure is passed upon Vedelius and his Edition; but he hath answered for hinself in his Preface to his Tract De Deo Synagogae: And Bishop Usher, who hath taken more pains about Ignatius, than that bilious writer, speaks honourably of the Geneva Edition; yea, Dr. Hammond prefers it to the very edition of Isaac Vossius, judged the most perfect and incorrupt, in one particular; but this is a diversion.  
3. I say thirdly, That I frequently see just occasion to prefer the expositions of Scripture made by our later Writers, before those which are given by the Ancient Doctors; this is acknowledged even by Romanists; Stella in Luc. c. 10. Bishop Fisher in his confutation of the Lutheran Artic. Art. 18. We scarce find any setting themselves to making of Homilies or Commentaries, till about the third Century; and many of those who have commented on Scripture, were so ignorant either of Hebrew, or Greek, or both, that they have fallen into sad mistakes, as no Scholar conversant in their Writings can deny.  
4. I have much wondered, and do still wonder how it comes to pass, that the Systems and Models of Divinity, or Catechisms composed some by our own, some by Transmarine Divines, are so exceedingly decried; for I am sure heretofore they were recommended to Tutors to read to their Pupils, as good means to keep them Orthodox, which appears by a Decree of Convocation made Anno Domini 1579. which I shall take the boldness to recite verbatim, because it shows what Authors were then in credit, and may possibly provoke the present University to revive the long neglected, but very necessary work of catechiting and examining young Students, not only privately within the college walls, but also publicly in the Schools; Thus runs the decree extant, Libro senioris procuratoris B. fol. 35. A.  
Decretum Convocationis Anno Domini 1579. Jan. 27. ad extirpandam haeresin quamcunque &, ad informandam juventuntem in verâ pietate.  
Vetus statutum contra Haereticos & perverse de Christianâ fide sentientes renovandum & in usum revocandum duximus, additâ hac explanatione.  
Ad extirpandam Haeresin quamcunque & ad informandam in verâ pietate juventutem Libros, hosce legendos censemus & statuimus, viz. Catechismum Alexandri Nowelli majorem, Lat. aut Graec. Vel Catechismum Johannis Calvin. Lat. Gr. aut Hebr. vel Elementa Christianae Religionis Andreae Hyperii: Vel Catechesin Heidelbergensem, pro captu auditorum & arbitrio legentium.  
2. His adiungi possunt Henrici Bullingeri Catechismus pro adultis, & Institutiones Calvini, vel Apologia Ecclesiae Anglicanae, vel articuli Religionis in Synodo Londinensi Latine conscripti, & autoritate regia editi cum explicatione locorum Communium & testimoniis è sacra scriptura aut interdum è patribus desumptis. Ad primam lectionem Juniores, ad secundam provectiores omnes nullo gradu insignitos astringi volumus.  
3. Catechismos omnes sanae huic doctrinae contrarios, aliosque libros superstitiosos & Papisticos legi & haberi penitus interdicimus.  
4. Hanc legendi & interpretandi provinciam demandamus privatim Tutoribus, publice alicui Catechistae in singulis Collegiis & Aulis per praefectos assignando.  
5. Quo Decretum hoc diligenter & inviolate observetur, examen habeatur domi per Catechistam aut etiam Praefectos, in Academiâ singulis anni terminis per Procancelarium adhibitis praeleetoribus sacrae Theologiae qui à studiosis convocatis profectus rationem exigant.  
6. Si quis discentium aut docentium negligentior ant alioqui culpabilis deprehendatur, judicio praefectorum, aut si opus sit, Procancellarii corrigatur & puniatur.  
I would fain know how it came to pass that there's no mention of this Decree in our new Statutes, if our late Grandees did not steer a course quite contrary to our old Protestant Divines? Nor do I know any ground that the Articles of our Church, and Calvins' Institutions, which this Decree joined together, should now with so much Zeal be put asunder.  Laud. 
Private Opinions heretofore, especially if countenanced by some eminent Name, were looked on as the public resolution of the Anglican Church, and the poor Church condemned for teaching those Opinions which by the Artifice of some men had been fastened on her. Dr. Crackanthorp when he was commanded to make answer to the Archbishop of Spalleto his Consilium redeundi, chose rather to defend those Lutheri & Calvini dogmata, which had been charged upon this Church in the Bishop's Pamphlet, then to assert this Church to her genuine Doctrine. They that went otherwise to work, were like to speed no better in it, or be otherwise requited for their honest Zeal, then to be presently exposed to the public envy, and made the common subject of reproach and danger: So that I must needs look upon it as a bold attempt, as the times than were, in Bishop Montague of Norwich, in his answer to the Popish Gagger, and the two Appellants to lay the Saddle on the right Horse, to sever or discriminate the opinions of particular men from the received and authorized Doctrines of the Church of England; to leave the one to be maintained by their private fautors, and only to defend and maintain the other. And certainly had he not been a man of a mighty Spirit, and one that could easily contemn the cries and clamours which were raised against him for so doing, he could not but have sunk remedilessly under the burden of disgrace and the fears of ruin, which that performance drew upon him. To such an absolute Authority were the Writings and Names of some men advanced by their diligent followers, that not to yield obedience to their ipse dixits, was a crime unpardonable. It is true, King James observed the inconvenience and prescribed a remedy, sending instructions to the Universities, bearing date, Jan. 18. 1616. wherein it was directed among other things, That young Students in Divinity should be excited to study such Books as were most agreeable in Doctrine and Discipline to the Church of England, and to bestow their time in Fathers and Councils, Schoolmen, Histories and Controversies, and not to insist too long on Compendiums and Abbreviations, making them the ground of their study. And I conceive, That from that time forwards the names and reputations of some leading men of the foreign Churches, which till then did carry all before them, did begin to lessen: Divines growing every day more willing to free themselves from that servitude & vassalage, to which the authority of those names had enslaved their judgements: But so, that no man had the courage to make such a general assault against the late received opinions, as Bishop Montague, though many when the ice was broken, followed gladly after him. Dr. Heylin Preface to Theologia Veterum.  Pacif. 
You have given me a large account how, as you conceive Calvin, Bullinger, &c. came to decrease but such as is no way satisfactory: for 1. It is gratis dictum, that the reading of Fathers, Councils, &c. will make any one abate his esteem of any Orthodox Cystem. 2. It is no way probable that King James should by his instructions in An. 1616. design the hindering of the Calvinian Doctrines, who appeared so very zealous, An. 1618. against the Tenets of Arminius, who did contradict Calvin in those points which of all others held by him are most liable to exception. 3. Nor is it any way probable that if any Calvinistical or Lutheran Dogmata had been super-induced to the Articles of our Church, which had the least seeming contrariety to them, that none should be either acute enough to discern such superseminations or courageous enough to pull up such tares, but only Richard Montague, B. D. Had he only learned to deny himself? had the spirit of courage and resolution departed from all the English Clergy and rested upon him alone? Sure I am that Dr. Forbes of Edinburgh leaveth this Mr. Montague under this censure, that he too much complied with Calvinism in the point of justification, Propter puritanorum undique strepentium clamores, nescio quomodo refugerit ad distinctionem, Forbes. de Justif. lib. 2. c. 5. 4. 'Tis scarce credible, if Mr. Montague had only separated chaff from the wheat and distinguished only the received Doctrines of the Church from some busy Puritans private Opinions, that he should have been so severely censured for his Book by the Parliament, and confuted by some Divines of great note and learning and as conformable as himself, particularly by his Reverend and much Reverenced Diocesan. And Archbishop Abbot, in his Narrative, which we may find exemplified in Mr. Rush. Collections, from p 438. to 462. affirmeth, that he thrice complained of Mr. Montague's 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 mysteries of our Church declining and a character of the men who were most busy to advance the Remonstrant opinions.  Laud. 
The Doctrine of predestination 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 country, nay in the Church itself: 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. doom, 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 foreign Doctrine, being infused secretly, and instilled cunningly, and pretended craftily to be the Churches, at length they might wind in with foreign Discipline also, and so filled 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 
See worse language than this in the writings of Dr. Heylin and Mr. Tho. P.  denied the power; and for any thing I can discern, is as dangerous as Popery, the only difference being, Popery is for tyranny, 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 profaneness! 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 public 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 God's 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 Catholic 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 public Records of Doctrine did place the Nature of Faith in Assurance, or a persuasion 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 tried by the Articles and liturgy; but than I premise this, that I take the Homilies to be part of our church's liturgy; for the rubric 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 holiday in the year, &c. after the Gospel and Creed, in such order and place as is appointed in the Book of commonprayer, 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 rubric gives a toleration.  Laud. 
I willingly admit the Homilies, as containing certain godly and wholesome exhortations to move the people to honour and worship Almighty God; but not as the public Dogmatical resolutions confirmed by the Church of England; the 33. Article giveth them to contain godly and wholesome 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 commonprayer 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 contain certain godly and wholesome 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 expressly 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 withal, 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 practice of the Church expound the Scripture at one time one way and at another time another way; for the understanding or sense of the Scripture runneth with the practice, and that sense so agreeing with the practice is the quickening Spirit; and therefore the Scriptures follow the Church, but contrariwise the Church followeth not the Scriptures. ad Bohem. Epist. 7. But God forbid our Church should have any Doctrines good and wholesome for some times and not for others.  Laud. 
If there be any difference betwixt us about the sense and meaning of any Clause or Period in Articles, liturgy, Homilies, how shall that difference be decided?  Pacif. 
It is scarce to be supposed that our Church in her public Records of Doctrine should use any so great obscurity as that we should if we are unprejudiced need an Interpreter; but if there be any need of an Interpreter, who fitter than such Martyrs as had an hand in composing of the Articles in King Edw. the 6th. his Time, or elselived then, and were well acquainted with the mind and judgement of the Composers, and such Divines as lived and were famous in the beginning of Q Eliz. when the Articles were confirmed; and let me tell you, it will be a strong presumption, that a Doctrine is contrary to the Church, if it be contrary to the professed tenants of all, or most of those eminent Divines, by whose help she did at first recover herself out of Popish darkness.  Laud. 
How little our old Martyrs did favour the Calvinians in the five points, appears plainly by a Book entitled, An Historical Narration, composed by one who was famous in K. Edw. days, and Q. Eli. and a voluntary exile for Religion, in the reign of Q. Mary.  Partif. 
Are you not ashamed to call him a famous Divine, who created such disturbances in the reign of Q. Eliz. and K. Ed. whose Book is put into the Catalogue of Popish Pamphlets by Dr. Fulke in his answer to Bristol; of the reprinting of which A. Laud was so much ashamed, that at his trial he durst not own it, but averred that he had put his Chaplain out of his place, for putting such a cheat on the world; I might rather infer that the English Martyrs were no favourers of Arminianism, because in the late A. Bishops Time, the Professor of mathematics in Gresham was troubled for but permitting an almanac in which some Popish canonised Saints names were expunged, and the names of some of our own English Martyrs that were Saints indeed put in their room; and because by Dr. Bray, Pochlintons' Altare Christianum was licenced, in which how bitter a passage is used against our old Martyrs and Confessors, may be seen in the Recantation imposed upon that Doctor.  Laud. 
It may be, the passage might refer to John Wickliff, and such as he, and if so, I know no reason why it should be recanted; for though he held many points against those of Rome, yet had his Field more Tares than Wheat, his Books more Heterodoxies then sound Catholic Doctrines; for they who have consulted the Works of Thomas Waldensis, or the Historia Wicklesiana, writ by Harpssield, will tell us that Wickliff among many other errors maintained these that follow. 1. That the Sacrament of the Altar is nothing else but a piece of bread. 2. That Priest have no more authority to minister Sacraments than laymen have. 3. That all things ought to be common. 4. That it is as lawfulito christian a Child in a Tub of Water at home, or in a Ditch by the way, as in a Font-stone in the Church. 5. That it is as lawful at all times to confess unto a layman, as to a Priest. 6. That it is not necessary or profitable to have any Church or chapel to pray in, or to do any divine Service in. 7. That buryings in churchyards be unprofitable and vain. 8. That holidays ordained and instituted by the Church are not to be observed and kept in reverence, in as much as all days are alike. 9 That it is sufficient to believe, though a man do no good works. 10. That no human Laws or Constitutions do oblige a Christian; and finally, That God never gave grace or knowledge to a great Person, or rich man, and that they in no wise follow the same. Dr. Heyl. Cert. Epist. p. 151.  Pacif. 
Whether these things are collected out of Wald. and Harpssield, I neither know nor have leisure now to examine. I find the same things charged, and charged in the very same words, upon those who endeavoured reformation in King H. the 8th. his days about Anno. 1536. as may be seen in Mr. Tho. Fuller's History, lib. 5. p. 209. 210. 211. I believe those were then slandered, and so I think is Wick. if Wald. and Harps. have charged all those things upon him; for the proof of this, let what Dr. James hath collected in his Wick. Conformity be consulted, for that industrious Scholar hath made it appear out of the Writings of Dr. Wickly, that he held no community of goods, but what all good Christians hold by a Christian Charity; not as touching the right Title and possession, as the Anabaptiss now and a certain bald Priest in his time did hold: And so far was he from holding, that good Faith alone would save a man without good Works, that he is charged by Walden to have held the Doctrine of merits, though very falsely, as appears by many passages in his Commentaries upon the Psalms. He held vocal confession to a Priest, not to be necessary in case a man were truly contrite and sorrowful for his sin, with full purpose of amendment unless the party offending do find himself very much grieved, in which case he counselleth him to repair unto a Priest that hath cunning and good living. But let us join issue on the terms formerly propounded; What think you of the Church of Rome?  Laud. 
It may be you account it a piece of Popery to call the Church of Rome a true Church.  Pacif. 
I account it no Popery to call the Church of Rome a true Church, for it was so esteemed by Dr. John Reynolds, Chamier, Junius, Gisbertus Voetius, Ludovicus Capellus, and his fellow Professor Amyraldus, all very learned men and far enough from doting either upon Ceremonies or Prelacy; indeed they will much disadvantage themselves in dealing with the Papist about the visibility of the Church, who shall affirm that Rome is not a true Church; but you know the Pope is made by Romanists to be the Church. The Pope ought to tell it to the Church, that is, to himself (saith Bellarmine;) Do you judge this Pope to be the Antichrist?  Laud. 
