A Dialogue, Dialogue (3 of 3)
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 publickly read, and teach her members to pray Lord have mercy upon us and encline 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literal and Grammatical sense, it is not in force at all, for both Lawyers say, and reason it self shews that a law is no longer in force then the words of it are in force, at least those that contain the substance of it.
Laud.
The Primitive Church kept both the Sabbath and the Lords day till the time of the Laodicaean Council, about 300 years after Christs Nativity, and almost in every thing made them equal, and therefore did not esteem the Lords day to be substituted in the place of the obliterated Sabbath, but a Feast celebrated by great reason and perpetual consent without Precept or necessary Divine injunction. Gr. Ex. part. 2. p. 119.
Pacif.
There are in the few words by you uttered certain things that you must pardon me if I cannot presently close with. 1. You say that the Primitive Church till the Laodicaean Council kept both the Sabbath and the Lords Day. Quanta est haec propositio? Do you mean that the whole Primitive Church did so? that will be hard, if not impossible to prove, for the Books that are come to our hands have neither declared nor do they pretend to declare what all the Churches of Christ did; nay it appears from Socrates, that the Roman and Alexandrian Church kept not the Saturday at all, as I think is acknowledged by Dr. Heylin himself, Part. 2. But dato sed non concesso that there had been such an universal custom of observing both dayes, how doth it hence follow, that the Lords Day was not substituted in the place of the obliterated Sabbath? Would you argue that Baptism came not in the place of Circumcision, because to gain over the weak Jews they used Circumcision for some season? They might use the Saturday as a meeting day, that by complying with the Jews and Proselytes they might obtain familiar access, and gain opportunity to instruct them in the Christian Faith, by reason that the people had been accustomed to meet together on that day.
Laud.
Ignatius would have both dayes observed; the Sabbath first, though not as would the Ebionites, in a Jewish sort: and after that the Lords Day, which he so much magnifieth, the better to abate that high esteem which some had cast on the Sabbath. Hist. of Sab. Part. 2. p. 41.
Pacif.
I know the place you intend, though you refer us not to any Epistle: but you are not ignorant that Ignatius his Epistles are much corrupted, and have been so accounted by all great Scholars, who have impartially spent their judgement upon them; this place particularly which you quote out of this Epistle to the Magnesi. is depraved; and if you will take the pains to consult either the old Latine Manuscript of Ignatius published by the Right Reverend Archbishop Usher, or the Greek Edition published by Isaac Vossius, (which undoubtedly are the truest that ever were printed) you will find no such thing can be drawn out of Ignatius as is by you inferred; yea rather it will appear, that Ignatius is against the keeping of the Saturday Sabbath at all.
Laud.
'Tis true, that in some tract of time the Church in honour of Christs Resurrection, did set a part that day on which he arose, to holy exercises: But this upon their own authority and without warrant from above, that we can hear of, more then the General warrant which God gave his Church, that all things in it be done decently and in comely order. Hist. Sab. Part. 2. p. 7.
Pacif.
Our Homily saith it plainly appears, that Gods Will and Commandment is to have a solemn time and standing day in the week, wherein the people should come together, and have in rememberance his wonderful benefits. Part. 2. p. 125. And that the Apostolical Church would not change the day from the seventh to the first without authority and Commission from Christ so to do, is certain enough: 'Tis to me sufficient, that the Lords Day is of Divine Institution, whether immediate by Christ, or mediate by his Apostles; and that it is of Divine Institution one of these wayes, is, I take it, easily proved by Antiquity and Reason: The Homilie entitled De Semente, hath these plain words, foreign. This testimony is made use of by Archbishop Usher, for the purpose to which I bring it.
Laud.
Neither the Author whom he cites, nor the authority by him cited will evince the point: 1. The Author will not do it, the Homily being supposed by the Learned not to have been writ by Athanasius, but put into his Works by some that had a mind to entitle him to it. 2. The authority or words cited will not do it, though at first fight they seem to come home to make proof of it; for the words foreign 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 foreign is this, that the Church did translate the day with relation to Christs Resurrection?
