A Dialogue, Dialogue (2 of 3)
Laud.
The evil of death descending upon Adams posterity, for his sake, went no further then 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 Gods sight, seeing for the trausgression 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 Adams sin. Vn. Necess. p. 392.
Pacif.
Either I understand not Grammar, or this is expresly 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 off-spring 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 Gods wrath and damnation; and this infection of nature doth remain, yea in them that are regenerated, whereby the lust of the flesh called foreign, 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 baptized, yet the Apostle doth confess, that concupiscence and lust hath of it self 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 Adams 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 tyed to repent of his sins: Neither did I ever see in any ancient Office or Form of Prayer, publick 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 pennance 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 Adams 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 Lyturgy takes notice of Original sin, so as to confess it, or be humbled for it, you will never perswade 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 mans 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 Gods 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-denyal 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 then God as an instance and tryal of our obedience, put fetters upon the indefinite desire and determined us to one woman; which provision was enough to satisfie 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 then 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 aversness 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 Logick nor Divinity of this discourse: not with the Logick; 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 hypocrisie and lying, &c. How comes this about? Is it because Gods 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 mens 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 Gods 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 mans wife? what if she be ones 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 intrinsecally good, but it might have been made evil; no action so intrinsecally 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 Prophesie 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 surprized, 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. Vnum 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 Neotericks, 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 mans lying, in that which was delivered to him to keep, and swearing falsely, which sure are not small sins: And in the Feast of Expiation, of which mention is made Levit. 16. we find very general tearms used, v. 16, 21, 30, 34. and therefore God promising to his people the remission of their sins that were very grievous, Isai. 1. 18. useth a metaphor say the Rabbins, taken from that which hapned in the Feast of Expiation, when the thread by which the Scape-goat was led into the Wilderness did miraculously change its colour and become white. Every great sin, say you, brought death infalibly. What death do you mean? temporal or eternal. All men were not cut off by death temporal who did fall into soul gross sin, much less did they all suffer the vengeance of eternal death, witness David, who scaped notwithstanding adultery and murder: whereas Volkelius saith, this was not by vertue and efficacy of Sacrifices, but by the singular mercy of God: he's well answered by Maresius among others; that he makes a faulty opposition betwixt that pardon which was by the typical efficacy of Sacrifices, and that which proceeded out of the singular mercy of God; whereas that pardon of sin which was obtained by any Expiatory Sacrifice whether typical or real, was ever to be ascribed to the special mercy of God; and indeed seeing it cannot be denyed, but that some very enormous crimes were pardoned under the Law; it seems very irrational to deny, that such pardon was signified to those who were guilty by some Sacrifices, if not particular, yet common and universal, especially seeing David himself being about to ask the pardon of his sin, expresseth himself in terms taken from Ceremonies and legal Sacrifices, Psal. 51.4, 5, 7. Purge me with hysop. But I pray you tell us more of your mind about Moses his Law.
Laud.
As it had a little image of Repentance, so it had something of Promises, to be as a grace and auxiliary to set forward Obedience. But this would not do it, the Promises were temporal, and that could not secure Obedience in great instances; and there being for them no remedy appointed by Repentance, the Law could not justifie, it did not promise life Eternal, nor give sufficient security against the temporal, only it was brought in as a paedagogy for the present necessity. Unum. Necess. p. 3.
Pacif.
How to make sense of those words, the Law did not promise life Eternal, nor give sufficient security against the temporal, I know not: but I suppose your meaning in the whole that you said, is this; That under the Law the Promises were temporal, not of matters Spiritual or Eternal: Now if you mean, that the Law considered barely as a law, had no promises of Eternal life, I cannot gain-say; but in that sense neither had it any promises temporal; for a law, as a law, promiseth nothing, but only declareth what is to be done or avoided; but if you should mean, that God under Mos s his Law did not encourage his people to Obedience by promises of Eternal life as well as of a Temporal, our Divines against the Socinians and Papists have said enough to confute you, and you plainly contradict the 7th Article of our Church, in which the words are these; The Old Testament is not contrary to the New; for both in the O d and New Testament, everlasting life is offered to mankind by Jesus Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and Man, being both God and Man: wherefore they are not be heard, which fain, that the old Fathers did look only for transitory promises.
Laud.