Some Protestant Divines at home and abroad I grant, have thought so, wrote so, disputed so; in good zeal, no doubt against that insolent and insufferable and outrageous Tyranny and Pride of the Bishops of Rome, and their infinite enormities in the Church, and out of that affection have been too violently forward, out of conjectures and probabilities to pronounce, the Pope is that Man of Sin and Son of Perdition. The Synod of Gapp in France made it a Point of their belief and concluded it peremptorily to be so; but who can find it to be the Doctrine of the Church of England! what Synod resolved it? Convocation assented to it? what Parliament, Law, Proclamation or Edict did ever command it to be professed, or have imposed penalty upon repugnants, of non-consentients unto it? Ap. p. 143. There is no such Doctrine concerning Antichrist in the Book of Articles, or in any other public Monument or Record of the Church of England, but the contrary rather; and this appeareth by a prayer at the end of the 2d. Homily for Whitsunday, viz. That by the mighty power of the H.G. the comfortable Doctrine of Christ may be truly preached, truly received and truly followed in all places, to the beating down of sin, Death the Pope, the Devil, and all the kingdom of Antichrist. Dr. Pet. Heylin. Res. Pet. p. 133.  Pacif. 
There's scarce any opinion more generally received and owned by Divines that wish well to our reformation then this, that the Pope is the Antichrist; but I'll not contend by their testimonies, but by passages which I have excerpted out of the Homilies. Tom. 1. p. 17. edit. 1623. Justification is not the office of man, but of God, or man cannot make himself righteous by his own works, neither in part, nor in whole, for that were the greatest arrogance and presumption of man that Antichrist could set up against God, p. 38. Honour be to God who did put light in the heart of his true faithful Minister of most famous memory, K. H. 8th. and gave him the knowledge of his word and an earnest affection to seek his Glory, and to put away all such superstitious and Pharisaical Sects by Antichrist invented, p. 70. For our Saviour Christ and St. Peter teach most earnestly obedience to Kings, but the Bishop of Rome teacheth that they are under him, are free from all burdens and charges of the commonwealth, and obedience toward their Prince, most clearly against Christ's Doctrine and St. peter's. He ought therefore rather to be called, Antichrist and the successor, &c. See more of the like nature and purport collected by Dr. Bernard. See also the Prayer made for the Fifth of November.  Laud. 
If a controversy were referred by the Church, or an heresy to be corrected in the Church, which touched the case of the Catholic Church, it could not be put over more fitly to any one man by the Church representative in a Council, then unto the Pope, first Bishop of Christendom, of greatest, not of absolute power among Bishops. Answ. to gag p. 29.  Pacif. 
Never did the Church of England call the Pope first Bishop of Christendom; nay, she censures him for his bold usurpation of such a title, Part. 2. Hom. p. 214, 215. And he that thinks the Pope to be the fittest to refer a controversy, he must bring us to such a Pope as I think did never sit in the See of Rome. But it may be you and I have not the same thoughts of the dangerousness of Popery.  Laud. 
It is a hard case that we shall think all Papists and Anabaptiss and Sacramentaries to be fools and wicked persons; certainly among all these Sects there are very many wise men and good men as well as erring; and although some zeals are so hot, and their eyes so inflamed with their ardours, that they do not think their adversaries look like other men, yet certainly we find by the results of their discourses, that they are men that speak and make Syllogisms, and use Reason, and read Scripture; and although they do no more understand all of it than we do, yet they endeavour to understand as much as concerns them, even all they can, even all that concerns repentance from dead works and faith in our Lord Jesus Christ. Dr. Taylor, Epist. Dedic. to Liberty of Pro. p. 9, 10.  Pacif. 
A little charity will serve a man to think there are wise men and good men among Sacramentaries, and Anabaptists; but I do not like your joining together of Papists, Anabaptiss, Sacramentaries: nor do I think that the learned Papists (such are all they that can speak and make Syllogisms) do endeavour to understand as much as concerns them, or all that they can; for an easy endeavour will inform them, That their Church hath been and is mistaken in many points of great concernment; and if she hath been mistaken she is not infallible.  Laud. 
We have no other help in the midst of our distractions and disunions, but all of us to be united in that common term, which as it does constitute the Church in its being such, so it is the medium of the Communion of the Saints, and that is the Creed of the Apostles, and in all other things an honest endeavour to find out what truths we can, and a charitable and mutual permission to others that disagree from us and our opinions. Ibid. p. 33.  Pacif. 
I like it well that the Apostles Creed should be had in reverence, but sure there are Articles necessary to salvation that are not {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} contained in that symbol.  Laud. 
None of those who hold the Creed entire can perish for want of necessary Faith; neither are we obliged to make our Articles more particular and minute than the Creed; for since the Apostles, and indeed our Blessed Lord himself, promised Heaven to them who believed him to be the Christ that was to come into the world, and that he who believes in him, should be partaker of the Resurrection and Life Eternal, he will be as good as his word; yet because this Article was very general, and a Complexion rather than a Proposition, the Apostles and others our Fathers in Christ did make it more explicit; and though they have said no more than what lay entire and ready formed in the bosom of the great Article, yet they made their extracts to great purpose and absolute sufficiency, and therefore there needs no more deductions or remoter consequences from the great Article than the Creed of the Apostles. Liber. Prop. p. 12.  Pacif. 
In this you must allow me to differ from you, and so do all that wish well to the reformed Protestant Religion; the secinians such a wretched sort of men that Grotius (before Crellius had tampered with him) counted not worth the name of heretics, would fain be called and received as Christians, because they receive and embrace the Apostles Creed. Vid. Jonam. Schlict. apud. Hora. Sosci. confut. p. 255, 256. and yet they deny the Divinity of Jesus Christ, they deny his satisfaction to Divine Justice for the sins of his people; they deny the Holy Ghost to be a Person, or else they make him to be but a finite created Person. Hear Smalius contra. Frantz. Disp. 119. De Ecclesiâ p. 280. Apage istam puerilem tractandi homines pios & cordatos rationem. In Symbolo ait, docenter tres personae Trinitatis. In quonam? Si aliud ostendat quam Apostolicum, quod vocant, tanquam humanum Commentum ridebo illud & respuam; si Apostolicum nego in eo doceri tres Trinitatis Personas. Docetur quidam in eo, patrem esse, & Filium & Spiritum Sanctum, & in eos (ut hoc concedam) credendum etium esse. Sed Filium Personam esse Trinitatis, Spiritum vero Sunctum Personam esse simpliciter, nec verbis nec sensu ibi exprimitur. He that will obviate many Heretical abominations now abroad in the world by any words in the Creed, not drawing consequences from them, shall but lose his labour.  Laud. 
In the first three hundred years there was no sign of persecuting any man for his opinion, though at that time there were very horrid opinions commenced, and such which were exemplary and parallel enough to determine this question; for they were then assaulted by new Sects which destroyed the common principles of Nature, of Christianity, of Innocence and public Society; and they who used all the means, Christian and Spiritual for their disimprovement and conviction, thought not of using corporal force, otherwise then by blaming such proceedings; and therefore I do not only urge their not doing it as an argument of the unlawfulness of such proceeding, but their defying it and speaking against such practices, as unreasonable and destructive of Christianity; for so Tertullian is express ad Scap. Humani juris & naturalis potestatis, unicuique quod putaverit colere, sed nec Religionis est cogere Religionem, quae suscipi debet sponte non vi. Epis. Dedic. p 19  Pacif. 
'Tis strange that it should be destructive of Christianity to use corporal force against the broachers of tenants which destroy the common principles of Nature, of Christianity, of Innocence and public Society; all understanding men will grant with Lactantius, Instit. lib. 5. c. 14. That Religion cannot be compelled, nor can justice, mercy, or love to our neighbours be complelled; all such good dispositions or habits must be persuaded by the Word, and wrought by the Spirit. Christians ought not to compel Jews to be of their Religion, but the Sword is a means to punish acts of false worship in those that are under the Christian Magistrate, and profess Christian Religion, in so far as these acts come out to the eyes of men, and are destructive to the souls of those in a Christian Society: But if you will not allow the Magistrate to punish the blaspheming seducing heretic with death, yet you will allow him to discourage any false Teacher.  Laud. 
If men must be permitted in their opinions, and that Christians must not persecute Christians, I have also as much reason to reprove all those oblique Arts which are not direct persecutions of men's persons, but they are indirect proceedings, ungentle and unchristian, servants of faction and interest, provocations to zeal and animosity, and destructive of learning and ingenuity; and these are suppressing all the monuments of their adversaries, forcing them to recant, and burning their Books: all such Arts show that we either distrust God for the maintenance of his Truth, or that we distrust the cause, or distrust ourselves and our abilities, Epist. Ded. p. 34, 36.  Pacif. 
The Arts you so condemn have been used in England both by the Secular and Ecclesiastical Authority; and therefore you who call yourself an obedient son to both, do forget yourself to censure such proceedings so severely; especially seeing such courses have been followed by none more than by the Brethren of your own persuasion and interest. But what makes you so very favourable to men who differ from us in matters not fundamental, as you call them? is it because the Scripture doth not plainly speak against them?  Laud. 
God who disposeth of all things sweetly, and according to the nature and capacity of things and persons, hath made those only necessary, which he hath taken care should be sufficiently propounded to all persons of whom he required explicit belief, and therefore all the Articles of Faith are clearly and plainly set down in Scripture, no man can be ignorant of the foundation without his o un apparent fault; and God hath done more, for many things which are only profitable, are also set down so plainly, that as Austin, Nemo inde haurire non possit, si modo ad hauriendum devote acpie accedat; but of such things there's no question commenced in Christendom. Liber. of Prop. p. 59  Pacif. 
Sir, you astonish me; Are there no questions commenced in Christendom about things necessary to be believed, nor yet of things that are hugely profitable? If not, it would be the best counsel could be given to Christian Magistrates to burn all controversy Books; but sure, That our natures are corrupted with sin; that Christ made satisfaction to Divine Justice; that our good works are not meritorious; that the Holy Spirit proceedeth from the Father; that Sacraments and Ministry are to continue in the Church, are matters necessary, or at least very profitable to be believed. But whence ariseth the difficulty and uncertainty of Arguments drawn from Scripture, in questions that you call not simply necessary, not literally determined?  Laud. 
There are so many thousands of copies that were writ by persons of several interests and persuasions, such different understandings and tempers, such distinct abilities and weaknesses, that it is no wonder there is so great variety of readings both in the Old Testament and in the New. This variety of reading is not of small consideration; for though it be demonstrably true, that all things necessary to faith and good manners are preserved from alteration and corruption, because they are of things necessary, yet in other things which God hath not obliged himself punctually to preserve in these things since variety of readingsis crept in, every reading takes away a degree of certainty from any proposition derivative from those places so read. And if some copies (especially if they be public and notable) omit a verse or title, every argument from such a title or verse loseth much of its strength and reputation. Liber. of Proph. p. 61, 63, 64.  Pacif. 
I am glad to find it acknowledged, that all things nenecessary to faith and good manners are preserved from alteration and corruption; but you are not ignorant, and your own examples prove it, that there is variety of readings in things necessary to faith and good manners, as well as in matters that are not of such necessity; but in such variety of readings, we are not left without that which may direct us what reading to proof: Thus Austin hath answered Faust. who was wont when he had nothing else left that he could reply, to say, Libros N. Test. salsatos fuisse. Thus Simeon de Muis in his Assertio Hebraicae veriti. p. 31. Nemo tibi negat in quaedam exemplaria potuisse, ac posse quotidia mendas irrepere, &c. Dr. Edw. Kellet, no Puritan, in his Miscellanies of Divinity, denieth not but that some Copies are corrupted; but saith, that if in any one Point or Article we should affirm a corruption to be got into all Copies, it will be impossible to prove any part or word of the New Testament to be incorrupt. Lib. 2. c. 8.  Laud. 
There are very many senses and designs of expounding Scripture; and when the Grammatical sense is found out, we are many times never the nearer, nor is it that which was intended; for there is in many Scriptures a double sense, a literal and spiritual (for the Scripture is a Book written without and within, Apoc. 5.) and both these senses are subdivided, for the literal sense is either natural or figurative, and the spiritual is sometimes Allegorical, sometimes Anagogical. Lib. Prop. p. 64.  Pacif. 
You rather use the language of Ashdod than Canaan, whereas I count it a thing commendable rather to express ourselves so as reformed Divines have been wont, then as the Popish, but I'll not quarrel at any thing which is capable of a good construction; yet let me have leave to say, 1. That the place, Apoc. 5. hath quite another sense then that to which you apply it. 2. That I understand not how this consideration, if admitted makes any thing to the proof of that for which you produce it, that there should be a toleration of all who own the Apostles Creed.  Laud. 
There being such variety of senses in Scripture, and but few places so marked out as not to be capable of divers senses, if men will write Commentaries, as Herod made Orations {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, what infallible {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} will be left whereby to judge of the certain Dogmatical resolute sense of such places which have been the matter of question? Lib. Proph. p. 65.  Pacif. 
That if men will write Commentaries {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, no certain {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} will be left, is beyond dispute; but it is as much beyond dispute, that if men will proceed with sobriety, not leaning on their own understanding, but humbly begging the Spirits illumination, they shall not want an infallible {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} to find out the certain Dogmatical sense of such places which have been the matter of question; nor is there any truth in that assertion, that there are but few places so marked out, as not to be capable of divers senses. I undertake to produce very clear places of Scripture against the errors of Popery, Socinianism, &c.  Laud. 
There are divers places of Scripture containing in them mysteries and questions of great concernment, and yet the fabric and constitution is such, that there is no certain mark to determine whether the sense of them should be literal or figurative, nothing in the nature of the thing to determine the sense and meaning, but it must be got out as it can; and therefore it is unreasonable, that what is in itself ambiguous should be understood in its own prime sense and intention, under the pain of either a sin or Anathema: I instance in that place, Hoc est corpus meum, the words are plain and apt to be understood in a literal sense, which yet doth violence to reason; but if you expound these words figuratively, besides that you contest against a world of prejudices, you give yourself the liberty, which if others should take, when they have either a reason or necessity so to do, they may perhaps turn all into Allegory, and so may evacuate any precept, and elude any Argument. Lib. Prop. p. 67, 68, 69.  Pacif. 
Do these words become one who wisheth well to the Protestant reformation? Have our Martyrs always understood those words, Hoe est corpus meum, in a figurative sense, and have they upon that account ventured the loss of life and all things that were dear unto them? and must the World now be told, that in such an interpretation they gave rhemselves the liberty, which if others should take, all Scripture would be turned into an Allegory? Irascor referens, and I pray you, how is it possible to quiet weak and tender consciences, if some places of Scripture do contain mysteries of great concernment, and yet there is no certain mark to determine whether the sense of them be figurative or literal? Is the merciful God wont to set his poor creatures on the rack? to bring them into labyrinths? to set down things which are apt to breed scruples in their minds, and to leave no certain rule by which they may determine in what sense the words in which such things are comprehended are to be taken? Absit, absit.  Laud. 