Laud.
Yes, for otherwise the false Athanasius, whosoever he was, must cress and contradict the true, who having told us that it was commanded at the first, that the Sabbath should be observed (foreign) in memory of the accomplishmrnt of the Worlds Creation; ascribes the Institution of the Lords Day to the voluntary usage of the Church of God, without any Commandment from our Saviour, foreign &c. We celebrate, saith he, the Lords Day as a memorial of the beginning of the new Creation, which is plain enough. Resp. Pet. p. 7.
Pacif.
The words you refer to, I acknowledge to be found in Athanasius de Circum. & Sabbatho, and confess them to be plain enough, but neither plain enough nor plain at all for the evincing of that for which you produce them; for how doth it follow, that if Athanasius say foreign, that he must mean, we celebrate the Lords Day by the voluntary usage of the Church, without any Commandment from our Saviour? may we not foreign, though there be a Divine Institution of the day? But for satisfaction in these points Irefer any indifferent person to what is said by Mr. P. & Caw. in Sabbat. Rediv. fourth Part.
Laud.
What shall we think of Knox and whittingham, and their fellows, who in their Letter to Calvin depart from the Constitution, Ordinance and Practice of the Apostles and Apostolick men, and call not this day the Lords Day or Sunday, but with the Piety of Jeroboam, make such a day of it as they have devised in own their hearts to serve their own turn, and Anabaptizing of it after the mind of some Jew, hired to be their God-father, call it the Sabbath: This name Sabbath is not a bare name, or like a spot in their fore-heads, to know Labans sheep from Jacobs, but indeed it is a mystery of iniquity intended against the Church: Others also for the plots sake must uphold the name of Sabbath, that stalking behind it, they may shoot against the Services appointed for the Lords Day. Hence it is that some for want of wit, too much adore the Sabbath as an Image dropt down from Jupiter, and cry before it as they did before the Golden Calf, This is an holy day to the Lord, whereas indeed it is the Great Diana of the Ephesians as they use it; whereby the minds of their Proselytes are so perplexed and bewitched, that they cannot resolve whether the sin be greater to bowl, shoot or dance on their Sabbath, then to commit murther, &c. All which doubts would soon be dissolved by plucking off the Vizzard of the Sabbath from the face of the Lords Day, which doth as well and truly become it, as the Crown of Thorns did the Lord himself. This was plotted to expose him to damnable derision, and that was plotted to impose on it detestable Superstition, yet they will call it a Sabbath, presuming in their zealous ignorance, guiltful zeal, to be thought to speak the Scripture phrase, when indeed the dregs of Asded flow from their mouth. With us the Sabbath is Saturday and no day else. No ancient Father, nay no learned man, Heathen or Christian took it otherwise from the beginning of the world to the beginning of their Schism in 1554. Dr. Pocklington Sunday no Sabbath. p. 7. 13, 21, 22. compared.
Pacif.
Here's bitterness enough, and though it be expresly directed against none but Puritans, yet must it needs redound on the Church of England, who in her Homilies gives the Lords Day the name of Sabbath as also sundry of her most eminent sons have done: But whereas you say so confidently, thatno learned man till 1554 ever called any other day but Saturday by the name of Sabbath; you must give me leave to question whether your reading be so great, that you have perused all learned men since the beginning of the world till 1554. For I can in my little reading produce a considerable Author, who lived in the 4th Century, and another who lived in the beginning of the 12th Century, who both call the Lords Day a Sabbath, and how many others have done so, neither you nor I, without more search then such a thing is worth, shall be able to say: but it is to little purpose to contend about a name or word, provided we be agreed in the thing, and this I am sure of, that our Church in the Homily for the time and place of worship commends and enjoyns the Lords Day to be kept as a Sabbath with rest from all week-day and worldly labours, and to be spent wholly in the service of God, and of this I think none can doubt who comes to the reading of that Homily unprejudiced.
Laud.