At first there were no promises at all of any good, nothing but a threatning of evil to the transgressors: and after a long time they were entertained but with the promise of good things temporal, which to some men were performed by the pleasures and rewards of sin, and then there being a great imperfection in the nature of man, it could not be that man should remain innocent: and for Repentance, in this Covenant there was no regard or provisions made. Unum Neces. p. 2.
Pacif.
Either I understand you not, or this is uncouth Divinity; you say at first there were no promises at all of any good, nothing but a threatning of evil: what mean you by at first? if while Adam was innocent, Can any one think that the most holy and merciful Creator should threaten death to Adam upon his disobedience, and not promise him life and happiness on condition of obedience? if by the first you mean, that time in which the world consisted of Adam and Eve, Abel and Cain, and some few other, sure you cannot think, that in that period of time there was no promise of good things: there was the promise of the seed of the woman; and God tells it Cain, as a thing well known to him, that if he did well he should be accepted; the Hebrew word there used cometh from foreign a root, saith Pagnin, of very vast and comprehensive signification, if any other in all the Hebrew tongue: it may carry these three significations in that place, 1. If thou do well, shalt thou not be pardoned? 2. Shalt thou not lift up thy count nance, i. e. have access to God with boldness? 3. Shalt thou not receive, i. e. receive the things thou askest and standest in need of? How any of these were or could be performed to any by the pleasures and rewards of sin, I wot not. But what may one think of the faith of them who lived before Christs Incarnation?
Laud.
That both the Patriarchs and the Jews did rely on God for the accomplishment of his promise touching their salvation, I do nothing doubt but that they were acquainted with the means and method which God did purpose to make use of in so great a work, or did rely on Christ to come for their justification; as the Scripture no where saith it, for ought find, so is there no reason to believe it, for ought I can see. Dr. Hey. Fid. Apost. p. 96. after a long discourse to that purpose.
Pacif.
The Writers of our Homilies seem to be of another mind, for Part. 1. p. 25. we find these words: All these Fathers, Martyrs and other holy men had their faith surely fixed in God, when all the world was against them, they did not only know God to be the Lord, Maker and Governor of all men in the world, but also they had a special confidence and trust, that he was and would be their God, their Comforter, Aider, Helper, Maintainer and Defender; This is the Christian Faith which these holy men had and we also ought to have: And although they were not named Christian men, yet was 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. foreign. &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 Paedagogy?
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 quit-rent 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 extrinsecal 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 Law-giver, 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 bin first ordained, yet it seemed very sutable to his grace and goodness to commute the punishment and satisfie himself with the death of Beasts, offered in Sacrifice unto him by that sinful creature. Id p. 93. & p. 95. for ought appeareth to the contrary, the Sacrifices both before and under the Law, had in themselves a power of Propitiation by vertue of the Ordination and Institution of Almighty God, and not a relative vertue 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 Gods instituting Sacrifices, was this, that he might receive a quit-rent 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 Common-wealth; 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 complyance 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 ministred. 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 ministred 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 complyance 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 perswade us that the Law Moral was not then written in every good mans 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 ofen 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 loth 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 enjoyned, 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 signifie our great love to God: whatsoever is over and above the Commandments, that shall have a great reward. God sorbids 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 unchast 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 wayes, 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 signifie 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 then 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 then 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 Gods 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 threatning 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 unlimitted signification, and therefore were left to every servants choice to do them with his several measures of zeal and love. p. 49. Unum Neces.
Pacif.
You are well aware thar 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 threatning 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 servants choice as to the degree, than the Preaching of the Gospel is? But as to this matter I refer my self 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 enjoyned 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 withall 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 shews 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 alledge for themselves that they must be defiled with them while they live here; but when shall they be cleansed from them? cleansed they must be; they say they shall be purified at the end of this life, yea when they can sin no more, then they shall be cleansed from their spots; what Scripture can they alleadge for this? Sure I am, there's none in the whole Word of God; besides, they attribute more to their own natural death, then they do the death of Christ and our conformity thereunto: If therefore the spots cannot be washed out in this life nor at the end of this life, it must then follow, that there must be a time after this life, and before we enter into the holy City, when these spots be washed out, and when and where must that be but in Purgatory? Mark now, Beloved, whither this unclean doctrine, of necessity, leads the Authors of it, they who are great enemies to Popery, are by this their Tenent the greatest Patrons of Purgatory. Id. p. 750.
