THE FEMALE DUEL, OR The Lady's Lookingglass REPRESENTING A Scripture Combat about business of Religion, fairly carried on, between a Roman Catholic Lady, and the wife of a Dignified person in the Church of England. TOGETHER With their joint answer to an Anabaptists Paper sent in defiance of them both: Entitled the Dipper Drowned. New Published by THO. TOLL Gent. Matth. 11.25. God hath revealed these things unto babes and sucklings, and concealed them from the wise, etc. London, Printed by H. Bell, and P. Lillicrap. 1661. TO THE ROYAL HIGHNESS Of the most Peerless Pair of PRINCESS' Daughters of Great Britain, France▪ and Ireland. HAd I not fully known (most incomparable Princesses) by a long experience in your most Royal Family, that Clemency; Mercy and Pardon, were your apparent Birthrights, by Lineal Traduction from your great Progenitors, especially from that glorious Martyr for his people, your most Royal Father of eternal memory, and that incomparable Confessor your blessed Mother, (whose sufferings for her King and Conscience deserve to be written with a Pen of Adamant, in the Temple of Eternity) I had not dared to address these poor homespun Papers, wrought by true spinsters hands, to your most Princely view, much less present them as a New-years-gift, or make them to appear in the world, under so great a Patronage. Now the greatest aggravations (most Seraphical Sisters) that can be alleged against me, are: First, that I should presume to present any thing, that carries with it the scratching of women's controversies, (for so most of their disputes do usually determine) or that does so much as sound like a jar, to such serene Pacifick spirits, as your highborne souls are known to be, whose very looks are capable to quiet the most tempestuous and troubled seas, and words to calm the rage of Tigers, and the fury of the most tumultuous and stormy breasted Monsters of Mankind, in whose bosom the very Unicorn would be ambitious to fall asleep, and Lions themselves rejoice to lick your Princely feet. Nay, that I should dare to offer so much as the sound of a Duel to two such sublime Personages, and that are so much one in affection, though different it may be in some persuasion; and are by that great example of your most serene Mother the Grand Mistrese of Peace, Piety, Modesty and Humility to all Womankind. But indeed my fault is not so grievous in this neither, as at first blush it may appear to be, for this Paper Duel is without a disturbance. This Scripture Combat without a quarrel, and this fair dispute is almost without a difference, I am sure without an uncivil word, and though it was managed (as can be proved) only by women, yet it may serve to direct into the true mode, and method of arguing, the most dextrous Doctors, and Disputants in the world, and teach them to improve their arguing unto edification. But the greatest aggravation (most excellent Ladies) that ca●● rise in judgement against me, is yet behind, (as Timourus Penitents use to have their most crying sins to bring up the Rear) which is that I should presume to present any actions of inferior Persons, as Looking-glasses to their Princes, especially to such as you (most incomparable Pair) are known to be; yourselves being the matchless Mirrors of all perfection. Mirrors said I? nay, most pure and Christialine Fountains that show not only to all the Ladies in the world, their deformed spots, stains and blemishes, but likewise how to wash them off, and wherewithal to clear themselves from them: which truth has been most plainly proved and confirmed to us, by that strange and almost miraculous reformation of our women's manners, since the splendour of your most Princely virtues, has appeared amongst them, for which I am sure both Sexes do owe most immortal obligations, to your Royal Highnese, as for a new Conversion of the Nation. Nay, give me leave to affirm, that the blessings we have received in order to that, aught to be put into the Balance with any of those other great ones, that ●is Sacred Majesty has been so graciously pleased, to power down upon us in his coming to us, and redemption of us from a life of sin and slavery. For truly the Mankind here were not depraved into Sedition, Treason, Rebellion and Irreligion, turning all faith into faction, making truth itself to lie, all Loyally to be Treason, Religion to be Rebellion, and pulling down of Churches, the edification of God's house, by any instigation so great, as that they received from their wicked women. The Seas were less furious, a Thunderclap less dread full, the gall of Dragons and poison that swelleth up the necks of Asps, was much more tolerable, than their malice. Nor were they only so guilty in making of their Husbands become Traitors to their God, King and Country, but they did study likewise to appear as unnatural Traitors to the honour of their whole Sex in England (which was as famous as St. Paul magnifies the faith of the Romans to be spoken of over all the world) flying out into such prodigious pieces of impiety and debauched lewdness, that Heathens themselves have abhorred, and very Turks trembled at. From all these horrid infamies, and national scandals, your very presence here has ransomed our Country; and by your all healing examples set a new fair, and reformed face upon all our Womankind. The one being the highest Patroness of all conjugal and vidual Honour, and the other the most pure pattern of all Virginal sweetness and chastity, and both appear to be no less, than two Intelligences that have left the Heavenly Orbs, and vouchsafed yourselves to be inchased in those beautiful bodies for the benefit, and glory of your Sex. To whom therefore could this Lady's Looking-glass be more properly presented, than to your Royal Highnesses, to whom all that is good in the whole Sex amongst us, must be ever attributed, as Rays only reflected from your perfections. This is my humble Plea, most incomparable Princesses, according to which joined with my clear acknowledgement, and most dutiful Confession I doubt not, but your Princely goodness will proceed to absolution, and dispense a pardon to Most Peerless Princesses, Your Royal