There are some places of Scripture that have the selfsame expressions, the same preceptive words, the same reason and account in all appearance, and yet either must be expounded to quite different senses, or else we must renounce the Communion, and the charities of a great part of Christendom. And yet there is absolutely nothing in the thing, or in its circumstances, or in its adjuncts that can determine it to different purposes. I instance in these great exclusive negatives for the necessity of both Sacraments, Nisi quis renatus fuerit ex aquâ, &c. Nisi mandua caveritis carnem filii hominis, &c. Liber. Prophes. p. 69.  Pacif. 
A prodigious assertion! must I renounce the Communion and Charities of a great part of Christendom, unless I will expound places of Scripture to a quite different sense, that have the selfsame expressions, and that though there be absolutely nothing in the thing, or in its circumstances, or in its adjuncts, that can determine them to different purposes? if so, then farewell the Communions and Charities of Christendom; for to take such a course would be to do violence to my judgement, reason, and every thing by which I am denominated a man. As for the two places you instance in, the sense of them is quite mistaken by the Papists, as our reformed Divines undeniably prove; and methinks the Romanists should easily yield they are mistaken, or else they must needs leave themselves under horrible doubts about their eternal salvation; for if they that die unbaptised go to some part of Hell, and none are baptised but those whom the Priest had an intention of baptising when he sprinkled them with, or dipped them in water, how many of them must lose the joys of Heaven on that account? And if those words are to be understood literally; Except ye eat the flesh, and drink the blood, &c. What will become of their Laity who are not permitted to drink of the consecrated Wine? their device of concomitantia will not sure make eating only to be eating and drinking. It is a good sport to a Scholar, who hath wearied himself with other studies to observe how the Popish Writers are put to it to excuse their Church for not administering the Eucharist to Infants; and I cannot but wonder what moved the Papists to such a practice, seeing they give so much to the Sacrament, viz. to confer grace by the work done, and to fortify the soul against Satan. But what think you of the fullness and perspicuity of the holy Scriptures?  Laud. 
There are some points of good concernment, which if any man should question in an high manner, they would prove indeterminable by Scripture, or sufficient reason. Liber. Prop. p. 89.  Pacif. 
Points of good concernment not determinable by Scriptures, nor yet by Reason! How contrary is this to what is quoted out of Chrysostom and Fulgentius, in the Homlly Exhorting to the reading of the holy Scripture? p. 2. Besides, such an assertion doth very much tend to discourage men from making enquiry into Truth; for if such points are not determinable by either Scripture or Reason, how shall they be determined? If by the Church, I say the Church in her determinations must be guided by Scripture and Reason, or else her members are not obliged to regard her determinations.  Laud. 
I must negatively conclude, that all things necessary to the Salvation of all are not of themselves clear in the Scripture to all understandings; whereby I say not, that all such things are not contained in the Scriptures, as if some things necessary to the salvation of all were to be received by Tradition alone: Nor, that being in the Scriptures they are not clear and discernible to the understandings of those that are furnished with means requisite to discern the meaning of Scripture: But that which I stand upon, is, that it is not, nor aught to be a presumption, that this or that is not necessary to Salvation, because it is not clear in the Scriptures: which if it were admitted, whosoever were able to make such an argument against any Article of Faith, as all understandings interessed in salvation could not dissolve, should have gained this, that, though it may be true, yet it cannot be an Article of Faith. Principles of Christian Truth. p. 25.  Pacif. 
It is beyond all dispute, that all things contained in Scripture are not clear to all understandings, there are some understandings to which nothing is clear: it is also past dispute, that they who understand Scriptures, must be first furnished with all means necessarily requisite for the understanding of Scriptures, and which is more, they must make use of those means, and pray to God for a blessing upon them; but this is said by Protestants against Papists, that God hath made nothing necessary for the Salvation of all men, Necessitate praecepti & medii, but such things as are so clearly laid down in the Word, that all who will make use of the abilities God hath vouchsafed, may find them out, and that men may safely conclude that is not a necessary Article of Religion which is not clear in some place or other of Scripture; clear I say, with such a clearness as may satisfy the conscience, though not with such as may satisfy curiosity.  Laud. 
The holy Scriptures in the first time of the Christian Church were not communicated to all men all at once; for the Primitive Fathers wisely considered how extremely perilous it might be to expose the whole Scripture unto ignorant men's use and judgement, or indeed abuse rather and want of judgement: surely more dangerous and pernicious it might prove unto men's souls, then to leave a whole apothecary's shop open to a diseased person, who might as well choose and take deadly poison to his destruction, as a sovereign medicine to the recovery of his health. Had the souls of men been so carefully watched over by their Governors, and such portions of Scripture wisely and fatherly dispensed unto them, as might, with such holy reservedness, have met with men's proficiency, surely such prodigious Monsters had not been counterfeited out of the Word of God by the spirit of Opinion, as in these later days we have seen and lament to see. Dr. Gell. Preface to his Essay about the amendment of our English. Translation.  Pacif. 
That by the free reading of the Holy Scriptures some very dangerous Opinions have been occasioned accidentally, is no question; but that therefore any part of the Scripture should be locked up in an unknown Tongue from the Vulgar, is no stronger an inference, then if one should argue, because some have burned their fingers and houses with candle and fire, therefore the free use of those creatures is not to be vouchsafed in a commonwealth. And as I think the conclusion to be absurd; so I am sure, 'Tis quite contrary to the whole scope and design of the Homilies called an Information of them that take offence at certain places of Holy Scripture.  Laud. 
The further we proceed in the survey of the Scripture, the Translation is the more faulty, as the Hagiographa more than the Historical Scripture, and the Prophets more than the Hagiographa, and the Apocrypha most of all, and generally the New-Testament more than the Old. Idem near the end of his Preface.  Pacif. 
Such a censure might have been born from the pen of the Rhemish and Douai Divines; but who can bear it from one pretending to be an English Protestant? the Translation is usque ad invidiam aliarum gentium elaborata Translatio. It was sufficiently defended in the parts that you find most fault with, by Dr. Fulk and Cartwright, against the Cavils of the Rhemists, and may more easily be defended against the exceptions taken to it by you: But there is another thing that offends me in your former words, viz. That you seem to make the Apocrypha part of the Scripture, which word when it is taken absolutely and without addition, should suppose only for Canonical Scripture; and I do the more doubt that you advance the Apocrypha higher than do our Reformed Divines, because I find you ascribing the Book of Wisdom to Solomon, p. 51. whereas that Book was sure written by one of a spirit far inferior to that which acted Solomon in his writings.  Laud. 
Such is the boldness and ignorance of some, that they have left out of their impressions, the Apocryphal Scriptures, whereby they have gotten this whereof to glory, that they have done that which no wise or honest man hath done before them, (so far as I have yet known) or I hope, will adventure to do after them. Dr. Gell Pref.  Pacif. 
To divest all those who had an hand in leaving the Apocrypha out of our English Bibles, of all wisdom and honesty, is very hard; for what if those Apocryphal writings be of some good use, yet there's nothing in them should make it necessary or expedient to bind them up with the Canon; why may they not be kept in a Volume by themselves? or indeed how can they be read by private Christians at all without apparent hazard and scandal, seeing some of them contain notorious lies, some of them justify such things as God Law and the Law of Nature too do condemn? But before we proceed any further, suffer me to know your mind about Reason and Councils.  Laud. 
All Controversies are reducible to two heads, Goodness, or Truth; so that the question is, Whether right reason can infallibly judge what is good or bad, true or false; for a thing to be morally good (for Metaphysical Goodness is all one with Truth) depends by sure connexion from that Eternal Justice which is primarily in God. Now this being one of the attributes of God which are called communicable; it is truly affirmed, That that Justice which is in God, is the very same in substance communicated to men, though in a lower degree. Reason of Christian Religion, p. 24  Pacif. 
As it is seems a Paradox to me, that Metaphysical Goodness is all one with Truth (Goodness and Truth being by all that I have met with, made distinct affections of Ens) so it is to me also, at least propositio male sonans, that the Justice which is in God, is the very same in substance communicated to men, though in a lower degree: for the Justice which is in God, is the same with his Infinite Essence, so is not the finite justice in the creature the same with his finite essence, but really distinct from it. Now that thing which is substantially just, and that whose justice is but an accident, seem to differ more than gradually: But I pray you proceed, and it may be I shall be better able to find out your mind.  Laud. 
For a thing to be true, i. e. to have a being either potential or actual, depends partly on God's power, partly on his will; in respect of its potential being, it depends on his power; in respect of its actual, on his will. Now God's power, though it may in some sense be said communicable to the creature, because all ability in the creature is a gleam of infinite ability in God, yet is not this so communicated as his Justice or Goodness was said to be; for goodness in the creature is a kind of image truly resembling the goodness in God, and that a kind of natural image, as is the face in the glass; not a voluntary one, which hath its being from the variable will of the Artificer. But power in the creature, is not thus a natural image of God's power, but as reflection of a thing, which voluntarily and variously casts its beams: Voluntarily, I say, because the dispensing of his power, either in manner or measure, is a free act of his will; and variously, because he doth it, first unequally, and secondly not so to any, but that he can (and sometimes doth) withdraw or suspend it, when it is bestowed, so that I cannot say, that as that which is just in God to be done, is just to be done by the creature; so what is possible to be done by God, is possible to be done by the creature; the reason of the not communicating of God's power to the creature as well as his justice, may be this because it conduced not to the end of the creatures creation, as the other did: for though God intended to make a creature truly good and just, yet he did not truly powerful. Reas. Christ. Relig p. 25.  Pacif. 
Here are sundry things which I cannot digest 1 I do not see, but that the creature is truly powerful as well as truly just or good; if that power which is in the creature be true power, than it denominates the creature truly powerful. 2 Nor secondly, Do I see but that goodness is as the reflection of a thing which voluntarily and variously casts its beams, as well as power; for doth not God communicate his goodness unequally as well as his power? 3. I dare not say, that what is just in God to be done, is just to be done by the creature; To let a creature starve, whom it was in my power to relieve, it would not be just in me, but it is just in God, he being not so bound to the creature as I am. And 4. I must from all conclude, that as the reason of the creature apprehends many things to be impossible, which yet are possible; so it may also apprehend sundry things not to be just which yet are just; as the Stulta Dei sunt credenda, so the Impia Dei sunt facienda; that which our reason counts folly, is to be believed; that which it counts wicked, to be done.  Laud. 
The Church Representative cannot err in points of Faith, Gag. p. 48. The Decision of the Catholic Church we receive as the dictate of the Holy Spirit. Gag. p. 19  Pacif. 
This had need to be well and warily understood, or else it will contradict the 21. Article. General Councils, when they be gathered together (for as much as they are an Assembly of men, whereof all be not governed by the Word and Spirit of God) they may err, and sometimes have erred even in things pertaining to God; wherefore things ordained by them as necessary to Salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless they may be declared that they be taken out of the Holy Scriptures.  Laud. 
Many things appertain unto God, which are not of necessity to salvation, both in practice and speculation: in these haply General Councils have erred, in the other none can. Appeal. p. 124.  Pacif. 
This doth not satisfy. Those words (things ordained of them as necessary to salvation, have neither strength nor authority, unless) do suppose that it is not impossible for a General Council to determine those points to be necessary to salvation which are not; and if so, why not also those not to be necessary which are? Besides, the reason assigned is, because they are an assembly of men, whereof all are not governed by the Spirit and Word of God. Now I would argue thus; May a General Council consist of men not guided by the Spirit, or may it not? If you say it may not, I ask, what assurance have you that there shall never be an Assembly made up of such men? If you say it may, why then I ask, why such may not as well err in Fundamentals as in nonfundamentals? Do you think an elect person may not err fundamentally? I wish you did; but I know you do not: If one single elect person may err, why may not an Assembly, or the major part of an Assembly consisting of such? But let us now proceed to the consideration of the several estates of mankind.  Laud. 
That Adam was made mortal in his nature, is infinitely certain, and proved by his very eating and drinking, his sleep and recreation, by ingestion and egestion, by breathing and generating his like, which immortal substances never do; and by the very tree of life, which had not been needful, if he should have had no need of it to repair his decaying strength and health. D. J. T. Fur. Explic. of Orig. sin. p. 453. Death came not in by any new sentence or change of nature, for man was created mortal, and if Adam had not sinned, he should have been immortal by grace; i. e. by the use of the Tree of Life. To die is a punishment to some, to others not; it was a punishment to all that sinned before Moses and since; upon the first it fell as a consequent of God's anger upon Adam; upon the later it fell as a consequent of that anger which was threatened in Moses Law; but to those who sinned not at all, as Infants and idiots, it was merely a condition of their nature, and no more a punishment then to be a child is. Unum Necess. p. 371, 372.  Pacif. 
This is such Divinity as I should never have expected to hear from any but a Socinian; for though in a sense Adam might be said before his fall to be mortal, in regard he was compounded of matter, the princeiple and root of corruption; yet that power of corruption was so remote, and God gave him such an excellent temper of body, that the remote power could never be brought into a proxime and immediate disposition, much less into actual death; that death could enter any other way then by sin, or that ever any one died without some respect to sin, is so strange, that none who reads the Scripture without prejudice, can bear it, or count it worth confuting.  Laud. 
We cannot guess at what degree of knowledge Adam had before the fall; certainly if he had had so great a knowledge, it is not likely he would so cheaply have sold himself and all his hopes out of a greedy appetite to get some knowledge. Unum Necess. p. 372.  Pacif. 
That man though now become like to the beasts that perish, was at first made for knowledge little inferior to the Angels, is easily proved: his being tempted through a desire to get more knowledge, doth not argue him to have been created with little knowledge, but with much; for who more desirous to gain knowledge than they who have a great deal already.  Laud. 
If man had not before the fall had a rebellious appetite and an inclination to forbidden things, by what could he have been tempted, and how could it have come to pass that he should sin? Unum necessary. 373. An evil there is upon us, and that is concupiscence, this also is natural; but it was actual before the fall, it was in Adam and tempted him. p. 374.  Pacif. 
To say there was a rebellious appetite in man before the fall, or an inclination to forbidden things, is too bold a reflection on the most holy and wise Creator of man; nor can there a Protestant be instanced in, that hath so spoken, except we call the Remonstrants Protestants, who make the rebellion of the sensitive appetite to the rational to arise from the very constitution of man, insomuch that one of them is not afraid to say, that it was in Christ himself because a man: Nothing is more easy to conceive then that these inclinations, though divers, yet are not contrary, unless it be where sin hath made an ataxy: The Angels did fall, though there was in them no sensitive appetite at all; and therefore sure it is not impossible that the creature should fall, though there be no rebellion in the inferior appetite to the superior. But it may be you and I agree not about the nature and effects of Original sin.  Laud. 