Pacif.
What then think you of those places, Eccles. 7. 20. There is not a just man upon earth that doth good and sinneth not, and 1 Joh. 1. 8. If we say we have no sin, we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us?
Laud.
Solomon speaks of such a just man as is under the first dispensation, that of the Father, which is the fear of God. p. 768. But those children of the Father, who have their sins forgiven them through his Name, and are now brought unto the Son, and grown so strong in him that they overcome the Evil one; these at length attain to the old age in the Spirit, and experimentally know him who is from the beginning. This is that state foreign, that is, without sin; such an estate is possible and attainable through the grace of God and his Holy Spirit, that men may be without sin. p. 790.
Pacif.
I shall hereafter know whence some of our Quakers and Antinominans get their canting language: But doth not this discourse of yours quite pull down what was laid by our first Reformers. Artic. 15. Sin was not in him; i. e. Christ, but all we the rest, although baptized and born again in Christ, yet offend in many things, and if we say we have no sin, we deceive our selves, and the truth is not in us. If you think this Doctrine be false, no better way for confuting it, then by bringing out some of your Saints that have attained the full age of the Spirit, and so live without sin; such a one could I never meet with, never hear of; yea I have observed, that those who have made the greatest pretensions to perfection, have been so far from perfection of grace, that they have discovered themselves to have no Religion at all. But I have heard of certain new Precepts by which Christ did perfect the Moral Law, concerning the perfection of which I have alway had high thoughts.
Laud.
Christ hath perfected the Law, and set it higher then any the most studyed Doctor did think himself obliged by it formerly. Prac. Catec. 2. Ed. p. 93. God is light, and in him is no darkness at all, 1 Joh. 1. 5. This is to be understood of Gods Law and Commandment that they had before some mixture of imperfection, but now have none; had before some vacuities in them, which are now filled up by Christ, p. 94. Of this the same Author may be seen in his Letters to Dr. Cheynell.
Pacif.
That our Saviour in the 5 of Matthew doth but expound the Law and clear it from the absurd glosses and interpretations of the Scribes and Pharisees seems to be plainly resolved by our Church in the Homilies, p. 41. & p. 79. Part. 1. Edit. Lond. 1623. (which Edition I all along follow) and had Christ acted the part of a new Law-giver and not of an Interpreter only, it is not like he would have said, Except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees, but except your righteousness exceed the righteousness of Moses and the Prophets, you cannot enter into the Kingdom of Heaven. Maldonate indeed tells us, that Christ doth all along tacitely oppose himself to Moses, by that form of speech, but I say unto you, only ad declinandam invidiam, he names him not; but who can think our Lord opposeth himself to a servant that was faithful in all his house? but whether Christ did intend to fill up the vacuities of the Moral Law by adding new Precepts, will best appear by examination of particulars, and shewing that the Moral duties which are supposed to be de novo enjoyned in that chapter were duties enjoyned to Israelites as well as us; to some Precepts no addition is pretended to be made, but yet because there is Controversie made and raised about them all, it may not be amiss to take all into consideration; you know the Church of Rome is commonly charged with Idolatry and made to transgress both first and second Commandment, the first by worshipping the Bread in the Eucharist, the second by making Images of the the true God, &c. what think you of these matters?
Laud.
Idolatry is a forsaking the true God and giving divine worship to a creature or Idol, that is, to an imaginary god, who hath no foundation in essence or existence. Libert. Prop. p. 258.
Pacif.
You seem already to forsake the Doctrine of our Church, as also doth Mr. Mountague, who saith in his Gagge that Ido's and Images may be two things; whereas the Homily saith expresly, Part. 2. p. 12. That the Scriptures use the words Images and Idols indifferently for one thng alway, and in the said Homily it is further asserted that there may be Idolatry in worshipping the true God in an undue manner.
Laud.
It is evident that the object of the Papists Adoration in the blessed Sacrament, is the only the Eternal God, hypostatically joyned with his holy humanity, which humanity they believe actually present under the veil of the Sacramental signs: and if they thought him not present, they are so far from worshipping the Bread in this case, that themselves profess it to be Idolatry to do so, which is a demonstration that their soul hath nothing in it that's Idolatrical; if their confidence and fancyful opinion hath engaged them upon so great mistake, yet the will hath nothing in it but what is a great enemy to Idolatry, Et-nihil ardet in inferno niso propria voluntas. Liber. Prop. p 258.