Highnesses most devoted humble Vassal, and loyal Servant, of your Royal Family THO. TOLL. THE PRINTER TO THE READER. YOu may please to take notice, that this Epistle Dedicatory, was passed to the Press, before the loss which the whole English Nation sustained in the death of that most incomparable Princess, Mary princess Dowager of Orange, and as the Publisher left it, so I am obliged to prosent it. The Publishers PREFACE To the Gentlemen, Readers of the FEMALE DVEL. I Have already understood a grand exception against me, for charging so much devotion and divinity, upon the sex of women who are the Actors in this Scene, and the Authors of this discourse, it is true upon the first perusual of these papers, I myself did little expect to find such Masculine vigour in them: and truly, I dare boldly affirm, that the sum of all the controversies, that our English Schools have been wrangling, and the Pulpits railing about this hundred years, is here perfectly represented on both sides; nor is it to be wondered at, that women should arrive to such a perfection in divinity in this age, wherein all learning is almost become prostitute, when above a thousand years ago, we find one of the curiousest pieces of divinity, written by Athenais, who seemed to be that, which the Poets feigned of Pallas; she was bred in Paganism, better acquainted with the Theogony of Hesiod, than the genealogy of Jesus Christ; better skilled in Homer's Illiads, than the books of the Gospel, and better in the Apothegms of Pythagoras, than the commandments of God; but she became afterwards so skilful in the Christian Law, that she wrote in Homerick verses, the principal Acts of Jesus Christ, and even as the blessed Magdalen with the same hair, wherewith she had weaved nets for wanton love, did afterwards turn into a Towel, to wipe the feet of our Saviour, so she consecrated all the Graces of her wit and learning, which she had before misemployed in vanities, to the Trophy of Jesus. Then as to the devotion of that sex, I conceive it less questionable, when women are right set, none can go beyond them for that. The Church hath always given to them, the title of the devout sex, Their blessing is in the dew of Heaven: they resemble Bees which are born in honey: or rather those birds of the fortunate Islands, that breath no air but perfumes, and are only nourished with incense: they grow wholly Angelical insomuch as forgetting their sex, and all their natural imperfections, they furnish themselves with the most perfect Ideas of divinity, and scarce retain any thing in them, common with matter. We find likewise, that great privileges and prerogatives are given to them by our Saviour, for as the chaste womb of a woman, served him for a lodging, at his first entrance into the world, so when he was to issue out of it, amongst so many horrors, and terrible images of death, when stones were rend in sunder for grief under his feet, and heaven itself distended with sorrow, over his head, women also were found near to the Cross, as witnesses of his last words, and survivers of his blood; nay, they were the first likewise, that he would do the honour to appear to after his resurrection. Now I must confess, that the prejudicators of this piece and all the devotion and divinity of that sex, carry with them a great deal of reason too, for there is a sort of fisking Gossips, who imagine devotion to he nothing but an ordinary practice of motions, and gestures, such as little puppets would make, if annimated with a quantity of Quicksilver, whilst the true virtues of devotion, we know according to S. Thomas, is nothing else but a prompt will to the service of God. others there are of them, whose devotion is altogether silken, and very fine forsooth in all things, so coy and curious they will be in the choice of persons, that Sacraments themselves are good for nothing, if they he not tied to such and such hands, where vanity seeks its interests, nay forsooth their dovotion is such, that they will plant their pretty petite pride upon the very hair cloth of Penance, and if God would chastise such creatures to their liking, he must be forced, to tie up his rods with silk, or else they will never receive correction from his hands. Though they rise not till noon, yet as if they feared the vapours of the serain, they must be armed before they come out of their beds, with restoratives from the Kitchen, to keep their colours more fresh. Then they will set themselves down to be clothed, with their Lookingglasses before them, as if their fingers were too good to touch their own clothes, and yet will be dressed up like Idols, and so adored too by their servants, who are to stand about them, admiring of their beauty, which they have more ado too to preserve, than the Vestals of Rome, had to maintain the sacred fire, one presents their Ladyships, with white, another with red: this with some Serous, that with some Fucus, another attends the Looking-glass to hold it, or remove it at their Ladyship's pleasure, whilst another stands behind to he the tell-clock, but dares not tell their Ladyships, that the hour of the Curch is ready to be past, whilst their Ladyships are fastening on their Pennons, Necklaces, or Bracelets, yet must the Canons of the Church be as easily broken, as a glass, to obey the humours of these women, and the celebration begin, when it is to be doubted, whether the Sun begin not then, to bend towards its setting: prayers in the Church must be passed over with making of some sour faces, and looking scornfully with a good grace, with some slight ceremonies of devotion it may be, which go no further neither then the outward parts; There it is, where resolutions are made of entertainments of time, to be chosen for the next day: then follow visits, gaddings, coaching, dance, etc. besides what passeth behind the Curtain; their husbands in the mean time, are very uncivil, as they say, if they give them not permission to do any thing: and as it is said of the Moon, that she never agrees in qualities with the Sun, but when she hath eclipsed him: so they find no concord in marriage, but in the diminution of their husband's authority. These