The evil of death descending upon Adam's posterity, for his sake, went no further than till Moses. Unum Necess. p. 367  Pacif 
Would you have me think that what you say is agreeable to those words in the second Sermon of the Passion, p. 184. Is not sin think you a grievous thing in God's sight, seeing for the transgression of his precept in eating of one Apple he condemned all the world to perpetual death, and would not be pacified but only with the blood of his own Son?  Land. 
Original sin is not an inherent evil; not a sin properly, but metonymically; i. e. it is the effect of one sin and the cause of many; a stain, but no sin. 2. It doth not destroy our liberty which we had naturally. 3. It doth not introduce a natural necessity of sinning. 4. It does not damn any Infant to the eternal pains of Hell. Fur. p. 475. In Scripture there is no signification of any corruption or depravation of our souls by Adam's sin. Vn. Necess. p. 392.  Pacif. 
Either I understand not Grammar, or this is expressly contradictory to the 9th Article. Original sin standeth not in the following of Adam, as the Pelagians do vainly talk, but it is the fault and corruption of the nature of every man that naturally is engendered of the offspring of Adam, whereby man is very far gone from original righteousness, and is inclined to evil, so that the flesh lusteth against the spirit, and therefore in every person born into the world, it deserveth God's wrath and damnation; and this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh called {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, which some do expound, the wisdom, some, the sensuality; some, the affections; some, the desire of the flesh, is not subject to the Law of God. And although there is no condemnation for them that believe and are baptised, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of itself the nature of sin. And I pray you Sir, do you not think, seeing you say that Original sin is not properly a sin, that a man is under no obligation to repent of it?  Laud. 
Our share of Adam's sin, either being in us no sin at all, or else not to be avoided or amended, it cannot be the matter of repentance. As Adam was not bound to repent of the sins of all his posterity, so neither are we tied to repent of his sins: Neither did I ever see in any ancient Office or Form of Prayer, public or private, any Prayer of Humiliation prescribed for Original sin; they might deprecate the evil consequent, but never confess themselves guilty of the formal sin. Unum. Necess. p. 425, 426. No man ever imposed penance for it: So God himself in Nature never did for it afflict or affright the Conscience, and yet the Conscience never spares any man that is guilty of a known sin; and why the Conscience should be for ever at so much peace for this sin, that a man shall never give one groan for his share of guilt in Adam's sin, unless some or other scare him with an impertinent proposition; Why (I say) the Conscience should not naturally be afflicted for it, nor so much as naturally know it? I confess I cannot yet make any probable conjecture, save this only, That it is not Properly a sin, but Metonymically and Improperly. Deus Justis. p. 128, 129.  Pacif. 
That no Form of liturgy takes notice of Original sin, so as to confess it, or be humbled for it, you will never persuade him who hath the Administration of Baptism in our own Common-Prayer-Book; and is it not great pride or uncharitableness, or both, to say, that no man's Conscience did ever afflict him for Original sin? never any groaned for it, or under it? Have all those eminent Protestant Divines, that have so often in their Prayers before their Sermons, bewailed the corruption that we brought into the world with us, been scared with impertinent propositions? or did they play the Hypocrites so as to groan where they felt no burden? But if you really think, that all the Disputations and Questions about Natural Sin and Corruption be de non cute, What account will you, or can you give us of the Universal wickedness of mankind?  Laud. 
One cause of the Universal Iniquity of the world is, because our Nature is so hard put to it in many instances: not because Nature is originally corrupted, but because God's Laws command such things which are a restraint to the indifferent and otherwise lawful inclinations of nature. I instance in the matters of Temperance, Abstinence, Patience, Humility, self-denial and Mortification. But more particularly thus; A man is naturally inclined to desire the company of a woman, whom he fancies, this is naturally no sin; for the natural desire was put into us by God and therefore could not be evil. But than God as an instance and trial of our obedience, put fetters upon the indefinite desire and determined us to one woman; which provision was enough to satisfy our need but not all our possibility: This therefore he left as a reserve, that by obeying God in the so reasonable restraint of our natural desire, we might give him something of our own. But than it is to be considered, that our unwillingness to obey in this instance, or in any of the other, cannot be attributed to Original sin, or natural disability derived as a punishment from Adam, because the particular instances were postnate a long time to the fall of man; and it was for a long time lawful to do some things which now are unlawful: But our unwillingness and averseness came by occasion of the Law coming cross upon our nature, not because our nature is contrary to God, but because God was pleased to super-induce some Commandments contrary to our nature: For if God had commanded us to eat the best meats and drink the richest Wines as long as they could please us and were to be had; I suppose, it will not be thought, that Original sin would hinder us from obedience. But because we are forbidden to do some things which naturally we desire to do and love, therefore our nature is hard put to it; and this is the true state of the difficulty. Unum. Necess. p. 415, 416.  Pacif. 
I am neither taken with the logic nor Divinity of this discourse: not with the logic; for whereas you should have given us an account of the Universal wickedness of mankind, you only give us an account of some carnal wickednesses; whereas you cannot but know, that men do universally defile themselves with the pollutions of the spirit as well as of the flesh; men are prone to hypocrisy and lying, &c. How comes this about? Is it because God's Law layeth restraint in these instances on the natural and lawful inclinations of men? But I am somewhat more displeased with the Divinity of your discourse; for you seem to me all along to excuse men's corruption, and lay all the blame of their wickedness on the Laws of God, which certainly are holy, just and good. There's no question, but the nature of fallen man would readily enough obey such a law as should command to eat the best meat, and drink the richest Wines as long as they could please us and were to be had; but such a law would be a wicked law: The query is, seeing the matter of God's Law doth consist mostly of things that are good, before commanded, why the men of the world do not close with them? Could this be, if there were not a contrariety in our natures to any thing that good is. I hope extra aestum disputandi, you do not think that the laws of Temperance, Patience, Humility, do command such things as are a restraint to the indifferent and otherwise lawful inclination of nature; or that it was any part of the nature which God put into us, to desire the company of a woman whom we fancy; for what if that woman be another man's wife? what if she be one's own mother, is it lawful to desire her company? A man would almost think, that you do strike in with those who hold no rationes boni & mali aeternas & indispensabiles, but think that all moral good and evil depends wholly on the free and arbitrary volition and constitution of God; so that there's no action so intrinsically good, but it might have been made evil; no action so intrinsically evil, but it might have been made good if God had so pleased: which opinion if you should hold, you would thereby destroy the certainty of all Christian Religion; for if God may, if he so please, will the deceiving of the creature, how know I but he hath? And what is then become of all my faith and hope in reference to Eternity?  Laud. 
Another great cause of Universal impiety is, that at first, God had made no promises of Heaven; he had not propounded any glorious rewards, to be as an argument to support the superior faculty against the inferior, i. e. To make the will choose the best and leave the worst, and to be as a reward for suffering contradiction. Unum Necess. p. 413.  Pacif. 
Why, when you are to give us an account of the Universal Impiety of mankind, do you suggest such a reason to us as was proper and peculiar to those who lived before the flood? but I do not not think that that age of the world, which had in it Preachers of Righteousness, was without promises of rewards in another world; sure I am, there was at that time the prophecy of Enoch, which doth speak plain enough of judgement to come: But of this more hereafter, when we come to discourse about the Covenants of Works and Grace, the Old and New Covenant. I pray what think you of the Covenant of Works?  Laud. 
The Covenant of Works was not impossible because it consisted of impossible Commandments; for every Commandment was kept by some or other and all at sometimes: but therefore it was impossible to be kept, because at sometime or other, men would be impotent, or ignorant, or surprised, and for this no abatement was made in that Covenant. Unum Necess. p. 53.  Pacif. 
That no abatement was made in the Covenant of Works, for the failings of men is therefore certain, because in it there was no Mediator to make satisfaction to Divine Justice for any transgression; but that it consisted of such Commandments, as are impossible to be kept by fallen man, of such Commandments as the grace we attain unto in this world cannot enable us fully to observe, I affirm, so do all Protestant Divines.  Laud. 
The Law of Moses was a part of the Covenant of Works, some little it had of Repentance; Sacrifice and Expiations were appointed for small sins; but nothing at all for greater. Every great sin brought death infallibly. unum Necess. p. 3.  Pacif. 
That the Law as delivered by Moses on Mount Sinai, was not a Covenant of Works, but a Covenant of Grace, is abundantly proved by some neoterics, who have made it their business to search into the nature of the Covenants: And as for that notion, that Sacrifice and Expiations were appointed for small sins, but none for great ones; 'tis 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 man's 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 terms 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 happened 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 infallibly. 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 virtue 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 denied, 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 hyssop. 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 justify, it did not promise life Eternal, nor give sufficient security against the temporal, only it was brought in as a pedagogy 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 gainsay; 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 threatening 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 threatening 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 Christ's 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 nowhere saith it, for ought find, so is there no reason to believe it, for aught I can see. Dr. hay. 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 it a Christion Faith they had; for they looked for all benefits of God the Father through the merits of his Son Jesus Christ, as we now do. This difference is betwixt them and us, that they looked when Christ should come, and we be in the time when he is come; therefore saith St. Augustine, the time is altered and changed, but not the faith: The same Doctrine is delivered, Part. 2. p. 187. Of this judgement also was Ignatius, if I understand him, Epist. ad Antiochenos. {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. &c. and in the Epistle ad Philadelph. Sed & Prophetas diligamus propter & ipsos in Evangelium annunciasse, & in Christum sperare, & ipsum expectare in quo & credentes salvati sunt in unitate Jesu Christi existentes. And I should thank any one that would tell me, if the Types and Ceremonies of the Law did not represent Christ to come, and were not thought by Saints then so to do, why God did institute that Ceremonial pedagogy?  Laud. 
That God instructed our first Father Adam in the duty of Sacrifice I shall easily grant; and I shall grant as easily, that God proposed some other end of them in that institution, then to receive them as a quitrent from the hands of men, in testimony that they held their estates from him as the Supreme Landlord; for though this may be held as to Sacrifices Eucharistical, yet there was another sort which we may call Expiatory, ordained by God himself as the Types and Figures of that one only real and propitiatory Sacrifice, which was to be performed in the death of Christ; yet were they not bare Types and Figures that had no efficacy in themselves, but such efficacy as they had was not natural to them, but either in reference to the Sacrifice to be made of Christ, or else extrinsical by the Divine Ordinance and Institution of Almighty God; and that they might be so in this last respect, there want not very pregnant reasons in the Word of God; for whereas God, considered as the Supreme lawgiver, had imposed a Commandment on man under pain of death, although it stood not with his wisdom to reverse the Law, which with such infinite wisdom had been first ordained, yet it seemed very suitable to his grace and goodness to commute the punishment and satisfy himself with the death of Beasts, offered in Sacrifice unto him by that sinful creature. Id p. 93. & p. 95. for aught appeareth to the contrary, the Sacrifices both before and under the Law, had in themselves a power of Propitiation by virtue of the Ordination and Institution of Almighty God, and not a relative virtue only in reference to the All-sufficient Sacrifice of our Saviour Christ.  Pacif. 
I think as you, that neither the only nor the chief end of God's instituting Sacrifices, was this, that he might receive a quitrent from his creatures; I grant also that the Sacrifices had an efficacy in them as to the taking away of sin; but the Law being made, He that sinneth shall die, I see not any ground, to think that God would dispense with his Law without a valueable consideration, and that the death of a Beast is not. The government of Israel was a Theocracy, and God who would have any other laws made with cruelty, would not make his own laws without merciful condescension to the infirmity of men: therefore as he would not let those sins go unpunished for which Sacrifices were appointed, so he would not have all offenders cut off by the hand of justice, but mercifully appointed a commutation, that not the sinner, but the Beast should be slain, and the slaying of the Beast did procure a man immunity from that death temporal, which else would have been inflicted on the offendor in that commonwealth; but that God ever made any Institution or Ordination, that upon the offering of a Sacrifice, without respect to Christ the Anti-type, sin should be forgiven in the Court of Conscience or of Heaven, that (with the common consent of Divines) I deny; you that say he did, must show us where any such Ordination or Institution is recorded.  Laud. 
When God brought Israel out of Egypt, he began to make a Covenant with them, with some compliance to their infirmities: for because little things could not be avoided, Sacrifices were appointed for their Expiation, but for great sins there was no Sacrifice appointed, no repentance ministered. And therefore still we were in the ministration of death, for this mercy was not sufficient, as yet it was not possible to be justified by the Law, it did not promise Eternal life, it ministered no grace, but fear and temporal hope; it was written in Tables of stone, not in their heart, that is, the material parts of the Law of Moses was not consonant to natural and essential reason, but arbitrary impositions; they were not perfective of man, but very often destructive. Unum Necess. p. 39  Pacif. 
There are many passages at which just exception may be taken; you say, God when he brought Israel out of Egypt, began to make a Covenant with some compliance to their infirmities. But I pray you had he not begun till then? you say as yet, it was not possible for a man to be justified by the law; was it ever since possible? you say the Law was written in Tables of stone, not in their hearts? But you do not sure hope to persuade us that the Law Moral was not then written in every good man's heart, and no other laws were ever written in Tables of stone? when you say, That is, the material parts of the Law of Moses was not consonant to natural and essential reason, but arbitrary impositions; they were not persective of a man, but often destructive. I understand you not; that is, what is? Did the writing of the Law on the Tables import any such as that which follows; and why say you, that the material parts of the Law of Moses were not consonant to natural and essential reason; are not the ten Commandments material parts of the Law of Moses, yet sure they are consonant to natural essential reason; but if you will call only the Ceremonial Law the material part of the Law of Moses (the reason of which appellation I cannot guess) yet how this was often destructive of man and not perfective, will be very difficult to apprehend.  Laud. 
If we consider the particular of Moses Law, it was such a burden which the Jews themselves were loath to part with, because it was in the Moral part of it, but a Law of abstinence from evil. Unum Neces. p. 20. & p. 21. the righteousness of the Law was in abstinence from evil, the righteousness of the Gospel in thatand in the doing of all the affirmative Commandments of Christ.  Pacif. 
Was the Law in the Moral part of it, but a law of abstinence from evil? What make you of the fourth and fifth Commandment? the other eight indeed are expressed in a Negative form, but that where any sin is forbidden, there the contrary duty is enjoined, is a rule given and allowed by all the Expositors of the Decalogue, nor can you instance in any one Moral affirmative Precept of the Gospel, which was not Obligatory to believers under the Old Covenant.  Laud. 