In that Homily it is thus Doctrinally resolved: Albeit this Commandment of God doth not bind Christian people so straightly to observe and keep the other Ceremonies of the Sabbath day, as it was given unto the Jews, as touching the forbearing of work or labour in time of great necessity, and as touching the precise keeping of the seventh day after the manner of the Jews, yet notwithstanding whatsoever is found in the Commandment appertaining to the Law of Nature, as a thing most godly, most just and needful to the setting forth of Gods glory, it ought to be retained and kept of all good Christian people. Dr. Heyl. Res. Pet.
Pacif.
These words do indeed occur in that Homily, but mark the words that follow; therefore by this Commandment we ought to have a time as one day in the week wherein we ought to rest, yea from our lawful and needful works: Doth not the Church here resolve that by vertue of the fourth Commandment Christians ought to observe one day in seven, and that with cessation from lawful and needful works? and this is, if not the all, yet the most that Puritans contend for.
Laud.
It is here said that there is no more of the fourth Commandment to be retained and kept of good Christian people then whatsoever is found in it appertaining to the Law of Nature; but there is nothing in the fourth Commandment, but that sometime be set apart for Gods publick Service; the Precept so far forth, as it enjoyns one day in seven or the seventh day precisely from the Worlds Creation, being avowed for ceremonial by all kind of Writers. Dr. Heyl. 245. Hist. Sabba. p. 2. p. 245.
Pacif.
It is not said, that there is no more to be retained and kept of good Christians, but what is required of the Law of Nature; this only is said, that whatever is of the Law of Nature that is to be retained, &c. Now Logick tells us that these Propositions are heavenly wide, and the Homily sufficiently implyeth that the Precept so far as it enjoyneth one day in seven was not an utter Ceremony; for it saith that we by vertue of that Precept are bound to have a time as one day in seven.
Laud.
'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 meer natural employments: but that we give our selves wholly, that is, our whole selves body and soul, to the performance of those heavenly exercises which are required of us in the way of true Religion and Gods Publick Service. Sab. Hist. Part. 2. p. 247.
Pacif.
What a strange gloss is this? you say it was Ceremonial that one day of seven be spent wholly. Why do you not also argue, that there was not any such Law given to the Jews, because then there would no time have been allowed for eating and drinking? Works of natural necessity do consist and alway did consist with the Sanctification of the Day of Rest; and whereas you say the Homily doth only require that for the time appointed to Gods Publick Worship, we wholly sequester our selves from all worldly business, I believe you do not think that is all the meaning of the Homily, for are not the words plain, Gods obedient people should use the Sunday holily and rest from their common and dayly business, and also give themselves, &c. The Sunday not a part of it should be used holily and with rest from common dayly business: But what do I trouble my self about this, had the Homily said just the whole day, you would also have found out some evasion as you do, for St. Chrysostomes foreign, and his foreign. 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 thy self.
Laud.
It is evident by infinite Texts of the Law, that a mans neighbour in this Precept extends no further then to Israelites, whether by birth or Religion, that is to say, those that are engraffed 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 tyed, not to do that honor to Haman that his Soveraign 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 mans 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 our selves 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 our selves, 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 our selves a new nature, any more then 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 mortifie 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 enjoyned; 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 Common-wealths, commanded that revenge should be taken by the Judge, a few cases being excepted. But Christ commanded his Disciples rather then 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, veram que 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 thy self. 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 publick 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 loose our life in imitation of Chist, then save it by the loss of anothers in pursuance of the permissions of nature: When Nature only gives leave and no Law-giver 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 High-way side, to take away my life, rather then take his, I should in such a case loose my life in imitation of Christ, is Divinity unheard of in the Protestant Schools. How can Christs laying down his life as a satisfaction to Divine Justice thereby to make way for mans Redemption, be any secret insinuation to me that I must rather surfer a boisterous wretch to sheath his Sword in my bowels, then sheath 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 subtilly 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 foreign 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 implyeth force and violence. 2. Let the word foreign 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; foreign 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 extreamly 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 extreamly unreasonable and uncharitable, when as it is not only allowed but also enjoyned 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 our selves his Disciples and his Servants; Disciples of his Doctrine, and Servants of his Institution: i. e. in Baptism, in which Christ who dyed sor our sins makes us partakers of his death; and then 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 baptized 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 baptized to have repented and believed, and so to have been made partakers of grace before they are baptized.