are the Ladybirds that will make their husbands sell a large patrimony, to buy them a little Cabinet, lay out thousands of pounds upon a rope of Pearl, to wear about those necks that do better deserve a halter, nay their very ears, which they take a pride to show little and slender, yet they must have whole Lordships hanging upon them. A man would say, to see how they pamper their bodies, that they were descended from heaven, and that thither they intended to return, without passing through the sepulchre, so they deify their flesh, and to fatten and gild a dunghill covered with snow, they sport with the blood and sweat of men, what a sight it is, to see these Ladies groan as at a torture, under the weight and straightness of their garments, and yet for all this, will court and adore their own punishments. He that will take the pains to examine well the furniture of them, will think that they resemble those birds, that have no body almost under a great deal of feathers, than their apparel is made rather to sell their bodies, then to cover them. I know not for my part, what may be reserved for the eyes of their husbands, when through all the streets and markets, the secret parts of their wives bodies are exposed as open, as if they were ready to be delivered over to the best bidders. Then the they wear, are so extravagant, in their head dress, flying elbows, great gorgets, and farthinggals, that the Church doors must be made wider to receive them. These are the devotes of this age, that spend a fourth part, of their life, in dressing and besmearing themselves, to make themselves gross in one part and little in a nother, to raise terrets on their heads, and shackles on their hands and heels, to be as solicitous about address, as if they had a Venetian Commonwealth to manage. Then they are so imperious and proud withal, that they must be no more offended, than those Stars, which are thought to send tempests, upon such as have not humbly saluted them. So many hundred Communions and exhortations have not taken off, one hair of their vanities: they will eat the immortal Lamb, once or twice a week it may be, and yet daily upon all occasions they will become Lionesses, in their houses. They will lay the holy Eucharist on their tongues, as the seat of the spouse, and yet will not bridle or restrain them from one evil word, and will speak more slanders in one dinner time, than they eat morsels. This was the reason sure, that Solomon so divinely assures us, Prov. 19 domus & divitiae dantur a parentibus, a domino autem uxor prudens, houses and riches come from Parents, but a wise and virtuous wife from the hand of God: and such doubtless as Solomon speaks of, were our divine Duelists here, as for the Doctor's wife here, she was not after the rate of other Parson's wives, who must always be the best women in the parish, and take place of their Landlords and Patrons wives, if they be not Ladies forsooth, and wear better two then they; no her husband was not of the common rate of Churchmen neither, who take a pleasure to employ the patrimony of Jesus, the sweat and blood of the faithful, in good cheer, excess and play, and suffer their Churches to fall to decay, the Altars to become naked, the windows shivered to pieces, the walls to weep, and Spiders there to spin their webs, Rats to run up and down, and the poor of their parish famish, whilst I know not what little wives, or wenches, drag silk at their heels, at the charge of the Crucifix. Nor was our Roman Catholic Lady here, of a much different make, being a true widow indeed, and wholly taken up with hospitalities and charities, notwithstanding she was always under a most severe persecution here, for her conscience. Vinegar is said to be used for precious stones, which have their fire frozen over, and their lustre eclipsed, so she was to have a little touch of acerbity to enlighten her virtues: she was indeed like a Pearl that comes from the salt sea, and beheld herself involved almost from her birth, in great perplexities and horrible confusions of the age, from whence she always arose with so much lustre, as she made still her adversities, to be steps to the Temple of glory. Sports and feasts were punishments to her, she was seldom found in the company of men, unless it were some beggars, whose miseries she relieved, and persons assisted in sickness and in health. Her whole heart went towards God, her feet to the divine service, her hands to alms, her eyes to reading books of devotion, her arms to the exercise of huswifry, and works of her sex, and her whole body to the sacrifices, and victims of her soul. Thus because I was obliged not to publish our Duelists names, I have been bold to give you an imperfect character of some of their qualities, which I hope will discharge you of a prejudice against their following discourses; and obtain at least a pardon from them, if not acceptance from you, which I should most humbly beg likewise, that your candour would please to bestow, upon the Publisher. Your most humble Servant THO. TOLL. THE FEMALE DUEL, Or the Lady's LOOKINGLASS Representing a Scripture combat, about business of Religion. THe occasion of this feminine encounter, is related thus; Mirs. N. wife to a Dr. of Divinity, and a dignified person in the Church of England, (a woman highly honoured by all her neighbours, for her Religion, virtue, and discretion) came one day, to visit my Lady M. of the same Parish, though of another persuasion, yet equally esteemed, for her great piety and prudence, a Person wholly made up of charity and good neightbourhood, and was truly that widow indeed which S. Paul would have: Now after the common compliments of such visits, were passed between the Doctor's wife was pleased to assault her Ladyship with these, or the like words. Mrs. N. Madame, it would prove I fear, but a pitiful piece of flattery, I me sure impertinency, to tell your Ladyship how much you are beloved, and honoured by all your neighbours, for those great charities, and hospitalities, that your goodness is pleased here daily to dispense amongst us, for your Ladyship cannot but know it yourself. But one thing now I must be bold