Pacif.
Belike then if any man can make a shift to be so ignorant as to think that the Sun is God, and so give Divine Adoration to the Sun, he shall be no Idolater. I think that the will of the Papists hath something in it that is no great enemy to Idolatry, and had they not been wilful in so absurd an opinion, so much reason hath been offered against it, that they must needs before this time have recanted such a senseless Tenent
Laud.
Although they have done violence to all Philosophy and the reason of man, and undone and cancelled the Principles of two or three Sciences, to bring in this Article, yet they have a Divine Revelation whose Literal and Grammatical sense if that were intended, would warrant them to do violence to all the Sciences in the Circle; and indeed that Transubstantiation is openly and violently against Natural Reason, is no argument to make them disbelieve who believe the Mysterie of the Trinity in all those niceties of Explication which are in the School (and which now a dayes pass for the Doctrine of the Church) with as much violence to the principles of Natural and Supernatural Philosophy, as can be imagined to be in the point of Transubstantiation. Liber. Prop. p. 258
Pacif.
Here's as fair quarter for the Socinians as could be wished, that the niceties of the School (as you are pleased to call them) about the Trinity, are as contrary to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy as Transubstantiation: Prove this and our New Arians will thank you; prove it and I'le never more believe the Mistery of the Trinity: For I am sure God the first Truth did never command or oblige any one to believe that which offers violence to the principles of natural and supernatural Philosophy; but I confess I have a long time been offended at some passages that I have met with in sundry Divines who call themselves Protestants. Dr. Laurence in his Sermon before the King, lets 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 Elizabeths injunctions made the first year of her raign do appoint, That the holy Table in every Church be decently made, and set in the place where the Altar stood and so to stand, saving when the Communion of the Sacrament is to be distributed, at which time the same shall be so placed in good sort within the Chancel, as whereby the Minister may be more conveniently heard of the Communicants in his Prayer and Ministration, & the Communicants also more conveniently and in more number communicate with the said Minister. And after the Communion done, from time to time the same holy Table to be placed, where it stood before: And Bishop Jewel doth peremptorily maintain, That the Communion Table ought to stand in the middle of the Church among the people and not Altarwise against the wall. Reply to Harding. And as I could never satisfie my self about placing the Table Altarwise; so neither could I ever satisfie my self about bowing to the Altar: why should we more bow towards the empty Table or Altar more then towards the empty Pulpit from whence the word is wont to be preached to us, or towards the Bible, or towards the Font?
Laud.
The Altar is the greatest place of Gods residence upon earth, I say the greatest, yea greater than the Pulpit; for there '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 Maries dayes did lose their lives: If you mean only in a Sacramental way; is not the bloud of Christ and whole Christ, and so by consequence his Body exhibited and represented to us in Baptism as well as in the Supper? Why then were men enjoyned rather to worship towards the Table or the Eucharistical Bread, then towards the Baptismal water or the Baptistery? Besides, when there was no Sacrament, there was upon the Table or Altar neither the Body of Christ nor any sacred Symbole of Christ; nay if there were a Sacrament, yet I hope the Bread was not in any sense the Body of Christ till it was consecrated by the Word and Prayer; but as I take it, we were bound to bow towards the Table, not only when there was a Sacrament, and after the consecration of the Elements, but at all times. And when the Sacrament was administred in private houses, might not it be said, that there it was hoc est Corpus meum? and yet I trow men were not under obligation to bow towards that Table upon which the Bread did stand when it was consecrated? This sufficiently invalidateth your argument, and therefore I need not further ask whether that honor which you expressed by bowing towards the Altar were civil or divine and religious, though which soever part you should choose, you would run into most grievous absurdities and inconveniences. What are your thoughts of Invocation of Angels and Saints departed this life?
Laud.
Perhaps there is no such great impiety in saying St. Laurence pray for me. Gagg. p. 200. 'Tis most probable there are Angel keepers, if thus my self resolved, do infer, Holy Angel-keeper pray for me, I see no reason to be taxed with point of Popery or Superstition, much less of absurdity or impiety. Invocation of Saints, p. 99. in principio. Save all other labour in this point; prove but only this, their knowledge of any thing ordinarily, I promise you straight, I will say, Holy St. Mary pray for me. Answ. to Gagg. p. 229.