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 intirely into Gods favour, when we have once been redeemed, if we then fall away into sin, we must expect Gods 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 dayes 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 then the first redemption. No such intire, clear and integral determinate and presential effects of repentance, but an imperfect, little, growing, uncertain and hazardous reconciliation. A repentance, that is alwayes 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 Colloquintida, 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 our selves 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 baptized; where these are not, baptism is but the washing away of the filth of the flesh. It is not Baptism but Gods Covenant of grace that gives the first right and title to Justification, Adoption, Salvation, and that Covenant gives them on the like terms to all; upon our first unfeigned repentance all past sins are pardoned, upon the renewal of our repentance after relapses they also are pardoned and the guilt of them presently done away, and this pardon God did never recal, never will he recal.
Laud.
God who knows the weaknesses on our part, and yet the strictness and necessity of conferring Baptismal Grace, by the Covenant Evangelical hath appointed the auxiliaries of the Holy Spirit to be ministred to all baptized people in the holy rite of confirmation, that it might be made possible to be done by Divine aids, which is necessary to be done by the Divine Commandments; and this might not improperly be said to be the meaning of those words of our Blessed Saviour, He that speaks a word against the Son of Man, it shall be forgiven him, but he that speaks a word against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, i. e. those sins which were committed in infidelity, before we become Disciples of the holy Jesus, are to be remitted in Baptism and our first profession of the Religion: but the sins committed after Baptism and Confirmation in which we receive the Holy Ghost, and by which we grieve the Holy Ghost, are to be accounted for, with more severity. Id. part. 2. p. 64.
Pacif.
The holy rite of Confirmation hath been but too much disused by us in England, were it but practised in such a way as learned Chemnitius hath described, it would undoubtedly much tend to the setling and reforming our Churches; but you speak a little too like the adversary, when you say, that God hath by the Covenant Evangelical appointed auxiliaries of the HolySpirit to be ministred to all baptized people in the holy rite of Confirmation; as also when you say, that in Confirmation we receive the Holy Ghost; for if you speak of adult persons, they are at least supposed to have received the Holy Ghost before Baptism or Confirmation, yea the very miraculous gifts of the Holy Ghost came upon men before Baptism, as is plain, Acts 10. 44. But as for your Explication of the place of the Evangelist concerning the sin or word against the Holy Ghost, that the meaning should be only this, that the sins we commit after Baptism and Confirmation must be accounted for with more severity then those committed by us in infidelity, it is both singular and hugely uncouth; the Articles of the Church as now we have them, mention nothing of the sin against the Holy Ghost, but in that old Copy I have of them as they were agreed upon in the dayes of King Edward, I find that which is now our 16th Article thus worded and entitled
Of Sin against the Holy Ghost.
Every deadly sin willingly committed after Baptism, is not sin against the Holy Ghost and unpardonable, where the place for Penitents is not to be denyed, to such as fall into sin after Baptism; after we have received the Holy Ghost, we may depart from grace given, and fall into sin, and by the grace of God we may rise again and amend our lives; and therefore they are to be condemned, who say, they can no more sin, as long as they live hear, or deny the place for penitents to such as truly repent and amend their lives. Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost.
Blasphemy against the Holy Ghost is, when a man of malice and stubbornness of mind doth rail upon the Truth of Gods Word, manifestly perceived, and being enemy thereunto, persecutoth the same, and because such be guilty of Gods curse they entangle themselves with a most grievous and hainous crime: whereupon this kind of sin is called and affirmed of the Lord unpardonable.
Laud.
That the duty of Repentance if of such extent and burden, that it cannot be finished and performed by dying persons after a vicious life, is evident; and therefore if we make dying mens accounts upon the stock of Gods usual dealing, and open revelation, their case is desperate. Unum. Neces p. 332.
Pacif.