to tell your Ladyship, which it may be you yet know not, and I presume your excellent good nature, will not be offended at it, for I am sure it proceeds from a true zeal to your Ladyship's service. Lady M. Truly Mirs. N. you needed not have troubled yourself with so much apology, to usher in your discourse, you know that I love nothing like a friendly, neighbourly freedom; and faults as I know, I have enough, so I desire to hear, and to amend. Mrs. N. Nay Madam, it is no fault, that by your Ladyship's favour, I am about to tell you, but a mere misfortune only, and so it is humbly conceived by all those, that as I said before, do so cordially love and honour your Ladyship, and might be with as much ease and happiness to yourself, remedied, as we all do apprehend. L. M. Dear Mrs. N. I prithee make hast to take me off the thorns of my longing expectation to know the issue of your desires, and I'll promise you faithfully my best endeavours, to the very utmost of my power to render you, and all the world besides, what satisfaction is desired in that particular. Mrs. N. O madam, that you would so say, and hold, I should then be the happiest woman in the world. Lady M. Why Mrs N. I hope you never yet found me worse than my word, I pray you therefore be clear with me, and you shall be sure of an equal return. Mrs. N. Why then dear Madam, give me leave to say, that I am but the voice of many thousands more, who have so perfect a love and honour for your Ladyship, that they would think their lives too little to serve you, and are doubly troubled; first, for your Ladyship's sake, whom they take to be the pattern of all noble goodness, and so perfectly amiable in yourself, that you should yet remain in such an odious and idolatrous Religion; then for themselves, that they cannot have the happiness to enjoy your Ladyship's company and family in our Churches, as well as in our Markets, and that our souls do not meet in a spiritual, as well as civil conversation, which heavenly content, if your Ladyship would once please to give us, we should all think ourselves arrived at a blessedness, beyond any people in the earth. Lady M. O Mrs. N. I do very much acknowledge myself indebted to you, and all my good neighbours here, for your great respects towards me, and I'll assure you I shall be always willing to impart my estate amongst them, for their worldly advantages, but much more for their souls good, aod that we may be all again reduced into one, I mean, that old blessed communion, which was not full two ages since, apparently perfect amongst us all here, but since our breaches now, are grown so great, and that happiness, without an extraordinary miracle, is not to be restored to us, you must give me leave, to keep my own soul to God and his Church; for my Faith, which you are pleased to call so odious, and Idolatrous, words that I must confess, I little expected to hear fall from you, is built upon such a foundation, as can never fail, no not though heaven and earth should, or an Angel from heaven, should preach another doctrine, as the Apostle forewarns us. Mrs. N. Dear madam; in consideration of the integrity of my heart towards you, I hope your Ladyship's goodness, will pardon that rudeness of any words, that may fall from me. But sure sweet madam, there can be no such foundation, as you speak of, unless in the undoubted word of God, which you have most clearly, and entirely against you in all particulars, and therefore your Church, does all it can to blind you by keeping that from you, so leading you on still in errors, by an implicit faith in its doctrines, which are mere humane inventions. Lady M. Indeed Mrs. N. you are very much mistaken, in the whole drift of your discourse, and that, I conceive occasioned by the continual slanders thrown upon us, both from your Prints and Pulpits. For our Church hinders none from reading the Scripture, that can satisfy their Pastors, that they have a temper fit for it, and humility enough, to resign up their faith to mysteries, that will not make such use of it, as most of you do, by giving of your own shallow interpretations to it, and opposing your single sense, against the current of the Church. As for my part, I have a liberty, as much as I would desire, to read the holy Scripture, and am, I thank God conversant in it, both day & night, I do likewise find unexpressible comfort by it, and a confirmation of my faith, every day more and more. Mrs. N. Why then it seems, your Ladyship reads it with strange prejudice and partiality, for other wise, it were impossible, but you should find the grossness of those errors, that are delivered to you for matters of faith, & if you shall please, good madam, to give me leave, I will be bold to offer some collections of my own, out of Scripture, to save your Ladyship a further trouble in the search, & as I shall from time to time have occasion to wait upon you, so I shall communicate them to your Ladyship, and make that the whole business of our future discourse, till we shall be otherwise satisfied, and I'll promise you, my husband shall not be knowing to it. Lady. M. Mrs. N. I do most willingly accept your offer, but care not much whether your husband be assistant to you, or not in the mater, for I am sure it's not in the power of men or devils, to change the word of God, however they may pervert the sense of it for a time, and so possess the souls, of their unhappy disciples. Mrs. N. Well then madam, I shall be bold to wait on you again within these few days, and show you some Scriptures, that shall quite overthrow your so much fancied foundation, and I hope by consequence bring your Ladyship into our Religion. Lady M. I pray you do sweet Mrs. N. and I shall promise only this, that you shall find my reason not at all refractory to any thing, and we will manage this controversy, as you say, by ourselves, and as women in labour use to do, never cry out for the help of man, till we shall be highly enforced. Mrs. N. Indeed Madam, I doubt not but you will find the business so clear, that we shall never need to come to that. So the combat being mutually embraced on both sides, with very great kindness they