Pacif.
Here are sundry things, wherein you seem to me to depart from our Church and from Scripture which is worse; for to pray, St. Laurence pray for me, in such a sense as the Papists do, must needs be great impiety, no less than Idolatry, because they do ascribe that unto the creature which is only proper unto the Creator. I judge it also absurd and impious to pray to the Angel Gardian to pray for us, for 'tis not possible that any one without a Revelation from Heaven, should attain to any certainty that there are any Angel Gardians, and to go upon opinion and probability in my prayers is impiety; but I do not in the least think, that if it were proved that the Saints departed had knowledge ordinarily of what we do and are, that therefore we might presently pray to them to pray for us: If you ask me, why not as well as to the Saints on the earth? the Homily will answer for me. Part. 2. p. 116. Christ our only Mediator is sufficient in Heaven, and needeth no others to help him: Why then do we pray one for another in this life, some men may perhaps here demand? Forsooth we are willed so to do, by the express Commandment both of Christ and his Disciples, to declare as well the Faith that we have in Christ towards God; as also the mutual charity that we bear one towards another, in that we pity our brothers case, and make our Petition to God for him. But that we should pray unto Saints, neither have we any Commandment in Scipture, nor yet example which we may safely follow; so that being done without authority of Gods Word, it lacketh the ground of Faith, and theresore cannot be acceptable to God; For what soever is not of faith is sin: And the Apostle saith, That faith cometh by hearing, and hearing by the Word of God: Yet thou wilt object further, That the Saints in Heaven pray for us, and that their prayer proceedeth of an earnest charity that they have toward their Brethren on earth. Whereto it may well be answered; First, that no man knoweth whether they do pray for us or no. And if any man will go about to prove it by the nature of charity, concluding, that because they did pray for men on earth, therefore they do much more now in heaven: then may it be said by the same reason, that as oft as we do weep on earth, they do also weep in Heaven, because while they lived in this world, it is most certain and sure they did so. And whereas some of late have much endeavoured to re-introduce into our Church the antiquated custom of praying for the dead. I shall only say at present, there is nothing in any of our Articles, Homilies, Lyturgies, enjoyning, or so much as approving or commending Prayer for the dead, there is rather something that makes against any such kind of prayer. Part. 2. of Homil. p. 116. The like I say about Canonical hours of Prayer, no mention made of them by our Church, therefore no obligation upon us to observe, and yet 1637. there was a Sermon printed with Licence by one Mr Wats, who would needs perswade us, That King David observed all Canonical hours, for these are his words upon that speech of the Royal Psalmist, Psal. 119. 62. At midnight will I arise to give thanks unto thee. Mark here, that he praised not God lying, but used to rise to do it: at other hours the Saints may sing aloud on their beds — but when a Canonical hours comes (of which mid-night was one) David will rise to his Devotion — the morning watch was another Canonical hour; And this David was so careful to observe, that he oft-times waked before it, Psal. 149. 5. Were this true, I should think it were a fault not to appoint some one to awake me at midnight, that I might rise up out of my bed to put up some prayers unto my Creator, but till there be some proofs of such Canonical hours, I shall bless God for undisturbed rest and sleep.
Laud.
It seems by Clement (Epis. ad Corin. p. 52, 53. edit. Junia.) that no small part of that foreign, or good order required by St. Paul, (whose mind he might best know as one of his Disciples) 1 Cor. 14. 40. doth consist in the due observing of those times and hours limited and prescribed by authority for our prayers and devotions. The use of Dayly Publick Prayers, printed 1641. p. 5.
Pacif.
How much the scope of this place is mistaken might easily be shewn, but I refer any learned man to the Observations of Mr. William Burton upon that Epistle, p 77, 78. I think the main that Christians are now to look after is, that when they pray, they pray for things agreeable to Gods Word, and with fervency.
Laud.
There is but one thing in the world that God hates besides sin, that is, indifferency and lukewarmness; which although it hath not in it the direct nature of sin, yet it hath this testimony from God; that it is loathsom and abominable, and excepting this thing alone, God never said so of any thing in the New Testament, but what was a direct breach of a Commandment. Dr. Tayl. Ret. of Prayer. p 61.
Pacif.