The Affirmative Precepts of the Gospel being propounded in general terms, and with indefinite proportions, for the measures are left under our choice and liberty to signify our great love to God: whatsoever is over and above the Commandments, that shall have a great reward. God forbids unmercifulness; he that is not unmerciful, keeps the Commandment; but he that besides his abstinence from unmercifulness according to the Commandment, shall open his hand and his heart and give plentifully to the poor, this man shall have a reward; he is among those servants whom his Lord will make to sit down and himself will serve him: when God in the Commandment forbids uncleanness and fornication, he that is not unchaste and doth not pollute himself, keeps the Commandment; but if to preserve his chastity he useth fasting and prayer, if he mortifieth his body, if he deny himself the pleasures of this world, if he useth the easiest or the hardest remedies, according to the proportion of his love and industry, especially if he be prudent, so shall his greater reward be: To follow Christ is all our duty, but if that we may follow Christ with greater advances, we quit all the possessions of the world, this is the more acceptable, because it is a doing of the Commandment with greater love. We must so order things, that the Commandment be not broken; but the difference is in finding out the better ways, and doing the duty with the more affections, Unum Necess. 48, 49.  Pacif. 
All this goeth quite against the hair with me; I do not think that the Affirmative Precepts of the Gospel for the measure, are left under our liberty and choice to signify our greater love: Whatever the Law of the Gospel requires us to do, it requireth that we do it cum omni valdè, in the highest degree and measure: Nor doth he keep the Commandment that is not unmerciful, for the very Commandment is, that a man open his hand and heart and give plentifully to the poor; he that sows plentifully shall reap more plentifully than he that sows but sparingly, not because he doth more than the Commandment requireth, but because that merciful God who hath promised to reward the least grace with Heaven, hath yet promised to reserve higher Mansions in Heaven for those that outstrip their fellow Christians in zeal; nor is it acceptable to God that a man should quit the possessions of the world to follow Christ, except it so happen that a man cannot follow Christ and keep the possessions of the world too, and if such a case happen, I trow the Law of the Gospel requireth that a man should rather forsake the world than not follow Christ; if a man do not follow Christ to the forsaking all he hath, when he is by providence called so to do, he performeth not all his duty; if you gainsay this, you introduce counsels of perfection and works of supererogation, quite contrary to the Articles of our Church. Artic. 14. Voluntary works besides over and above God's Commandments, which they call works of supererogation, cannot be taught without arrogancy and impiety; for by them men do declare, that they do not only render unto God as much as they are bound to do do, but that they do more for his sake than of bounden duty is required, whereas Christ saith plainly; when ye have done all that are commanded you, say, we be unprofitable servants.  Laud. 
They are highly mistaken, that think any thing of this nature is a work of supererogation; for all this is nothing but a pursuance of the Commandment: but some Commandments are propounded as to friends, some as to servants, some under the threatening of horrible pains, others not so, but with the proposition and under the invitation by glorious rewards; it was commanded by St. Paul to preach the Gospel, if he had not obeyed he should have perished, he was bound to do it, but he had another Commandment also to love God, as much as was possible, to love his neighbour; which Precepts were infinite and of an unlimited signification, and therefore were left to every servant's choice to do them with his several measures of zeal and love. p. 49. Unum Neces.  Pacif. 
You are well aware that Protestant ears cannot hear of works of supererogation, and therefore you abstain from those terms, but in vain is it to disclaim and renounce the name so long as you own the thing. What Reformed Divine ever said that there are Commandments which are not propounded under the threatening of horrible pains to those that disobeyed them and repented not of that disobedience? Is not the transgression of every commandment a sin? and doth not every sin deserve eternal death? had not Paul perished if he had not loved his neighbour as well as if he had not preached the Gospel? Are there not several measures of affection and zeal in preaching the Gospel as well as in loving God or our neighbours? or how are the Precepts of loving God and our neighbour left more to every servant's choice as to the degree, than the Preaching of the Gospel is? But as to this matter I refer myself to what is written by Papists and Protestants about Councils. What think you of the possibility of performing the Law in this life?  Laud. 
To every Christian it is enjoined that they be perfect; i. e. according to the measure of every one; which perfection consists in doing our endeavour. He that does not do that, must never hope to be accepted, because he refuseth to serve God by something that is in his power. But he that does that, is sure that God will not refuse it, because we cannot be dealt withal upon any other account, but by the measures of what is in our power; and for what is not, we cannot take care. Unum Necess. 43. The highest severity of the Gospel is to love God with all our soul, i. e. to love him as much as we can love him, and that is certain we can do: Every man can do as much as he can, and God requires no more. Unum Necess. p. 20.  Pacif. 
That the perfection which God hath promised to accept of, lieth in doing our endeavour and stirring up the grace of God which is in us, I deny not; but I deny that we cannot be dealt with upon any other account but by the measures of what is in our power, or that we cannot take care for what is not in our power. God may deal with us upon the account of what was once in our power. God in the Gospel doth require more than we can do, for his Law is regula officii, not mensura facultatis, it shows what we ought to do, not what we can do; but yet 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 allege 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, than they shall be cleansed from their spots; what Scripture can they allege for this? Sure I am, there's none in the whole Word of God; besides, they attribute more to their own natural death, than 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 ourselves, 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 baptised and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things, and if we say we have no sin, we deceive ourselves, 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 always had high thoughts.  Laud. 
Christ hath perfected the Law, and set it higher than any the most studied 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 God's 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 lawgiver 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 tacitly 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 showing that the Moral duties which are supposed to be de novo enjoined in that chapter were duties enjoined to Israelites as well as us; to some Precepts no addition is pretended to be made, but yet because there is controversy 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. Montague, who saith in his gag that Ido's and Images may be two things; whereas the Homily saith expressly, Part. 2. p. 12. That the Scriptures use the words Images and Idols indifferently for one thng always, 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 joined 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 is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that's Idolatrical; if their confidence and fanciful 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 than 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 canceled 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 mystery of the Trinity in all those niceties of Explication which are in the School (and which now a days 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'll never more believe the mystery 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, let's 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 'tis there, and St. Paul saith it is there, and the Church of God say ever 'tis 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 Elizabeth's injunctions made the first year of her reign 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 satisfy myself about placing the Table Altarwise; so neither could I ever satisfy myself about bowing to the Altar: why should we more bow towards the empty Table or Altar more than 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 God's residence upon earth, I say the greatest, yea greater than the Pulpit; for there 'tis hoc est Corpus meum, but in the Pulpit 'tis 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, 'tis 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 'tis 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 Mary's days did lose their lives: If you mean only in a Sacramental way; is not the blood 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 enjoined rather to worship towards the Table or the Eucharistical Bread, then towards the Baptismal water or the baptistry? Besides, when there was no Sacrament, there was upon the Table or Altar neither the Body of Christ nor any sacred symbol 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 administered 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 honour 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. Gag. p. 200. 'Tis most probable there are Angel keepers, if thus myself 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 Gag. 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 guardian to pray for us, for 'tis not possible that any one without a Revelation from Heaven, should attain to any certainty that there are any Angel guardians, 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 brother's case, and make our Petition to God for him. But that we should pray unto Saints, neither have we any Commandment in scripture, nor yet example which we may safely follow; so that being done without authority of God's 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 reintroduce 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, liturgies, enjoining, 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 persuade 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 midnight 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 ofttimes 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 daily public Prayers, printed 1641. p. 5.  Pacif. 
How much the scope of this place is mistaken might easily be shown, 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 God's 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 loathsome 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 lukewarmness and indifferency in Religion are loathsome 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 forbade 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 forbade to the Jews all images or representments of Creatures, but as Vasquez saith, Omnem imaginem seu effigiem modo accommodato adorationi erectam aut constitutam; modus autem aecomodatus adorationi est, cum imago depicta aut sculpta est per se, non veluti appendix, & additamentum alterius rei, in ornatum illius rei Beware lest thou make to thyself i. e. to any religious use, any graved image. Homily. Peril of Idol. p. 42.  Laud. 
The examples of the Seraphims and Brazen Serpent tell us, that to make pictures or statues of creatures is not against a natural reason, and that they may have uses, which are profitable, as well as be abused to danger and superstition. Now although the nature of that people was apt to the abuse, yet Christianity hath so far removed that danger, that our blessed lawgiver thought it not necessary to remove us from superstition by a prohibition of the use of images and pictures; and for the matter of images we have no other rule left us in the New Testament; the rules of reason and nature, and the other parts of the Institution are abundantly sufficient for our security. And possibly St. Paul might relate to this, when he affirmed concerning the fifth, that it was the first Commandment with a promise; for the second Commandment had a promise of showing mercy to thousand generations; but because the body of this Commandment was not transcribed into the Christian Law, the first of the Decalogue which we retain, and in which a promise is inserted is the fift Commandment. G. E. part. 2. p. 111, 112.  Pacif. 
Do you then think that the second Commandment is not retained by us Christians? I never thought but that it was, if not natural, yet moral, of universal and perpetual obligation, of this judgement were the Ancients, Irene. lib. 4. cap. 31. August. lib. 19 contra Faus. cap. 18 & Epis 119. cap. 12 Not to speak of Clem Alex. who in his Adhortatory Oration to the Gentiles, plainly saith, that the Commandment obligeth us as well as the Jews, though he seem to be mistaken in giving the sense of it; this way also go all Protestants, though indeed the Papists do make this law but temporary. In a word, God allowed the Jews a civil use of Images, and other he alloweth not to us under the Gospel who are not so much out of danger of Idolatry and superstition as you seem to imply.  Laud. 
Images have three uses assigned by the Popish Schools, instruction of the rude, commonefaction of History and stirring up of devotion: they and we also give unto them. Gag. p. 300. The pictures of Christ, the blessed Virgins and Saints may be made, had in houses, set up in Churches, respect and honour may be given to them; the Protestants do it and use them for helps of Piety in rememoration and more effectual representing of the prototype. Ans. to Gag. p. 818.  Pacif. 
The Church of England teacheth her children quite another lesson. Hom. against the peril of Idol. Part 3. p. 42. It is unlawful that the Image of Christ should be made, or that the Image of any Saint should be made, especially to be set up in Temples, to the great and unavoidable danger of Idolatry; we grant Images used for no Religion or Superstition, rather (we mean Images of none worshipped or in danger to be worshipped) may be suffered: but Images placed publicly in Temples cannot possibly be without danger of Idolatry; many such passages may be picked out of that Homily which are the more considerable, because of all our Homilies it seemeth to be penned with most exactness.  Laud. 
It is the Consecration that makes Churches holy, and makes God esteem them so, which though they be not capable of grace, yet by their consecration they receive a spiritual power, whereby they are made fit for Divine Service, and being consecrated there is no danger in ascribing holiness unto them. Tedder his Visit. Sermon, licenced by Dr. Baker. an. 1637.  Pacif. 
That Churches do by Consecration receive any spiritual power, whereby they are made more fit for Divine Service than other places, or that the same company meeting in a private house, and praying by the same Spirit, should not be as acceptable to God as in the Church is Superstition to affirm; nor did the Church of England ever teach any such Doctrine, yet I easily grant that in peaceable times and under Christian Princes the people of God ought to have their {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, and that it is a broach of civil decency to employ these places set a part for God's Worship to any common uses ordinarily.  Laud. 
We use signing with the sign of the Cross both in the forehead and elsewhere, witness that solemn Form in our Baptism, for which we are so quarrelled by our factions: the flesh is signed that the soul may be fortified, saith! Tertullian, and so do we. Ans. to Gag. p. 320.  Pacif. 
If any one besides the Minister useth signing with the Cross, or if he use it at any time but in Baptism, or on any place but on the forehead, 'tis done without any warrant at all from the Church of England, and our Church retained the sign of the Cross in Baptism only as an outward Ceremony and honourable Badge; but it doth not ascribe any efficacy unto it of fortifying the soul, and declares the child to be perfectly baptised before it be signed with the sign of the Cross, as plainly appears from the Book of Canons agreed upon 1603. Chapter. Of the lawful use of the Cross.  Laud. 
Baptism of Infants is most certainly a holy and charitable Ordinance and of ordinary necessity to all that ever died, and yet the Church hath founded this Rite on the Tradition of the Apostles; and wise men do easily observe that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of Scripture enforce a necessity of communicating Infants upon us as we do of baptising Infants upon them, if we speak of an immediate Divine Institution, or of practice Apostolical recorded in Scripture; and therefore a great Master of Geneva in a Book he writ against Anabaptiss was feign to fly to Apostolical Traditive Ordination, and therefore the Institution of Bishops must be served first, as having fairer plea and clearer evidence in Scripture then the baptising of Infants, and yet they that deny this are by the just Anathema of the Church Catholic condemned for heretics. Dr. Tayl. Episc. Asser. p. 100, 101.  Pacif. 
'Tis gratis dictum that the Institution of Bishops hath fairer plea and clearer evidence in Scripture then the baptising of Infants, nor can you prove that they who deny the Baptism of Infants are under the just Anathema of the Church Catholic, much less that they who deny the Institution of Bishops superior in order to Presbyters are under the just Anathema of the Church Catholic: Hath a whole Book been written to prove that none are to be anathematised who consent to the Articles of the Apostles Creed? and must it now be worthy an Anathema to deny Infant Baptism? who but a Papist ever said, that the Church founded the Rite of baptising 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 enforce a necessity of communicating Infants upon us, as we do of baptising 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 perverseness 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 controversy of Episcopacy; Are all Ordinations invalid which are done by mere 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 public interest to approve all they do, that we have disabled ourselves to justify 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 church's opportunity and possibility of such Ordinations, and then necessity of the contrary is but mockery; or if he hath not given such possibility, than there is no Church there to be either built or continued, but the Candlestick is presently removed. Id. p. 193.  Pacif. 
Our Church did always retain Episcopacy, and so she might have done still had not Bishops been more faulty than ever Episcopacy was: But that Ordinations by mere 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 always been acknowledged as true Chnrches, and their Ordinations justified and maintained to be valid against the oppugners of them by our English controversy Writers and Professors, Dr. Holland, Dr. Willet, Dr. Field, Dr. Downham, Mr. Mason. If at any time any ordained by mere 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. Paul's 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 always 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 exemplify in several ages, John Wickliff in the reign 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 nearer he is to Antichrist, and that the Priests of the old Law were forbidden Lordship, and that Christ himself refused and forbade his priest's 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 applied that painful office ofa Bishop to the glory of God and honour of the Realms they dwelled 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 testify, for they applied 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 than any man is able to satisfy, 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 King's Subjects, and meet for his Majesty to choose the best for his Court that be of the Realm, but than 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 Bishop's 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, even the lake of Gehenna, and so to the place of the nearest Denomination. Epis. Asser. p. 379.  Pacif. 