If Repentance be such a work as cannot possibly be done on a death bed, how then can dying persons be called upon to repent? It is in vain to repent, if it be impossible to hope; but if it be possible to do the work of repentance on our death bed, but only that it is very difficult, there is in this affirmative no great matter. Every one confesseth that, and all evil men will put it to the venture.
Laud.
Whatsoever is known or revealed, is against these persons and doth certainly condemn them: Why then are they bidden to hope and repent? I answer once for all, it is upon something that we know not, and if they be saved, we know not how; they cannot expect to be saved by any thing that is revealed in their particular. When St. Peter had declared to Simon Magus that he was in the gall of bitterness, and yet made him pray, if peradventure the thought of his heart may be forgiven him; he did not by any thing that was revealed know that he should be pardoned; but by something that he did not know there might be hope. It is at no hand to be dissembledout of tenderness and pity to such persons, but to be affirmed openly; there is not revealed any thing to them that may bid them be in any measure confident. Unnum Neces. p. 333. & 4.
Pacif.
This is in my opinion not only uncomfortable doctrine, but also very unsound; Is it not plainly revealed that nothing is required to pardon and salvation, but only repentance true and unfeigned? and is not faith and repenrance such, though wrought but at the last? Our Martyr of blessed memory, Mr. Bilney. Acts Mon. Vol. 2. p. 271. thus expresseth himself; I dare be bold to say, that as many as I have heard of late to preach, have preached such repentance, that if I had heard such repentance in times past, I should utterly have been in despair; and to speak of one of those famous men, after he had sharply inveighed against vice, he concluded; Behold thou has lien rotten in thy own lusts by the space of 60 years, and wilt thou presume in one year to go forward towards heaven, and that in thine age, as much as thou wentest backward from heaven toward hell in 60 years? Is not this think you a goodly argument? Is this the preaching of Repentance in the Name of Jesus? or rather to tread down Christ with Antichrists Doctrine? for what other thing did he speak in effect, than that Christ dyed in vain for thee? he will not be thy Jesus or Saviour, thou must make satisfaction for thy self or perish eternally. As for our Homilies, they plainly declare that there is a revealed Word for the pardon of late Penitents, 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 me thinks 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 wayes 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 dayes, making men to trust to a late repentance; it puts men upon vain confidences, and makes them relie for salvation upon dreams and empty notions; it destroys all the duty of man, and cuts off all entercourse 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 creatur; 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 bloudy 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 Andquitie, 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. Adams 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 Lyturgy she only adviseth it where a mans 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 entercourse with man, they lose their title to the mercies of the Gospel; if they mean the Law of Moses, then 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 magnifie 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 mans hand. But we are not to subject our selves so much as by fiction of Law, or fancy to the curse and threatnings 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 shew 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 whilest 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 threatnings of the Gospel, the severe intermination of eternal pains, the goodnese 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, then the terrors of the Law were to the breakers of it; the cause of the mistake is this: The Law was more terrible then 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 threatned in the Gospel, we shall find these to be in a worse condition then those by far, as much as Hell is worse then beeing 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 administred by Moses? either of them sure is enough to affright sinners; or else God had been wanting, not threatning 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 then is generally believed. If they dye an Eternal death, then the Law threatneth more then 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 Controversie 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 Christs 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 Gods Spirit in man. Id. p. 143. To Justifie 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 signifie 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 signifie 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 decryed 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 our selves and others the remission of our sins, and so consequently everlasting life: for that were meer Blasphemy against Gods mercy, and great derogation to the blood-shedding 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 Judgment.
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 Abrahams Bosome, which though it be not Heaven, yet is it higher then Hell. Gagg. 281.
Pacif.
The souls of the godly, separated from the body, do, and alwayes did go immediately into Heaven. Our Homilies, as you cannot but know, make but two places after this life. Homily of Prayer. p. 122.
Laud.