at that time parted: some days after, Mrs. N. came again to visit my Lady, and brought her weapons with her, and so began again to accost her. Madame, the greatest things indifference, as I humbly conceive between us, is about that which is indeed the greatest concernment of our salvation, the most holy Sacrament, of our Lord's Supper, wherein your Church hath brought so many visible and palpable abuses, and against known Scripture, that when your Ladyship shall be once satisfied in those, I hope we shall not need to proceed much further. I have here reduced those abuses into four heads; as first, your doctrine of Transubstantiation, and affirming your Eucharist to be the very body of Christ. Secondly, your giving half the Sacrament to the people, and depriving them of the Cup. Thirdly, making your Mass a sacrifice; and Lastly, for saying your Mass in Latin, and not in English, or other mother tongues: and to all these particulars, I have brought you as I conceive such apposite Texts, and here in order set down in this paper, that I doubt not will give your Ladyship just reason to suspect the frauds, and gross collusions of your Church, in all things else. Lady. M. Well deer Mrs. N. I thank you hearty for this favour, and I promise you faithfully that I will very carefully and impartially, examine this paper, which if upon a just consideration I shall not be able to answer, I will then very fairly and honestly declare my submission to it within three or four days, I will by Gods help repay your kind visit, and bring you the best satisfaction I shall be able to do, and so I pray God to enlighten us both to see his faith and truth, so for the present they parted, and the Lady fell to the perusual of the paper, that Mrs. N. had left with her, which was to this effect, as followeth. That the very body of Christ is neither in, or under the Eucharist or Sacrament of the Lords Supper, is apparent by these few texts taken out of, and reasons deduced from Scripture. Our Saviour Christ himself saith, Matth. 29. For ye have the poor always with you, Mat. 26.11. but me ye have not always. Now if he were, as you believe you have him in the Eucharist, we should have him always. He saith again, John 6. It is the Spirit that quickeneth, John 6.63. the flesh profiteth nothing, if therefore the flesh profiteth nothing, what need is there of that great contention, you make to have it in the Eucharist? We have it frequently in the Psalms, and other Scriptures, Psalm. that the heavens must contain him till the last day: otherwise there would be a falsification of no less than three Articles of our Faith. Apost. Creed. He ascended into heaven; He there sitteth at the right hand of God the Father, From thence he shall come, etc. Now if he be corporeally in heaven, how shall he be upon the Altar, for the same body cannot possibly be in two places. Our Saviour in his institution, does not say take my body, Four Gospels but take bread, nor is it to be imagined, that the nature of it can be changed by the blowing & mumbling a few words, from a Priest's mouth. Besides when Christ instituted his last supper, he had a mortal body, now being immortal, how can it be said, this is my body which shall be delivered up for you. We do find all the holy Evangelists calling it bread, Gospel's Acts 2.41. 1 Cor. 10. we find in the Acts of the Apostles said, how they continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, etc. then in S. Paul to the Corinthians, the bread which we break, is it not the communion of the body of Christ, and again in the next Chapter, so let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that cup: Thus currently in Scripture is the Sacrament called bread, and yet your Church, will have no bread left in it. Our Saviour gives us a fair warning Mat. 24 of those deceivers, Mat. 24.5. that shall come and say in his name here is Christ, and there is Christ, and shall deceive many, we are not therefore to believe those that say that Christ is in this, or in that Host. That it is Impious, to deprive the people of the cup, is proved thus. Our Saviour Christ did institute the Sacrament under both kinds, Mat. 26. and communicated both to his Apostles, and gave a command absolutely to all, drink ye all of this. Our Saviour being likewise to recommed the Sacramental use to us, says plainly, John 6.53. that he who drinketh not his blood, as well as he that eateth not the flesh of the son of man, hath no life in him. It is confessed by all of your own side, that the Primitive Christians, did always communicate under both kinds, by what authority then, do they come now to be deprived? And if the Church hath power to take away one part of the Sacrament, why can it not likewise by the same reason, take away the other, and forbidden them the use of the whole Eucharist? You all confess that your Priest's sin mortally, if they do not communicate under both species, why then should not the Laity, sin as much by their omission so to receive it? That your Mass is not or can be made a sacrifice, is clear by these sacred Texts. S. Paul speaking of the true sacrifice of Christ, Heb. 10.10.12.14. says, That we are sanctified through the offering of the body of Christ, once for all, again this man after he had offered one sacrifice etc. Then afterwards the Apostle, repeats, and refers thus, for by one offering be hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified. Then again he speaks more plainly in another Chapter to this purpose, Heb. 7.26. & 27. For such an high Priest became us, etc. who needeth not daily as those high Priests to offer up sacrifice, first for his own sins, and then for the peoples, for this he did once when he offered up himself. Then the current of the whole 9th. Chapter is to prove that Christ did once by his blood, Heb. 9 enter into the Holy of Holies, for our eternal redemption, 26. and towards the latter end of it expressly says, vers. 26. that now, once at the end of the world, hath he appeared, to put away sin, by the sacrifice of himself. The Mass can be but a Testament at most, out of our Saviour's own words, Mat. 26. Luke 22.20. This is my blood of the new