Your wit lying in the affinity of sound betwixt Geenna and Geneva, is much like that of Campian Elizabeth and Jezabel. But as for Lay-Elders I am not much solicitous about them, thinking the Church may be well enough without them, only I cannot think they are so destitute of all Antiquity and Scripture as you imagine; that of 1 Tim. 5. 17. hath more for Lay-Elders than many places in Scripture urged by our Bishops have for Episcopacy. Dr. Whitgist is said to have these words, That he knoweth that the Primitive Church had in every Church certain Seniors, to whom the Government of the Congregation was committed; and in a Book against Mar-Prelate, subscribed by the Archbishop of Canterbury, the Bishop of Winchester, Lincoln and London, it is affirmed That the Government by Elders was used under the Law, and practised under the Gospel by the Apostles, though not fit for our times. Though afterwards repenting this plain Confession, they caused certain words importing the contrary to be printed in a sheet of Paper, which paper was pasted in all the books of the first impression, to cover and conceal the former assertion. This I take on the Testimony of an Author, who so printed in Queen Elizabeth's time in a Tract called A Petition directed to her most Excellent Majesty; but Mr. Nowell is plain in his Catechism in Latin, p. 155. Edit. 1570. Grotius also acknowledgeth that Geneva did not first institute these Officers, but only restored them; nor may it be amiss for the learned Reader to consult about this point of Elders. Bodins Method. cap. 6. p. 245. Let's on to the third Commandment.  Land. 
Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain. This our blessed Saviour repeating, expresseth it thus, It hath been said to them of old, Thou shalt not forswear thyself, to which Christ adds out of Numb. 30. 2. But thou shalt perform thy Oaths unto the Lord; the meaning of the onewe are taught by the other: We must not Invocate the Name of God in any promise in vain, i. e. with a lie; this is to take the Name of God, i. e. to useit, to take it into our mouths for vanity, i. e. according to the perpetual stile of Scripture for a lie, and this is to be understood only in promises, for so Christ explains it out of the Law, Thou shalt perform thy Oaths: for lying in judgement, which is also with an Oath, or taking God's Name for a witness, is forbidden in the ninth Commandment. Grand. Exemp part. 2. p. 114.  Pacif. 
At this rate indeed write Maldonate and the Composer of the Racovian Catechism; but without any reason, for it is gratis dictum that our Lord doth repeat or give the sense of the third Commandment, Exod. 20. 7. It is more probable that he intends those words, Levit. 19 12. As for the words in the third Commandment, they have always been so interpreted by Protestant Commentators, as to forbid not only false swearing, but vain swearing, yea all irreverent use of the Name of God, whether with an Oath or without an Oath: So the Catechism in King Edward the 6ths' reign, so Bishop Hooper in his Exposition of the Decalogae, so the Common Church Catechism, so the Homily, part. 1. p. 45, 46. No one that hath but a smattering skill will deny {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} sometime to signify mendacium or falsum, but it doth also signify gratis in vanum as often, if not more often. The LXX Exod. 20. 7. render {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, Aquila {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}. Yet I can more easily excuse this, if you will but acknowledge that vain and unnecessary Oaths were unlawful to the Jews as well as us.  Laud. 
By the Natural Law it was not unlawful to swear by an oath that employed not Idolatry, or the belief of a false God, (I say) any grave or prudent oath when they spoke a grave truth. And it was lawful for the Jews, in ordinary intercourse, to swear by God, so they did not swear to a lie, (to which also swearing to an impertinence might be reduced by a proportion of reason) for they that swear by him shall be commended, saith the Psalmist, Psal. 63. 11. And swearing to the Lord of hosts is called speaking the Language of Canaan, Isa. 19 18. Great Exem. part. 2. p. 114.  Pacif. 
This is Theology that a sober Heathen would startle at. How do you prove that by the Natural Law it was not unlawful to swear an Oath when they spoke a grave truth? Doth any Scripture say so? Do the more sage sort of profane Writers say so? or do not all rather say, who have not blinded Natural Conscience, That it is not lawful to swear in the gravest matter, if a man may be credited without an oath, or if his oath be not like to be an end of strife? Or what man who knows that God was always tender of his Name and Glory, canthink that it was lawful for the Jews to swear by God in ordinary intercourse? They did ordinarily swear, but it was not lawful so to do. The son of Sirach reproves it, Heathens condemn it: it is indeed said, They that swear by him shall glory, Psal. 63. 11. but it is not said, They that swear by him in ordinary intercourse shall glory, if they should, they would glory in their shame. As for the place, Isa. 19 18. it proves not that swearing to the Lord in ordinary intercourse is speaking the Language of Canaan, but it is a Prophecy only of the calling of Egypt, that sundry of that Nation should make the same Profession and Confession of Faith that God's people did, and that they should by solemn Oath engage themselves to depend on the living Lord alone. How doth this prone that it was lawful for the Jews to swear by God in ordinary intercourse, or that their ordinary communication ought not to be yea, yea, and nay, nay, as well as ours? Pass we on to the fourth Law of the Decalogue.  Laud. 
There was nothing Moral in it, but that we do Honour to God for the Creation, and to that and all other purposes of Religion, separate and hallow some portion of our time. Great Exem. part. 2. p. 119.  Pacif. 
Surely this is the way to rob us of one of the laws of the Decalogue; for either the fourth Commandment is moral for a determinate time, or for nothing at all, some time being moral by the other Commandments, and it would be strange that the Church of England should appoint this fourth Commandment to be publicly read, and teach her members to pray Lord have mercy upon us and incline our hearts to keep this Law, and yet think it had only that latent morality you speak of; if the fourth Commandment be not in force in the words of it, according 
Vide C. & P. Part. 1.  to their literal and Grammatical sense, it is not in force at all, for both Lawyers say, and reason itself shows 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 Lord's day till the time of the Laodicaean Council, about 300 years after Christ's Nativity, and almost in every thing made them equal, and therefore did not esteem the Lord's 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 Lord's 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 days, how doth it hence follow, that the Lord's 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 days observed; the Sabbath first, though not as would the Ebionites, in a Jewish sort: and after that the Lord's 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 Magnesis. is depraved; and if you will take the pains to consult either the old Latin 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. 
'Tis true, that in some tract of time the Church in honour of Christ's 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 than 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 God's Will and Commandment is to have a solemn time and standing day in the week, wherein the people should come together, and have in remembrance 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: 'Tis to me sufficient, that the Lord's Day is of Divine Institution, whether immediate by Christ, or mediate by his Apostles; and that it is of Divine Institution one of these ways, is, I take it, easily proved by Antiquity and Reason: The homily entitled De sement, 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 citys, 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 Christ's 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 world's Creation; ascribes the Institution of the Lord's 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 Lord's 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 Lord's 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 Apostolic men, and call not this day the Lord's 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 of it after the mind of some Jew, hired to be their godfather, call it the Sabbath: This name Sabbath is not a bare name, or like a spot in their foreheads, to know Laban's sheep from jacob's, 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 Lord's Day. Hence it is that some for want of wit, too much adore the Sabbath as an Image dropped 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 murder, &c. All which doubts would soon be dissolved by plucking off the vizard of the Sabbath from the face of the Lord's 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 expressly directed against none but Puritans, yet must it needs redound on the Church of England, who in her Homilies gives the Lord's 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 Lord's Day a Sabbath, and how many others have done so, neither you nor I, without more search than 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 enjoins the Lord's Day to be kept as a Sabbath with rest from all weekday 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 God's 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 virtue 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 God's public Service; the Precept so far forth, as it enjoins one day in seven or the seventh day precisely from the world's 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 logic tells us that these Propositions are heavenly wide, and the Homily sufficiently implieth that the Precept so far as it enjoineth one day in seven was not an utter Ceremony; for it saith that we by virtue of that Precept are bound to have a time as one day in seven.  Laud. 
'Tis 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 mere natural employments: but that we give ourselves 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 God's public 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 always 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 God's public Worship, we wholly sequester ourselves from all worldly business, I believe you do not think that is all the meaning of the Homily, for are not the words plain, God's obedient people should use the Sunday holily and rest from their common and daily business, and also give themselves, &c. The Sunday not a part of it should be used holily and with rest from common daily business: But what do I trouble myself about this, had the Homily said just the whole day, you would also have found out some evasion as you do, for St. Chrysostom's {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 shalt love thy neighbour as thyself.  Laud. 
It is evident by infinite Texts of the Law, that a man's neighbour in this Precept extends no further than to Israelites, whether by birth or Religion, that is to say, those that are engrafted into the Covenant by being circumcised: E. G. let me ask, How the Law could forbid the Israelites to seek the good of the Moabites and Ammonites, and yet to love all men under the quality of neighbours, as themselves; let me demand of any man, how Mordecai was tied, not to do that honour to Haman that his sovereign commanded to be done? How could he in conscience disobey his Prince in a matter of indifference, had it not been prohibited by the Law of God? H. T. Principles of Christian Truth. p. 86.  Pacif. 
So far is it from being evident by infinite Texts of Scripture, that by a man's neighbour is meant only an Israelite, that I never yet could meet with one Scripture to that purpose, nor I believe ever shall. To love all men as ourselves is as natural a Law, as for a Father to seek the life and welfare of his children, or for a man not to steal the goods of another; these are all natural laws necessary and indispensable; if God command Abraham to Sacrifice his child, the Israelites to take away the goods of the Egyptians, the same Israelites to take away the lives of the Ammonites, &c. God in such cases doth not dispense with his Law, but only there is, as the Schools call it, immutat o materiae, which immutation is made by God, say they, not as a Legislator, but as Dominus; it is not doubted, but that we Christians are bound to love others of whatsoever Nation as ourselves, yet it may fall out and sometime doth so fall out, that we are under command not to seek the good or preserve the life of some who have by rebellion forfeited their lives and fortunes. The Jews had a particular command to root out the Canaanites, (at least if they did not submit themselves) had they not had that particular command, they had been as much bound to seek their good as I am bound to seek the welfare of any one of a different Religion from the people of God.  Laud. 
When our Saviour saith, Be not angry without cause, he forbiddeth not the first motions, the twincklings of the eye as the Philosopher calls them; the propassions and sudden irresistible alterations; for it is impossible to prevent them, unless we could give ourselves a new nature, any more than we can refuse to wink with our eye, when a sudden blow is offered at it, or refuse to yawn when I see a sleepy yawning person; but by frequent and habitual mortification, by continual watchfulness and standing in readiness against all inadvertencies, we shall lessen the inclinations, and account fewer sudden irreptions. Dr. J. T. Part. 2. G. E. p. 122.  Pacif. 
You are not sure ignorant, that the Protestants do generally hold against Papists, that the motus primo-primi to any thing that is evil are forbidden; the Law forbids not only that which is possible for us to avoid, but also that which it ever was in our power to avoid; and sure if frequent and habitual mortification will lessen the inclination, before the fall we had no inclination, and if those inclinations and first stirrings are not forbidden, it is to no purpose that a man should take any pains to mortify them; if those propassions be not forbidden, how is a man more holy when he accounts fewer sudden irreptions than when more? what is not forbidden defileth not.  Laud. 
The holy Jesus forbids to Christians all revenge of injuries, which was a perfection and endeerment of duty beyond what either most of the old Philosophers, or the laws of the Nation or of Moses ever practised or enjoined; for revenge was esteemed, to unhallowed, unsanctified nature as sweet as life, a satisfaction of injuries, and the only cure of maladies and affronts. Only, laws of the wisest commonwealths, commanded that revenge should be taken by the Judge, a few cases being excepted. But Christ commanded his Disciples rather than to take revenge, to expose themselves to a second injury, rather to offer the other cheek then to be avenged for a blow on this; for vengeance belongs to God. Gr. Ex. P. 2. p. 30.  Pacif. 
If you speak of private revenge, that is forbidden by the law of Nations, and by Moses his law, and condemned by many of the old Philosophers; for though Tully say. justitiae primum munus est, ut ne cui noceas, nisi lacessitus injuriâ, which made Lactantius write of him, that simplicem, veramque sententiam duorum verborum adjectione corrupit; yet with Seneca, immane verbum est ultio, & qui ulsciscitur excusatius peccat. So Moses, Levit. 19 16. Thou shalt not avenge or bear any grudge against the Children of thy people, but thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself. And Solomon, Prov. 24. 29. Say not, I will do to him as he hath done to me: I will render to the man according to his works: If you speak of public revenge, prove that more unlawful under the Gospel then under the Law. Prove that Christ when he saith, If any man strike thee on the one cheek, giveth rule to Magistrates and not to private Christians, or that vengeance did not belong to the Lord under the Old as well as under the New Testament. But what think you, Is it lawful to kill rather than to be killed?  Laud. 
Although we find this nowhere forbidden, yet it is very consonant to the excellent mercy of the Gospel and greatly laudable, if we choose rather to lose our life in imitation of chest, then save it by the loss of another's in pursuance of the permissions of nature: When Nature only gives leave and no lawgiver gives command to defend our lives, and the excellency of Christianity highly commends dying for our enemies, and propounds to our imitation the greatest example that ever could be in the world, it is a very great imperfection, if we choose not rather to obey an insinuation of the holy Jesus then with greediness and appetite pursue the bare permission of nature Great. Ex. part. 2. p. 131.  Pacif. 
I grant it would be not only a great imperfection, but a very great sin, with greediness and appetite to pursue the permission of nature; he that kills another, though unavoidably put upon it for his own necessary defence, must do it with a bleeding heart, so must also the Judge upon the Bench justis suppliciis illachrymare, & ingemiscere, but that when I am assaulted, no law should command me to defend my life, or that, if I should suffer him who without any warrant or authority assaults me by the highway side, to take away my life, rather than take his, I should in such a case lose my life in imitation of Christ, is Divinity unheard of in the Protestant Schools. How can Christ's laying down his life as a satisfaction to Divine Justice thereby to make way for man's Redemption, be any secret insinuation to me that I must rather surfer a boisterous wretch to sheathe his Sword in my bowels, then sheathe mine in his, if I have no other probable way to secure my own person then by dispatching his. Christianity is indeed a law of highest charity, but charity not only may, but also must begin at home.  Laud. 
Those words, If a man will sue thee at the law, and take thy cloak, let him have thy coat also, are a particular instance in pursuit of the general Precept; resist not or avenge not evil; the Primitive Christians were sometimes severe in observation of the letter, not subtly distinguishing Counsels from Precepts, but swallowing all the words of Christ without chewing or discrimination. They abstained from tribunals unless they were forced thither by persecutors, but went not thither to repeat their goods. Id. part. 2. p. 135.  Pacif. 
The reason why the Primitive Christians went not to the Tribunals to repeat their goods, might be because the Tribunals were then occupied by Heathen Judges, the appearing before whom might be a snare to them; but undoubtedly the words of our Saviour are a precept, not a counsel; For 1. the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} need not to be understood of a legal impleading a Brother in a Court of Judicature, both Beza and Grotius (which is strange) agree, that it may mean any contentious striving, or quarrelling, or fighting, which a man must not allow himself for a greater matter cloak. This Exposition is confirmed by St. Luke, who useth a word that plainly denoteth and implieth force and violence. 2. Let the word {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} be taken in the sense that our Translators retain, yet questionable it is, whether it be not unlawful to go to law for so small and slight a matter as a coat; {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} was the Vestis interior & minoris pretii, saith Causabon.  Laud. 