It appears from S. August. de civ. Dei. lib. 20. cap. 15. that it was then an opinion generally received in the Christian Church, and such as might well be believed (as himself acknowledgeth) without any absurdity, that the Patriarchs and others of the Saints of the Old Testament were detained in some lower places amongst the inferi, but without any sense of those infinite torments which were endured by the wicked; and that they were detained there till the coming of Christ, till he by his descent thither did release them thence. This makes me to consider it as a matter questionable only; I shall not dare to say it is false or impious. Dr. Heyl. Fid. vet. p. 221.
Pacif.
You may, if you will, choose whether you'l say that opinion is false; but the Church of England hath plainly expressed her self in the third part of the Sermon of the fear of death, The holy Fathers of the Old Law, and all faithful and righteous men which departed before our Saviour Christs ascension into heaven, did by death depart from troubles unto rest; from the hands of their enemies, into the hands of God; from sorrows and sicknesses, unto joyful refreshingin Abrahams bosome, a place of all comfort and consolation; as the Scriptures do plainly by manifold words testifie.
Laud.
The opinion carryeth no impiety with it, nothing derogatory to the Gospel or Kingdom of Christ, but rather seems to add much lustre to our Saviours person, and much conduceth to the honour of the Faith and Gospel. For what can be more honourable to the person of Christ, then that the Patriarchs and other holy men of God who dyed under the Law, were kept from being admitted into a participation of the joyes of heaven, till he by his divine power took them by the hand, conducted them into the blessed gates of Paradise? What could add more to the dignity and reputation of the Gospel of Christ, then that all such as faithfully believe the same, and frame themselves to live thereafter, should have a greater priviledge then their Father Abraham, and all the rest who dyed before in the fear of God before the coming of our Saviour, and be admitted presently into the joyes of Paradise? Id. ibid.
Pacif.
It is strange if the opinion tend so much to the honor of Christ and the glory of the Gospel, that the Church of England should give her children no notice of it, but rather express her self against it. And seeing you have laboured to make it appear that both the Greek Hades and the Latin Inferi, signifie Hell and the place of Torments; how can the Patriarchs and other holy men of God, be said to be in or amongst the inferi, and not participate of the Torments of that wretched place?
Laud.
In answer to this it may be replyed, That there might be some part or region of the inferi, wherein the greatest, or rather the only punishment was poena damni, a want of those Celeftian comforts which were reserved for them in the land of Paradise; which to a soul that longed for the sight of God could be no small infelicity. 2. It may be said, That though the inferi in it self were a place of punishment, yet God was able to command the fire that it should not burn them, and the torments of the pit that they should not touch them. Nor is this all that may be said in justification and defence of those ancient writers, &c. Id. ibid. & p. 222.
Pacif.
It is well this is not all that may be brought in defence of them, if it were, I should venture to say, That just nothing could be alledged in their justification. But what can be said else?
Laud.
Possibly they might mean no more by those expressions of bringing back the souls of the just from Hades, then that by the descent of Christ into Hell, all the claim and challenge which the devil could pretend unto them were made void and of none effect. Id. ibid.
Pacif.
Very good: Then it seems till Christ descended into Hell the claime of the Divel to the souls of the just, was not made void and of none effect: but I had thought that the death of Christ, though he had never descended into Hell, had been sufficient to have vacated all the claim that the Devil could make to the souls of those who dyed in the fear of God. And this death of Christ had its effects and operations upon those who dyed before Christ, as well as upon those who dyed since he actually offered himself upon the Cross. But the truth is, all this discourse of Christs bringing of the souls of the Fathers out of Hades, doth depend upon that which is hugely uncertain and inevident; viz that Christ did descend into Hell. Now this I humbly conceive can neither be proved from Scripture, nor yet from the Apostles Creed, nor yet from any Article of our Church.
Laud.
If we search into the publick Monuments and Records of the Church, we shall find thisDoctine of Christs local descent into Hell, to have been retained and established amongst many other Catholick verities ever since the first beginning of her Reformation. Fid. vet. p. 223.
Pacif.