Testament, so S. Matthew, and S. Luke gives them thus, This cup is the new Testament in my blood, which is shed for you, now I would fain know how a sacrifice can be made out of a Testament. Your Mass is but a remembrance at most of that sacrifice and oblation which Christ once offered, therefore he saith not in his institution offer this, but do this in remembrance of me, and again so often as you shall do this, do it in remembrance of me, no word of sacrifice, or offering. That your Priests, saying Mass in Latin, and not in English do offer abuse to God and his Church is proved thus. The whole drift of the 14th. Chapter, 1 Cor. is to forbid the Corinthians and consequently all others, 1 Cor. 14 the use of unknown tongues in Churches. It is manifest likewise in the current of that Chapter, Vers. 19 that whatsoever is done in the Church publicly must be done to the understanding of the people, but when your Mass is said in Latin, it is impossible for all the Laity to understand your service. The Apostle frequently commands in other places, as well as this same Chapter, 1 Cor. 8. 1 Cor. 10.23. 1 Cor. 14.3. vers. 26. all things to be done to edification, but where there is no understanding, there can beno edification, so by consequence, no more fruit can follow upon the hearing of one of your Masses than the amendment of a wall is to be expected from an excellent Sermon, that is made to it, for that purpose. Thus I have been bold to trouble your Ladyship, but with a few texts, yet those are pregnant ones to your purpose, and so I pray the Lord, to give you understanding in all things. The Lady within three or four days, sent a servant of hers with this Answer. Sweet Mrs. N. being hindered now by very extraordinary occasions, from paying your last kind visit, I thought myself never the less obliged, to send you the best satisfaction I could, to the Paper, you left with me, and so I have endeavoured to do, as you will find by the enclosed, and as punctually as I could, to every particular. To the first. To what you allege out of S. Matthew, against the mystery of the blessed Presence, I answer, Mat. 28.20. out of the last words of the same S. Matthews Gospel, And lo I am with you unto the end of the world, it is plain therefore that when our Saviour says, me you have not always, it is to be understood, of his corporeal presence, inhuman conversation, for now he is not to be anointed washed, and dried, as then, when he spoke those words, he was to be, by the blessed Magdalen. To the second. To what you allege out of S. John, that the flesh profiteth nothing, I say first, that if the flesh profiteth us Catholics nothing, I am sure, the bare bread must profit all Heretics less. Nor indeed do I remember; that I ever heard of any Heretic so impudent, as to say, that the flesh of Christ upon the Cross profited nothing. Besides, is this a consequence, the flesh profiteth nothing, therefore it is not in the Sacrament, truly if that be good Logic, it may as well follow in my judgement, that the flesh of Christ profiteth nothing, therefore it is not in heaven, over and above all this, it is plain our Saviour speaks not there of his own flesh, for he says not, my flesh profiteth nothing, indeed some of the Jews there, had such a foolish opinion, as to think upon our Saviour's mystical words, that the very flesh of Christ should be visibly, under the species of flesh torn by men's teeth, that sottishness of theirs, our Saviour only reproves. To the third. To what you allege out of Scriptures, and Articles of Faith, I answer, and acknowledge our Lord and Saviour to be in heaven, and fitting on the right hand of his Father in visible and quantitative form, yet he may lie invisibly and sacramentally, under the species of Bread. Nor does the verity of our Eucharist, clash at all with the verity of our Articles of Faith: for we know as the Scripture tells us, that with God nothing is impossible, His Almighty word sure can as easily make a body to be in divers places, as nature his servant can make the essence of a soul, to be in divers members. Nay we see it plainly and positively said so, nor can it choose but be so, for Jesus Christ who as we said is eternally to be at the right hand of his Father, yet appeared upon earth to S. Paul, Acts 9.22. & 1 Cor. 15. To the fourth. To what you allege out of our Saviour's institution, I utterly deny that he said, take ye bread, but taking bread, he said, take and eat, this is my body. Now I would fain know what difference there is betwixt saying, take my body, and taking bread to say, take, this is my body; nor is it the mumbling or breathing of the Priest's mouth, that makes this miraculous change; but Christ himself, when the Priest according to his institution, speaks the words of consecration, is pleased to assist with his divine omnipotency, and convert the substance of bread into his very body, and wine into his blood. Now this power was delivered by Christ to his Apostles, when he gave them Commission to do the like, and bid them so often as they did it, to do it in remembrance of him, and so the Apostle Paul tells us, that what he received from the Lord, that he delivered to us. Then as to the impassibility of the body of Christ, we do most humbly acknowledge it, nor do our Priests say, (who know that our Saviour dies no more) that his body shall be delivered, but they relate only that our Saviour did use those words at his last Supper, which is Truth, for then his body was to be delivered, and his blood to be shed. To the fifth. For the Evangelists calling it bread, it is always understood before consecration, but that being done, they do all unanimously call it the body of Christ. In like manner the Apostles, and Fathers might sometime call it so, because before its change, it was so, as a Serpent in Scripture was called a Rod, because it was a Rod, but Aaron's Rod, devoured their Rods: Exod. 7. then because the figure of bread, and all its other accidents remain, as things are sometimes called from their representations, 1 Kings 10. so Solomon was said to make oxen, and little Lions, because he made the images of them. Then the Eucharist may