To go to law for revenge we are simply forbidden, i. e. to return evil for evil, and therefore all those suits which are for vindictive sentences, not for reparative, are directly criminal: To follow a thief to death for spoiling my goods, is extremely unreasonable and uncharitable; for as there is no proportion between my goods and his life so the putting him to death repairs not my estate; the first makes it in me to be unjust, the later declareth me malicious and revengeful. Id. Ibid.  Pacif. 
If all suits that are for vindictive sentences are directly criminal, then is it also directly criminal for the Judge to give such sentences as are vindictive: And doth it become an English Divine, without prefacing an Apology, or adding any one reason, to call the prosecuting of a thief to death for spoiling my goods extremely unreasonable and uncharitable, when as it is not only allowed but also enjoined by our English Law. I perceive you and I hit it not at all in the Exposition of the Commandments; Pray you let me hear your mind about Repentance and the three commonly assigned parts of it, Confession, Contrition, Satisfaction; Justification or Pardon of Sin promised to those who repent, &c.  Laud. 
The New Covenant is then consigned to us, when we first come to Christ, when we first profess ourselves his Disciples and his Servants; Disciples of his Doctrine, and Servants of his Institution: i. e. in Baptism, in which Christ who died for our sins makes us partakers of his death; and than it is that God pours forth together with the Sacramental waters, a Salutary and holy Fountain of Grace to wash the soul from all its stains and impure adherencies. G. E part. 2. p. 61.  Pacif. 
Either you would be understood of the Baptism of Infants, or of the Baptism of persons adult; if of the Baptism of Infants, I desire to know; 1. How a salutary and holy fountain of grace is poured out to wash them from all stains and impure adherencies, when as you told us before, that the souls of such have no impure adherencies? where God hath promised that when a child is baptised he will pour out such a salutary and holy fountain of grace? If he do at any time give grace at baptism, sure I am baptism can be no either physical or moral instrument of such a change; if you speak of the baptism of adult persons, they are supposed before they are baptised to have repented and believed, and so to have been made partakers of grace before they are baptised.  Laud. 
This first access to Christ is in the stile of Scripture called Regeneration, the new Birth, Redemption, Renovation, Expiation or Atonement with God, and Justification; and these words in the New Testament relate principally and properly to the abolition of sins committed before baptism. Id. ibid.  Pacif. 
Throughout all the Scripture I dare boldly say, our first access to Christ is never called either atonement with God or Justification; nor do these words relate either more properly or principally to sins committed before baptism, then to sins committed after baptism: When sins committed after baptism are pardoned, are we not then justified freely by the grace of God through the Redemption that is in Jesus Christ, whom God hath set forth to be a Propitiation to declare his righteousness, &c.  Laud. 
After we are once reconciled in Baptism, and put entirely into God's favour, when we have once been redeemed, if we then fall away into sin, we must expect God's dealing with us in another manner and to other purposes. Never must we expect to be so again justified, and upon such terms as formerly: The best days of our repentance are interrupted; not that God will never forgive them that sin after baptism and recover by repentance, but that restitution by repentance after baptism is another thing than the first redemption. No such entire, clear and integral determinate and presential effects of repentance, but an imperfect, little, growing, uncertain and hazardous reconciliation. A repentance, that is always in production, a renovation by parts, a pardon that is revocable, a salvation to be wrought by fear and trembling; all our remanent life must be in bitterness, our hopes allayed with fears, our meat attempered with coloquintida, and death is in the pot; as our best actions are imperfect, so our greatest graces are but possibilities and aptnesses to reconcilement, and all our life we are working ourselves into that condition we had in baptism, and lost by our relapse. G. E. part. 2. p. 64, 65.  Pacif. 
Strange doctrine, for which you can neither produce Scripture, nor yet the authority of any one Protestant Writer; we are not justified upon other terms before baptism and after, nor is our reconciliation after baptism more uncertain or hazardous then before, nor our pardon more revocable. God promiseth pardon to adult persons only upon the condition of Faith, Repentance; where these are, a man is justified, though he have not as yet had an opportunity of being baptised; where these are not, baptism is but the washing away of the filth of the flesh. It is not Baptism but God's 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 recall, never will he recall.  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 ministered to all baptised 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 settling 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 ministered to all baptised 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 than 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 days 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 denied, 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 God's Word, manifestly perceived, and being enemy thereunto, persecutoth the same, and because such be guilty of God's curse they entangle themselves with a most grievous and heinous 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 men's accounts upon the stock of God's 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 lain 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 died in vain for thee? he will not be thy Jesus or Saviour, thou must make satisfaction for thyself or perish eternally. As for our Homilies, they plainly declare that there is a revealed Word for the pardon of late Penitents, and they answer the objections of the despairing, as well as of the presumptuous, concluding at last thus; God which hath promised his mercy to them that be truly repentant (although it be at the later end) hath not promised to the presumptuous sinner, either that he shall have long life, or that he shall have true repentance at the last exd. And I pray you, why may not God work the habit of saving grace, and give the Holy Ghost to those who are ready to give up the ghost? are not such habits infused?  Laud. 
We may as well say, there can be a habit born with us, as infused in to us; for as a natural habit supposeth a frequency of actions by him who hath natural abilities; so doth an infused habit (if there were any such:) it is a result and consequent of a frequent doing the works: so that to say, that God in an instant infuseth into us an habit (of chastity) is to say, that he hath in an instant infused into us to have done the acts of that grace frequently. Un. Necess. p. 272.  Pacif. 
I see not any absurdity in saying, a habit may be born with us. Original righteousness is thought to have the nature of an habit, yet had not the Protoplast lapsed, it had been born with us, and been natural to us; and methinks it is no strange thing, that there should be habits in the soul which are not the result and consequence of frequent actions; for what think you of the gratiae gratis datae are not they habits? and yet were they not instantaneously produced in the souls of Prophets and Apostles? it would be strange, that there should be from a natural man any supernatural action, were not the natural faculty first elevated by some supernatural habit infused into us, we being only the recipients.  Laud 
This device of infused habits, is a fancy without ground and without sense, without authority or any just grounds of confidence, and it hath in it very bad effects; for it destroys all necessity of our care and labour in the ways of godliness, all cautions of an holy life; it is apt to minister pretences and excuses for a perpetually wicked life till the last of our days, making men to trust to a late repentance; it puts men upon vain confidences, and makes them rely for salvation upon dreams and empty notions; it destroys all the duty of man, and cuts off all intercourse of reward and obedience. Unum Necess. 273.  Pacif. 
This is high language, especially seeing it must needs concern almost the whole Protestant Church, whose suffrage certainly will gain an opinion, some credit and esteem among sober modest persons; verily why there should be more nonsense in infused habits then in acquired habits, I know not, and cannot reject a distinction generally received without some very pregnant reason; as for what you pretend, that the doctrine of infused habits doth produce sad effects, destroying all necessity of care and labour, &c. it moves me not; you hold I suppose that the soul is not ex traduce, but by immediate creation, Creando infunditur, & infundendo creature; yet none ever thought on this account, that marriage and due benevolence among married people is needless; the new creature is the workmanship of God, but yet there are certain antecedaneous preparatory works wrought by attendance on Ordinances, whereby the soul is qualified and made a fit and meet receptacle for supernatural grace: if we resist these, we make a bloody adventure upon the patience, forbearance and long sufferance of God. But this conceit of destroying labour and endeavour, of making Exhortations needless and useless, is an old stale objection of the Pelagians and Massilians, the grand adversaries of divine grace, confuted by Austin, Prosper, Fulgentius.  Laud. 
A special confession unto a Priest of all our sins committed after Baptism so far forth as we remember, is necessary unto salvation in the judgement of Fathers, Schoolmen, and almost all andquity, not only Necessitate praecepti, but also necessitate medii; so that according to the ordinary, or revealed means appointed by Christ, there can be no salvation without the foresaid Confession. Mr. Adam's referente Pryn. in Canterbury's Doom. p. 192.  Pacif. 
I shall now know what to think of those who cry all Fathers, Schoolmen, Antiquity, that they do but boast of things that they never examined; for he that is any way conversant in the writings of the Fathers cannot but know that no such doctrine is generally delivered by them, nor do all the Schoolmen deliver any such Doctrine; sure I am, the Church of England hath imposed no such burden on her sons and members; nay she hath most clearly determined against the necessity of this Confession in her Homilies, Part. 2. Of the Sermon of Repentance, p. 266, 267. And in her liturgy she only adviseth it where a man's conscience is so perplexed, that he cannot extricate himself without calling in the assistance of another.  Laud. 
Men are taught that they must pass through the terrors of the Law before they can receive the mercies of the Gospel: The Law was a Schoolmaster to bring the Synagogue to Christ, it was so to them who were under the Law, but cannot be so to us who are not under the Law but under Grace; for if they mean the Law of Works, or that imposition which was the first intercourse with man, they lose their title to the mercies of the Gospel; if they mean the Law of Moses, than they do not stand fast in the liberty by which Christ hath made them free: but whatsoever the meaning be, neither of them can concern Christians. Unum Neces. p. 42.  Pacif. 
Do you then think that the Law is of no use to us Christians?  Laud 
The use that we Christians are to make of the Law, is only to magnify the mercies of God in Jesus Christ, who hath freed us from so severe a Covenant, who does not judge us by the measures of an Angel, but by the span of a man's hand. But we are not to subject ourselves so much as by fiction of Law, or fancy to the curse and threatenings of the Covenant of Works, or of Moses his Law though it was of more instances and less severity, by reason of the allowance of Sacrifices for Expiation. Un. Neces. p. 41.  Pacif. 
I judge with all Divines that we are to make another use of the Law then that you mention; we are to use it as a regula officii to show us our duty, how much we owe to God, and how much God may justly require of us, and so it will be a Schoolmaster to bring us to Christ, for whilst we see how much short we fall of our duty, we shall see a necessity of closing with Christ upon the terms and conditions of the Gospel; we are as much under the Law of Moses the moral part of it as ever were the Jews, and the Jews were as much under grace as we, aeque I say, though not aequaliter.  Laud. 
Every Christian man sinning, is to consider the horrible threatenings of the Gospel, the severe intermination of eternal pains, the goodness of God leading to repentance, the severity of his justice in exacting great punishments of criminals, the reasonableness of this justice punishing such persons intolerably, who would not use so great a grace in so pleasing a service, for the purchase of so glorious a reward. The terrors of the Law did end in temporal death, they could affright no further; but in the Gospel Heaven and Hell were opened, and laid before all mankind: and therefore by these measures a sinner is to enter into the sorrows of contrition and the care of his amendment. And it is so vain a thing to think every sinner must in his Repentance pass under the terrors of the Law, that this is a very destruction of that reason for which they are fallen upon the opinion; the Law is not enough to affright sinners, and the terrors of the Gospel are far more to persevering impenitent sinners, than the terrors of the Law were to the breakers of it; the cause of the mistake is this: The Law was more terrible than the Gospel is, because it allowed no mercy to the sinner in great instances; but the Gospel does. But then, if we compare the state of these men who fell under the evils of the Law, with those who fall under the evils threatened in the Gospel, we shall find these to be in a worse condition than those by far, as much as Hell is worse than being stoned to death or thrust through with a sword. Un. Neces. p. 41.  Pacif. 
All men will grant that Heaven and Hell are more clearly opened under the New than under the Old Testament: But this I cannot digest, That the terrors of the Law did end in Temporal death, and could affright no further, or that the Law is not enough to affright sinners. For what mean you by the Law, the Covenant of Works, or the Law administered by Moses? either of them sure is enough to affright sinners; or else God had been wanting, not threatening terror sufficient to affright people from wickedness. Christ freeth us from the wrath to come, and yet he freeth us but from that wrath which as transgressors of the Law we have incurred. What think you of those sinners who never heard of the Gospel? shall they die only a Temporal death? If so, Hell will be more empty than is generally believed. If they die an Eternal death, than the Law threatneth more than Temporal death, for they can suffer only as transgressors and offenders of the Law. But I pray you what do you think of Satisfaction, is not that made only by Christ?  Laud. 
He that is ready to be cast away upon the Sea may well be taught to pray Be pleased to unite my death to the death of thy Son, and to accept it so united as a punishment for all my sins, that thou mayest forget all thine anger, and blot my sins out of thy book. Rules and exercis. of Holy Liv. p. 393, 394.  Pacif. 
This is sure Popery if any thing in the world be Popery: For it plainly tendeth to bring those Papal satisfactions which are so abundantly proved by our Protestant controversy writers to be derogatory to the worth and value of that perfect Satisfaction made by Christ on the Cross for all the sins of the whole world, both Original and Actual. Vid. Art. 31. Why should I pray to God to unite my death to the death of Christ? Is not Christ's death sufficient to expiate the guilt of all my sins? How can I think that my being cast away at Sea, should be accepted by God as a punishment for all my sins? What am I to think of Justification, not unmeetly called by Luther, Articulus stantis aut cadentis Ecclesiae.  Laud. 
A sinner is then justified, when he is made Just, i. e. Translated from state of Nature, to state of Grace. Ans. to Gag. p. 142. Justification consisteth in forgiveness of sins primarily, and grace infused secondarily; both the acts of God's Spirit in man. Id. p. 143. To justify hath a threefold extent 1. To make just and righteous. 2. To make more just and righteous. 3. To declare and pronounce just. Justification properly is in the first acception: a sinner is then justified when he is made just; i. e. transformed in mind, renewed in soul, regenerate by grace. Id. p. 140. 142, 141. compared.  Pacif. 
That we are not justified before we are changed, is certain enough, and proved by many Scriptures and reasons: but that Justification doth primarily in Scripture signify the making of us just, that's the error of the Church of Rome, and directly contrary to the Church of England, which placeth it in forgiveness of sins alone, Artic. 11. and makes it to signify the declaring or pronouncing of us just, for the righteousness of Christ imputed to us. And I pray you tell me what is it, according to your Principles, that procureth our acceptation with God?  Laud. 
What else but doing well? If thou do well, shalt thou not be accepted? Psa. 15. Isa. 1. 16,— 20. Ezek. 18. 1. 9 Dan 4. 27. Mic. 6. 6, 7, 8. If this be well considered, it will cause us to set a price and value upon well doing, and upon good works, which of late have been undervalued and decried under the names of Popery and Arminianism, &c. Are they not the end of our Creation? Ephes. 2. 10. Are they not the end of our Redemption? Tit. 2. 14. Dr. Gell. p. 33.  Pacif. 