I am glad to hear you say, that luke-warmness and indifferency in Religion are loathsom to God; but wonder to find you averring, that these have not in them the direct nature of sin, or that they are not a direct breach of a Commandment, for doth not the Commandment require that we serve God with all our might, strength and power? Are we not commanded to be fervent in spirit serving the Lord? nor do I think that God would hate these tempers, if they were not directly sinful and direct breaches of his Law.
Laud.
Christians, consider that God forbad to the Jews the very having and making images and representments, not only of the true God, or of the false and imaginary Deities, but of visible Creatures; which because it was but of temporary reason and relative consideration of their aptness to superstition, and their conversing with Idolatrous Nations, was a command proper to that Nation, part of their Covenant, not of eternal indispensable reason, not of that which we usually call the Law of Nature. Grand. exem. part. 2. p. 111.
Pacif.
I do not think that God ever forbad to the Jews all images or representments of Creatures, but as Vasquez saith, Omnem imaginem seu effigiem modo 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 thy self i. e. to any religious use, any grauen image. Homily. Perill 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 Law-giver 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 shewing 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. Gagg. 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 Prototipe. Ans. to Gagg. 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 publickly 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, licensed 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 foreign, and that it is a broach of civil decency to employ these places set a part for Gods Worship to any common uses ordinarily.
Laud.
We use signing with the sign of the Cross both in the fore-head 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 Gagg. 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 honorable Badge; but it doth not ascribe any efficacy unto it of fortifying the soul, and declares the child to be perfectly baptized 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 dyed, 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 Baptizing 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 Anabaptists was faign 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 baptizing of Infants, and yet they that deny this are by the just Anathema of the Church Catholick condemned for Hereticks. 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 baptizing of Infants, nor can you prove that they who deny the Baptism of Infants are under the just Anathema of the Church Catholick, much less that they who deny the Institution of Bishops superior in order to Presbyters are under the just Anathema of the Church Catholick: Hath a whole Book been written to prove that none are to be anathematized 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 baptizing Infants upon the Tradition of the Apostles? or what wise men that ever sided with the Reformation, ever observed that the Anabaptists can by the same probability of Scripture inforce a necessity of communicating Infants upon us, as we do of baptizing Infants upon them? Cardinal Perron indeed being about to prove the insufficiency of the written Word, and to establish the necessity of unwritten Traditions, brings among other things Infant Baptism, as an instance of a point that may be proved by Tradition and not by Scripture. Adv. Reg. Mag. Brit. p. 571. but Bellar. lib. 1. de Sacram. Bapt. cap. 9. disputes for Paedobaptism, and that by such arguments as are taken out of Scripture, which he saith Nullâ ratione solvi, nullâ arte eludi possunt.
Laud.
To the Baptism of children I add the Communion of women. Id. ibid.
Pacif.
Do you then think that the Communion of women cannot be proved out of Scripture as well as out of Tradition? I believe there is no express instance of a woman receiving the Sacrament; but we have reasons grounded on Scripture that make it the duty of women as well as men, and it would be perversness seeing foreign signifieth a woman as well as a man, to affirm that both sexes are not included: But let us to the Controversie of Episcopacy; Are all Ordinations invalid which are done by meer Presbyters without a Bishop? what think you of the Reformed Churches?
Laud.
For my part I know not what to think; the question hath been so often asked with so much violence and prejudice; and we are so bound by publick interest to approve all they do, that we have disabled our selves to justifie our own. Episcop. asser. p. 190. Supposing that Ordination by a Bishop is necessary for the Vocation of Priests and Deacons, and therefore for the founding and perpetuating of a Church, either God hath given to all Churches opportunity and possibility of such Ordinations, and then necessity of the contrary is but mockery; or if he hath not given such possibility, then there is no Church there to be either built or continued, but the Candlestick is presently removed. Id. p. 193.
Pacif.
Our Church did alway retain Episcopacy, and so she might have done still had not Bishops been more faulty then ever Episcopacy was: But that Ordinations by meer Presbyters were not valid, was never affirmed by our Church or any of her eminent members, but rather the contrary; which will appear, if we consider that the transmarine Churches have alway been acknowledged as true Chnrches, and their Ordinations justified and maintained to be valid against the oppugners of them by our English Controversie Writers and Professors, Dr. Holland, Dr. Willet, Dr. Field, Dr. Downham, Mr. Mason. If at any time any ordained by meer Presbyters were made Bishops in our Church, their Ordination by Presbyters was supposed to be valid and was not renewed, at least not till of late years; but what think you of Bishops being made Lords and taking secular employment?