That this was the mind of the major part of those who met together for the composing of the Articles in 1552. is certain; but it is as certain that there were then men of eminent parts, and in all probability men imployed in that Synod, of a contrary mind: I instance only in Bishop Hooper, who in his Exposition on the Creed doth most expresly and in terminis write against the Local descent of Christ into Hell. As for the Articles of 1562. they are so worded as to leave to all their liberty to opine in this matter, as in their own minds they shall be perswaded; and so much is asserted by Mr. Rogers in his Exposition of the Articles. As for the Apostles Creed it is, and that most deservedly, of great credit and esteem in all the Churches of Christ throught the whole world: but then it must be considered, that the Symbol of the Apostles hath not been alwayes the same; particularly, Ruffinus assures us, that this additament, descendit ad inferos is neither found in the Creed used by the Roman Church, nor yet in the Creeds of the Eastern Church. Vid. Mr. Peirs. on the Creed. p. 456. Amyraldus also hath observed, that in some Creeds where these words He descended into Hell are found, there is no mention of Christs Burial; nay, the Learned observe, That in the very Aquileian Creed, where this Article was first expressed, there was no mention of Christs 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 Christs descending into Hell. As for what is urged either from Scripture or from the Analogy of Faith to prove Christs 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 then will easily be answered. I freely assent to that of Augustine that none but an Infidel will deny Christs 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 Christs 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, applyeth it thus unto our Saviour, that David seeing this before, spake of the Resurrection of Christ, that his soul was not left in hell. Id.
Pacif.
foreign eo loci sepulcrum est, quod est in Scripturâ solenne, saith Amyrald. As for foreign, that may either denote the whole person by a Synecdoche, or else by a Metonymie, the dead body it self, which is not unusual in Scripture, saith the same Author. Nor can any one deny but foreign in Hebrew, and foreign in Greek, do signifie a dead body: And foreign the Hebr. word, and foreign the Greek word do both signifie sometimes no more then the grave.
Laud.
It is a strange consideration to suppose an eternal torment to those to whom it was never threatned; 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 dye young in their natural follies and foolish lusts; to them that fall in a sudden gayety 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 dyed for them, who pardons easily and pittieth readily, and excuseth much, and delights in our being saved, and would not have us dye, and takes little things in exchange for great. It is certain that Gods mercies are infinite, and it is also certain, that the matter of eternal torments cannot truly be understood; and when the School-men 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 it self 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 surprized 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 Gods 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 rhe 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 then 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 humane 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 hearers foreign 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 judgment 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 then 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 shewed in his late Historia quin que articulorum.
Pacif.
Dr. Heylin doth so much mingle his Passion with all that he writes, that he marreth every cause he medleth with; and I have been told by a Master of Arts and Fellow of a Colledg, That Dr. H. Hammond walking with him once in Magdalen Colledg Cloyster 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 decryeth 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 my self 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 bnt 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 tels 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 scribling which I am not so good a Physician as to be able to cure. As for the indignities that he hath offered to the Belgick Churches, I leave him to be chastized by the pens of some of their owm 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 tels 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 denyed 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 Universitie 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 Colledge to be a nest of Cuckoos; he would not sure have took a courtesie 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 Colledg, he would sure for his sake have been so civil as not to have used so ugly a similitude. Indeed if singing alway the same note and tune make a Cuckoo, all the Cuckoos do not lodg at Mag. Colledge. 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, then any one Article of Religion here by Law established. But this he proveth by such an argument as I perswade my self 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 flie in his face: if by them he mean the Souldiers whose violence prevailed so far as to seclude the Members of that Parliament, which was, if any, the Presbyterian Parliament, then his Argument must run thus; The Souldiers, 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 Doctour 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 half-penny 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 Majesties 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 it self, I had well hoped, that if a Courtier could have stooped so low in flattery, yet no Divine, whose work is to be Kings 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 Christendome. 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 ar London was by the Authors own consent, meerly 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 compleatly armed; My Lord, saith the Cardinal, do you think St. Bennet, who was the Author of your Order went thus attended? The Abbot presently replyed 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 Stationers hand) T. C. will not be at a loss to find one as bad, or far worse to lay in the Doctors 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 Lords most unworthy creature, March 20. 1659.
FINIS
End of the text · Henry Hickman, A Dialogue (1660)