still be called bread, because in it is the living bread which came down from heaven. John 5. To the sixth and last. To what you allege, out of the 24th. of S. Matthew, I answer, that you are mistaken clearly in the Text, for those words you make to be spoken of the body of Christ, are clearly meant of Christ's kingdom of Faith. His divine Majesty clearly foresaw, that the Hussits would have one Christ to stand for them, the Lutherans one Christ to be for them, the Annabaptists one for them, the Calvinists one for them the Arminians one for them, and Socinians one for them, and the like: of such bold challengers of Christ, as those, and other Heretics are, our blessed Saviour gives us a fair warning to beware, which good Mrs. N. God give you grace to do. Thus I have briefly, and punctually as I could, answered your allegations out of the Scripture against the mystery of Christ's Real Presence in the Sacrament. Now give me leave to mind you of some places of Scripture, that do most expressly assert the Catholic doctrine against you. First, the words of our Saviour's institution in all the four Evangelists, are most significantly harmonious to a letter: Mat. 14.26, 27, 28. as first in S. Matthew, And as they were eating, Jesus took bread and blessed it, and broke it and gave it the Disciples and said, take, eat, this is my body, and he took the cup, and gave thanks, and gave it to them saying, drink ye all of it, for this is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many, for the remission of sins. S. Mark hath it thus; And as they did eat, Jesus took bread, Mark 14 22, 23.24. and blessed, and broke it, and gave to them and said, take, eat, this is my body, and he took the cup, and when he had given thanks, he gave it to them, and they all drank of it, and he said unto them, this is my blood of the new Testament, which is shed for many. Luke 22.19, 20. St. Luke thus, And he broke bread, and gave thanks, and broke it, and gave unto them, saying, This is my body, which is given for you; this do in remembrance of me: Likewise also, the Cup after Supper, saying, This cup is the New Testament in my blood, which is shed for you. St. John in his sixth Chapter, Joh. 6.51.53, 54, 55, 56, 57 makes it his whole business to show how our Saviour did endeavour to explain this mystery; and therefore is pleased expressly to say, I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world: Then upon the Jews murmuring, he adds, Verily, verily, I say unto you, except ye eat the flesh of the Son of man, and drink his blood, ye have no life in you; whoso eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood hath eternal life, and I will raise him up at the last day; for my flesh is meat indeed, and my blood is drink indeed: He that eateth my flesh, and drinketh my blood, dwelleth in me, and I in him. As the living Father hath sent me, and I live by the Father: So he that eateth me, even he shall live by me, etc. The Gospels themselves are yet more clearly explicated by St. Paul, who tells us thus, 1 Cor. 11.23, 24, 25. For I have received of the Lord, that which I also delivered unto you, that the Lord Jesus, the same night in which he was betrayed, took bread; And when he had given thanks, he broke it, and said, Take eat, this is my body, which is broken for you; you, this do in remembrance of me; and after the same manner also, he took the cup, when he had supped, saying, This cup is the New-Testament in my blood, etc. And then to set the business out of all doubt concludes, He that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords body. Can any thing be more plain? Then further, St. Paul, gins with a Preface, I speak as to wise men, 1 Cor. 10.15, 16, 17. judge ye what I say, The cup of blessing which we bless, is it not the communion of the body of Christ? The Bread which we break is it not the communion of the body of Christ? For we being many, are one bread, and one body; for we are all partakers of that one bread. Does not the Apostle here most clearly, and expressly show that in every particle of the consecrated bread, the whole body of Christ is communicated: and as he thought them only wise that could understand that mystery; so we must think them stupid that will not, and worse than Jews that go about to pervert and torment this and other Texts, to any other sense. Over and ahove all this, consider a little more upon that Text before cited, 1 Cor. 11.28, 29. But let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread, and drink of that Cup; for he that eateth and drinketh unworthily, eateth and drinketh damnation to himself, not discerning the Lords body. Here it is clear that by reason of the presence of the body of Christ, the unworthy Receiver is damned, because he sins against that body. There is no man can deny, but the unworthy eater, be it what it will that is eaten, must be guilty of that which is eaten. Here St. Paul most clearly instructs the Corinthians, that it is no simple bread, or ordinary nourishment, that is set upon the Altar, but the very body of Christ, that who ever eats thereof should be guilty of it; therefore the Apostle adds, not discerning the Lords body, that is, not distinguishing it from other food. This I am likewise informed by the Learned, to be the sense of the Church in all Ages; no Primitive Christian ever daring to oppose the clearness of so much express Scripture, till one Berengarius, as they call him, had the impudence to do it, but afterwards recanted, and abjured it before the Pope, thirteen Archbishops, and an hundred Bishops, which God grant all those, that have followed his footsteps, to do likewise. Now that this Transubstantiation, Gen. 2. or transelementation is no way impossible to be done, no nor for you to conceive, as you allege, see what God hath done in the like kind; first in the beginning of the world, God formed man of the dust of the earth, here God changed dust into flesh; in the same chapter we find how God turned the rib of man into woman, a bone into flesh. Gen. 19 Exod. 4. Then Lot's wife looking back is turned into a pillar of salts than Moses threw down his Rod, and it was turned into a Serpent. Then