Laud.
It was not in naturâ rei unlawful for Bishops to receive an Office of secular employment. St. Pauls tent making was as much against the calling of an Apostle, as sitting in a secular Tribunal is against the Office of a Bishop. Episc. Asserted. p. 352. The same Author in sundry following pages much endeavoureth to prove that Bishops may take upon them the affairs of Secular Interest.
Pacif.
Bishops taking upon them secular affairs, hath been alway exclaimed against by our Divines as well Prelates as others, that have been sensible of the charge of souls committed to them; this it will not be amiss to exemplifie in several ages, John Wickliffe in the raign of Edw. 3. taught That Popes, Cardinals, Bishops might not Civiliter Dominari abs que mortali peceato; and that no Prelate ought to have any Prison to punish offenders, and that no King should impose upon any Bishop or Curate any secular matter, for then both the King and Clerk should be Proditor Jesu Christi. Wals. in R. 2. p. 205. William Swinderby also a Professor in Rich. 2. time, held, That the more Lordship a Priest hath, the neerer he is to Antichrist, and that the Priests of the old Law were forbidden Lordship, and that Christ himself refused and forbad his Priests Lordship, saying, Reges Gentium, &c. the Kings of the Heathen bear rule, &c. but you shall not so do. Acts and Mon. p. 451, 453. Tindall in his works, p. 124. writes, That it was a shame of all shames and a monstrous thing, that Bishops should deal in civil causes: and p. 140. What names have they? My Lord Bb. my Lord Archbishop, if it please your Lordship, if it please your Grace. Bishop Hooper in his Comment on the Commandments hath these words, p. 184, 185. Edit. 1548. look upon the Apostles chiefly, and upon all their Successors for the space of 400. years, and then thou shalt see good Bishops, and such as diligently applyed that painful office ofa Bishop to the glory of God and honour of the Realms they dwelt in; though they had not so much upon their heads as our Bishops have, yet had they more within their heads, as the Scriptures & Histories testifie, for they applyed all the wit they had unto the Vocation & Ministry of the Church whereunto they were called; our Bishops have so much wit, they can rule and serve as they say in both States, of the Church and also in the civil Policy, when one of them is more then any man is able to satisfie, let him do always his best diligence: If he be so necessary for the Court, that in Civil Causes and giving of good counsel he cannot be spared, let him use that Vocation and leave the other, for it is not possible he should do both well. And a great oversight it is of the Princes and higher Powers of the earth thus to charge them with two burdens, when none of them is able to bear the least of them both; they be the Kings Subjects, and meet for his Majesty to choose the best for his Court that be of the Realm, but then they must be kept in their Vocation to preach only the Word of God, and not to put themselves, or be appointed by others to do things that belong not to a Bishops Vocation. I will not now relate the speeches of old holy Father Latimer, to the same purpose though far exceeding any that have been yet mentioned, because they are many and may be easily seen in his Sermon of the Plough. But now that we are on the business of Church-government: What think you of the persons commonly called Lay-Elders?
Laud.
Lay Judges of Causes Ecclesiastical as they are unheard of in Antiquity, so they are neither named in Scripture, nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office, and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came, even the lake of Gehenna, and so to the place of the neerest 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 Elizabeths time in a Tract called A Petition directed to her most Excellent Majesty; but Mr. Nowel is plain in his Catechism in Latine, 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. Lets 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 thy self, 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 Gods 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 alway 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 raign, 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 foreign sometime to signifie mendacium or falsum, but it doth also signifie gratis in vanum as often, if not more often. The LXX Exod. 20. 7. render foreign, Aquila foreign. 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 implyed not Idolatry, or the belief of a false God, (I say) any grave or prudent oath when they spake a grave truth. And it was lawful for the Jews, in ordinary entercourse, to swear by God, so they did not swear to a lye, (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 spake 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 alway tender of his Name and Glory, canthink that it was lawful for the Jews to swear by God in ordinary entercourse? 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 entercourse 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 entercourse 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 Gods people did, and that they should by solemn Oath engage themselves to depend on the living Lord alone. How doth this prove that it was lawful for the Jews to swear by God in ordinary entercourse, 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.