What else procures acceptance with God himself but well-doing? The death of Christ doth it, for we are accepted in the Well-beloved: He being the Well-beloved in whom God is well-pleased. Our well-doing doth not procure our acceptance with God, but it is only conditio sinè quâ non, it is but causa dispositiva: had we done never so well, without the suffering of Christ, there had been no acceptation with God since the Fall. I know none who call good works Popery or Arminianism: but they who press good works so as to make them the sole procurers of our Justification, are deservedly concluded to be Popish. We are the workmanship of God, created in Christ Jesus unto good works, which God hath ordained that we should walk in them. And yet his meaning is not by these words to induce us to have any affiance, or to put any confidence in our works, as by the merit and deserving of them, to purchase to ourselves and others the remission of our sins, and so consequently everlasting life: for that were mere Blasphemy against God's mercy, and great derogation to the bloodshedding of our Saviour Jesus Christ. Homil. Part. 2. p. 81. We have not much agreed in matters of Doctrine hitherto, I hope we may better agree about the State of Souls after death, and the condition of the wicked after the general judgement.  Laud. 
Let it be so, That the souls of the Fathers were not in Heaven before our Saviour, I deny it necessary that they were therefore in Hell: that Region I call Abraham's bosom, which though it be not Heaven, yet is it higher than Hell. Gag. 281.  Pacif. 
The souls of the godly, separated from the body, do, and always 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'll say that opinion is false; but the Church of England hath plainly expressed herself 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 Christ's 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 Abraham's bosom, a place of all comfort and consolation; as the Scriptures do plainly by manifold words testify.  Laud. 
The opinion carrieth no impiety with it, nothing derogatory to the Gospel or Kingdom of Christ, but rather seems to add much lustre to our saviour's 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 died under the Law, were kept from being admitted into a participation of the joys 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 privilege than their Father Abraham, and all the rest who died before in the fear of God before the coming of our Saviour, and be admitted presently into the joys of Paradise? Id. ibid.  Pacif. 
It is strange if the opinion tend so much to the honour of Christ and the glory of the Gospel, that the Church of England should give her children no notice of it, but rather express herself against it. And seeing you have laboured to make it appear that both the Greek Hades and the Latin Inferi, signify 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 replied, 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 itself 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 alleged 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 claim of the devil 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 died in the fear of God. And this death of Christ had its effects and operations upon those who died before Christ, as well as upon those who died since he actually offered himself upon the Cross. But the truth is, all this discourse of Christ's 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 public Monuments and Records of the Church, we shall find th' doctrine of Christ's local descent into Hell, to have been retained and established amongst many other Catholic 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 employed in that Synod, of a contrary mind: I instance only in Bishop Hooper, who in his Exposition on the Creed doth most expressly 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 persuaded; 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 through the whole world: but than it must be considered, that the Symbol of the Apostles hath not been always 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 Christ's Burial; nay, the Learned observe, That in the very Aquileian Creed, where this Article was first expressed, there was no mention of Christ's Burial, which is at least a very probable argument that the first intention of putting these words into the Creed, was only to express the Burial of our Saviour. This Aquileian Creed in which we first find the words was not till above 300 years after Christ.  Laud. 
Long before this time Ignatius Bishop of Antioch, the most famous City of the East, repeated it as a part of the Creed, Id. p. 226.  Pacif. 
Ignatius repeateth it not as an Article of the Apostles Creed, nor is there in Ignatius any Collection of the Creed; that place unto which you refer in the Epistle ad Trallianos, being foisted into him, and not found in the best and most emendate Editions; but if you will follow the usual and commonly received Edition of Ignatius, then consult the Epistle ad Magnesianos, and there you will find no notice taken of Christ's descending into Hell. As for what is urged either from Scripture or from the Analogy of Faith to prove Christ's descent into Hell, I refer any impartial reader to what is judiciously determined by M. Amyraldus. Thes. Salm. De decensu Christi ad inferos; where I think there is more said against this Doctrine than will easily be answered. I freely assent to that of Augustine that none but an Infidel will deny Christ's descent into Hell: but the question is in what sense he descended into Hell: Nor do I think there is any demonstrative argument from which it can be proved that Christ descended into Hell, in your sense.  Laud. 
The most clear and pregnant place of Scripture for proof of Christ's descent into Hell, is that of Act. 2. where the Apostle citing those words of David, Psal. 16. Thou wilt not leave my soul in hell, nor suffer thy holy One to see corruption, applieth it thus unto our Saviour, that David seeing this before, spoke of the Resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell. Id.  Pacif. 
{non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} eo loci sepulcrum est, quod est in Scripturâ solenne, saith Amyrald. As for {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman}, that may either denote the whole person by a Synecdoche, or else by a metonymy, the dead body itself, which is not unusual in Scripture, saith the same Author. Nor can any one deny but {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Hebrew, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in Greek, do signify a dead body: And {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Hebr. word, and {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} the Greek word do both signify sometimes no more than the grave.  Laud. 
It is a strange consideration to suppose an eternal torment to those to whom it was never threatened; to those who never heard of Christ; to those that lived probably well; to Heathens of good lives; to ignorants and untaught people; to people surprised in a single crime; to men that die young in their natural follies and foolish lusts; to them that fall in a sudden gaiety and excessive joy; to all alike; to all infinite and eternal, even to unwarned people; and that this should be inflicted by God, who infinitely loves his Creatures, who died for them, who pardons easily and pitieth readily, and excuseth much, and delights in our being saved, and would not have us die, and takes little things in exchange for great. It is certain that God's mercies are infinite, and it is also certain, that the matter of eternal torments cannot truly be understood; and when the schoolmen go about to reconcile the divine Justice to that severity, and consider why God punisheth eternally a temporal sin or state of evil, they speak variously, and uncertainly, and unsatisfyingly. Dr. Tayl. 2. part. of Ser. p. 40, 41.  Pacif. 
The justice of God doth manifest itself in such a way as is strange, but yet such as shall be manifested to be according to righteousness: but you jumble so many things together, that I know not what to make of what you have said. What people are they surprised only in a single crime that are adjudged to eternal vengeance? How can one that lives to years of discretion be guilty only of a single crime? Wherefore do you in general say, That what is brought by the Schools to vindicate God's justice in punishing a temporal sin with eternal punishment is unsatisfying, without attempting to refute their Arguments? No question they bring some answers to that objection which will not hold water; but questionless they also bring other some which will never be answered while the world doth stand. However, I hope you think that the pains of the damned in Hell shall be eternal.  Laud. 
That in this question I may separate the certain from the uncertain; 1. It is certain that the Torments of Hell shall certainly last as long as the soul lasts. 2. The generality of Christians have been taught to believe worse things yet concerning them. 3. Yet if God should deal with man hereafter more mercifully and proportionably to his weak nature than he doth to Angels, and as he admits him to repentance here, so in hell also to a period of smart, even when he keeps the Angels in pains for ever, yet he will never admit him to favour, he shall be tormented beyond all the measure of human ages, and be destroyed for ever and for ever. Id. ibid. & p. 42.  Pacif. 
So then, it seems it is only certain that torments shall last as long as the soul lasts; but that the soul shall live for ever, that is not certain; only the generality have been taught so to believe. Do Protestant Doctors use to teach their hearer's {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} in a matter of so high and huge concernment in reference to the practice of godliness?  Laud. 
All this while we have said nothing directly as touching the judgement of the Church in the five points so much controverted.  Pacif. 
Nor need any thing be said about them; for surely it hath been sufficiently proved by more Authors than one, That the Church hath all along expressed her dislike to the full of all Arminian notions, and hath made use of all her authority to censure and impose recantation upon as many as have ventured to broach them.  Laud. 
So indeed it hath been printed with much confidence by some of the Puritanical faction, but how falsely, the Learned Dr. Heylin hath largely showed in his late Historia quinque articulorum.  Pacif. 
Dr. Heylin doth so much mingle his Passion with all that he writes, that he marreth every cause he meddleth with; and I have been told by a Master of Arts and Fellow of a college, That Dr. H. Hammond walking with him once in Magdalen college cloister did confess so much.  Laud. 
But Dr. H. H. denyeth that ever he so said; and we are told by one who writes himself M. O. B. of A. that the Doctor is a great admirer of Dr. Heylins labours.  Pacif. 
I have told you upon what authority T. C. printed what he did in this matter: and if Dr. Ham. who so much decrieth any thing that hath but the appearance of bitterness in others, can not only brook, but also admire the writings of Dr. Heylin, notwithstanding all the bitterness that is in them, I must needs say, that Ployden is not the only man with whom the case doth alter: for sure the tartness which he blameth in Dr. Owen is not comparable to that which runneth through all the veins of Dr. Heylins books. But I must not count myself engaged to believe any thing of this nature till I see something testified under Dr. Ham. his own hand; then the world shall know who told the story.  Laud. 
But the Doctor hopeth he hath made it appear that Calvinism was not the Native and Original doctrine of the Church of England, though in a short time it overspread a great part thereof. Pres. to His. Quin. Artic.  Pacif. 
He may hope where no hope is; and that he doth so in this particular Theophilus Churchman hath evinced in his Review of the Certam. Epistolare which was but an Epitome of this Historia quin. Artic. the Doctor all along using the very same shifts, and almost the very same words in one book that he doth in the other; and herein he doth but antiquum obtinere; for so in his Resp. Pet. he tells the very same tale that he did in the History of the Sab. not vouchsafing to take any notice that two learned men had in print many years before answered all his Subterfuges. And he that can thus bring an old book upon the Stage under a new Title, and rob his former writings to fill up the bulk of his latter, doth but declare that he hath got an itch of scribbling which I am not so good a Physician as to be able to cure. As for the indignities that he hath offered to the Belgic Churches, I leave him to be chastized by the pens of some of their own Members, who will easily manifest that the Synod of Dort was not so ugly a creature as he hath made it, and that the proceedings against the Remonstrants were neither unjust nor yet rigorous: Mean while I refer the reader to what Hornebeck hath said in his Summa Contr. I must only take leave to say something in vindication of T. C. in throwing reproaches upon whom, the Doctor is so very not only liberal but also profuse. He tells us that the gentleman whom he did strive to prefer to Mag. was none of his blood; T. C. never said that he was: and that he was a singular good Scholar; T. C. never denied it. As for Mr. Hickman, he was one of the means of procuring him an exhibition of fifteen pound per annum to help towards his subsistence in the university till he should be able to provide himself of some such place as might alone suffice to keep him. But sure Dr. Heylin when he sought to bring in this his friend (a friend I hope is relatum) did not take the college to be a nest of Cuckoos; he would not sure have took a courtesy from Mr. Praesi if he had not judged him to have power sufficient to bestow it: And had his friend been made Fellow of the college, he would sure for his sake have been so civil as not to have used so ugly a similitude. Indeed if singing always the same note and tune make a Cuckoo, all the Cuckoos do not lodge at Mag. college. Next the Doctor labours to prove that it was no slander to say, That the new Sabbath speculations of Dr. Bound had been more passionately embraced of late, than any one Article of Religion here by Law established. But this he proveth by such an argument as I persuade myself he himself takes not to have any colour of truth in it. Because impunity is indulged by them to all, Anabaptists, Familists, Ranters. By them! whom meaneth the Doctor? if he mean by any that deserve the name of Calvinists, his Conscience cannot but fly in his face: if by them he mean the soldiers whose violence prevailed so far as to seclude the Members of that Parliament, which was, if any, the Presbyterian Parliament, than his Argument must run thus; The soldiers, many of whom are Anabaptists and Arminians, all of them Anticalvinists, have procured impunity to Familists, Ranters, Quakers, and yet not for those who transgress the Laws about the Sabbath, therefore the Calvinists are more zealous about the Sabbath speculations then about any one Article of Religion by Law established. If the world will be cheated with such arguments, let it be cheated: yet dare not I imitate the doctor in despising of authority or speaking evil of dignities; I dare not leave it in print, That the Justice used cursed rigor who made a Victualler pay ten shillings for selling a halfpenny loaf to a poor man in time of Sermon. I rather think it was cursed rigor to Excommunicate Mr. Paul Bains for withdrawing to drink a little Wine or Beer after he had spent himself in Preaching a Sermon: yet this I find practised.  
The Doctor next proceedeth to make some Apology for his calling himself, His majesty's Creature, and the workmanship of his hands: One while he seems to say no such thing dropped from his Pen; another while, that if it had, the expression might have been justified. He hath been told where and by whom it was averred that he did use those expressions; I only now tell him, The Gentleman was fasting when he so said, and that M. C. Bursery is not a place in which men are, or I hope ever were suffered to inflame themselves with wine and strong drink, so as to make them talk that which they would be ashamed to own afterwards. As to the expression itself, I had well hoped, that if a Courtier could have stooped so low in flattery, yet no Divine, whose work is to be King's remembrancer; that they are but Mortal Creatures and Creeping Dust, durst have used any such language: if the Doctor dare, he shall pardon me if I do not take him to be the tenderest Conscienced Theologue in Christendom. As for what concerneth Dr. Barlow, I say but this, That both Mr. John Martin Fellow of C. C. C. Ox. and also Dr. Henry Wilkinson will witness that Mr. Sparks did assert all that to be truth which T. C. hath published; and that Mr. Sparks was both a learned man and a good man, all the University will witness: but as for the aged person who related this to Mr. Sparks, he either is, or very lately was alive. In a word, the book written by T. C. never was answered, never will be answered, except by such an Animal as M. O. whose eyes Mr. P. and Dr. Heylin have put out that he might the more easily grind in their mill. The book was made by one whom the Vic. of Oxon loves and respects, and that a sheet or two were printed are London was by the Authors own consent, merely to avoid that clamour which else the Dr. might have raised upon the Vice. who loveth not to meddle with those Salamanders that are never in their Element but when they are in the fire of contention. The Doctor complaineth much of ribaldry, obscenity, &c. but let him first pull out the beam that is in his own eye, Loripedem rectus derideat, AEthiopem Albus. There's a pretty story of a Cardinal and the Abbot of Fulda, travelling together towards Ulma, either of them attended with 30. horsemen completely armed; My Lord, saith the Cardinal, do you think St. Bennet, who was the Author of your Order went thus attended? The Abbot presently replied upon him, and demanded, If St. Peter ever rode in that state as his Fatherhood did. If Dr. Heylin blame T. C. for one unseemly passage, and that's all he can charge him with (which had been expunged also, had not the Impression been so suddenly took off the stationer's hand) T. C. will not be at a loss to find one as bad, or far worse to lay in the doctor's dish. I must spare neither, and therefore say, They both have so worded matters now and then, that they have reason to beg the charity of men to excuse them, and the mercy of God to pardon them; and that the world may learn by their example more to mind the Doctrine which is according to godliness, and less and more rarely to engage in Controversies, is the prayer of,  
The Lord's most unworthy creature, March 20. 1659.  
FINIS