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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} and that it is a broach of civil decency to employ these places set a part for 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 't is 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. 'T is 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 {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} {non-Roman} signifieth a woman as well as a man to affirm that both sexes are not included But let us to the Controversie of Episcopacy Are all Ordinations invalid which are done by meer Presbyters without a Bishop what think you of the Reformed Churches Laud For my part I know not what to think the question hath been so often asked with so much violence and prejudice and we are so bound by publick interest to approve all they do that we have disabled our selves to justifie our own Episcop asser p. 190. Supposing that Ordination by a Bishop is necessary for the Vocation of Priests and Deacons and therefore for the founding and perpetuating of a Church either God hath given to all Churches opportunity and possibility of such Ordinations and then necessity of the contrary is but mockery or if he hath not given such possibility then there is no Church there to be either built or continued but the Candlestick is presently removed Id. p. 193. Pacif. Our Church did alway retain Episcopacy and so she might have done still had not Bishops been more faulty then ever Episcopacy was But that Ordinations by meer Presbyters were not valid was never affirmed by our Church or any of her eminent members but rather the contrary which will appear if we consider that the transmarine Churches have alway been acknowledged as true Chnrches and their Ordinations justified and maintained to be valid against the oppugners of them by our English Controversie Writers and Professors Dr. Holland Dr. Willet Dr. Field Dr. Downham Mr. Mason If at any time any ordained by meer Presbyters were made Bishops in our Church their Ordination by Presbyters was supposed to be valid and was not renewed at least not till of late years but what think you of Bishops being made Lords and taking secular employment Laud It was not in naturâ rei unlawful for Bishops to receive an Office of secular employment St. Pauls tent making was as much against the calling of an Apostle as sitting in a secular Tribunal is against the Office of a Bishop Episc. Asserted p. 352. The same Author in sundry following pages much endeavoureth to prove that Bishops may take upon them the affairs of Secular Interest Pacif. Bishops taking upon them secular affairs hath been alway exclaimed against by our Divines as well Prelates as others that have been sensible of the charge of souls committed to them this it will not be amiss to exemplifie in several ages John Wickliffe in the raign of Edw. 3. taught That Popes Cardinals Bishops might not Civiliter Dominari absque mortali peceato and that no Prelate ought to have any Prison to punish offenders and that no King should impose upon any Bishop or Curate any secular matter for then both the King and Clerk should be Proditor Jesu Christi Wals. in R. 2. p. 205. William Swinderby also a Professor in Rich. 2. time held That the more Lordship a Priest hath the neerer he is to Antichrist and that the Priests of the old Law were forbidden Lordship and that Christ himself refused and forbad his Priests Lordship saying Reges Gentium c. the Kings of the Heathen bear rule c. but you shall not so do Acts and Mon. p. 451 453. Tindall in his works p. 124. writes That it was a shame of all shames and a monstrous thing that Bishops should deal in civil causes and p. 140. What names have they My Lord Bb. my Lord Archbishop if it please your Lordship if it please your Grace Bishop Hooper in his Comment on the Commandments hath these words p. 184 185. Edit. 1548. look upon the Apostles chiefly and upon all their Successors for the space of 400. years and then thou shalt see good Bishops and such as diligently applyed that painful office ofa Bishop to the glory of God and honour of the Realms they dwelt in though they had not so much upon their heads as our Bishops have yet had they more within their heads as the Scriptures Histories testifie for they applyed all the wit they had unto the Vocation Ministry of the Church whereunto they were called our Bishops have so much wit they can rule and serve as they say in both States of the Church and also in the civil Policy when one of them is more then any man is able to satisfie let him do always his best diligence If he be so necessary for the Court that in Civil Causes and giving of good counsel he cannot be spared let him use that Vocation and leave the other for it is not possible he should do both well And a great oversight it is of the Princes and higher Powers of the earth thus to charge them with two burdens when none of them is able to bear the least of them both they be the Kings Subjects and meet for his Majesty to choose the best for his Court that be of the Realm but then they must be kept in their Vocation to preach only the Word of God and not to put themselves or be appointed by others to do things that belong not to a Bishops Vocation I will not now relate the speeches of old holy Father Latimer to the same purpose though far exceeding any that have been yet mentioned because they are many and may be easily seen in his Sermon of the Plough But now that we are on the business of Church-government What think you of the persons commonly called Lay-Elders Laud Lay Judges of Causes Ecclesiastical as they are unheard of in Antiquity so they are neither named in Scripture nor receive from thence any instructions for their deportment in their imaginary office and therefore may be remanded to the place from whence they came
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