I will strike the water of the River with my Rod, and it shall be turned into blood, Exod. 7. and divers more such mutations there are in the Old Testament. As for the New, we find that our Saviour's first public miracle was to turn water into wine; and this great omnipotency of his, the Devil full well knew, when he to tempt him said, If thou be'st the son of God, turn these stones into bread. Thus you dispute that power in him, which the Devils themselves acknowledge: Now as Christ with five little Breads, did feed five thousand men, by making of bread by his Almighty multiplication; so now he feeds his whole Church of the faithful, with one Bread, that is his body Sacramentally. Then, that Jesus Christ did do some things miraculously with his body, whilst he was upon the earth, which we cannot do with our bodies, nor can any humane reason comprehend, you will not dare to deny, as that he pierced the grave and Tombstone, afterwards when he risen from the dead, that he pierced a house, the doors and windows being shut, and that he pierced the Highest Heavens with his body, when he ascended; all these things, I say, you will not dare to deny; yet this which is enjoined you by the same Authority to believe, you are pleased to dispute. What is this, but to pick and choose what you please yourselves to believe? and from being such a chooser in matter of Faith, shall be ever a part of my Litany, Good Lord deliver me, for that, I am told, is to be a true Heretic. To what you allege of Impiety against the Church of Rome, for depriving the people of the Cup, I answer thus. To the first Argument. I shall clearly grant what you say, that Christ being then to Consecrate did Institute the Sacrament under both kinds, and gave it to his Apostles in both kinds, who now were Priests; Therefore the Priest to this day that celebrates, takes it likewise in both kinds, but what is this to the Laity? For those words, Drink ye all of this, was said only to his Apostles and Priests, who do it still, that is, Consecrate in the Commemoration of Christ; for no other were present at his most holy Supper, but the Apostles, no not his own blessed Mother, as it is clear out of all the Gospels. Nay St. Mark tells us, Mar. 1●. 23 that they all drank of it, which shows clearly, that that all was only meant of the Apostles, for it was impossible to be true of the Laity. To the second. I shall likewise grant, that he that drinketh not his blood, as well as he that eateth not his flesh, hath no life in him; but to a Sacramental eating and drinking, there is required still a Spiritual intelligence, according to what our Saviour himself said, the words that he spoke they were spirit, and they were life. From whence we may conclude, that since the whole Christ, both body and blood is comprehended under one Species, a Lay man may be said to drink the blood of Christ, though not under its proper species, yet under the species of Bread. Again, our Saviour in that Chapter of St. John's Gospel, treats principally of our incorporation into him, which is sufficiently effected by our Communion in one kind, the whole Christ being there, and the other Species is not at all to be said necessary to that incorporation with Christ. To the third. I shall grant likewise, that it hath been permitted to the Laity, to participate of the blessed Sacrament under both kinds: and yet that use was not universal neither, as it appears in the second chapter of the Acts, where it is said that the people continued steadfastly in the Apostles Doctrine, Acts. 2. 4●.46. and fellowship, and in breaking of bread and in prayers: and verse 46. And they continued daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking bread: there is no mention made at all of the Cup. But howsoever the use was then, and there, we are sure in the Western Church the Cup was never permitted to the Laity, and that for many reasons; First considering the multitude of Communicants, some old, some young, some weak, and some strong, there would be great danger of spilling that most precious liquor. 2. It would be very difficult to find a commodious Vessel, to contain a quantity equal to such a multitude, from whence it might be taken without danger of effusion. 3. The Sacrament under the species of Wine, could not easily be conserved for the use of the sick, because it would be apt to grow sour, and corrupt, to the moving of a nauceousness and a vomit in the Receiver. 4. Without great danger of effusion it could not be easily carried from place to place, as it should be to the sick. 5. It would happen sometimes that some high irreverencies would be offered to that most celestial and worthy Sacrament. 6. We have it related and attested from some most holy & learned persons, that some Religious men, though Lay Brothers, were importunate to receive in both kinds; whilst the Priest was in the action of the Sacrament, the Patin or Plate where the sacred Host lay appeared full of blood, to the astonishment and satisfaction of all the beholders; and the Petitioners gave off the importunity of their former request. Over & above all this, we are to believe, that it was a most ancient custom in the Primitive Church that the Laity should communicate but under one species: Nay, that it came from the very Tradition of the Apostles, because the beginning of it could never yet be showed, nor can by any man. Besides, we know that there were some amongst the Jews that never did, nor could drink Wine; and in some Christian Countries there is a great difficulty, and at some times almost an impossibility to get any Wine. Now as for your inference, that if the Church could take away one species, it might as well take away both, I utterly deny; for the whole Christ being no less under one species than under both, and as much fruit of comfort and spiritual nutriment, to be had from one, as well as the other, the Church neither does, nor can deprive any Christian of the Benefit of the whole Sacrament. To the fourth and last. I grant again, that the Priest who is to consecrate, does and aught to consecrate both species, because he is to perform the representation of our Lord's passion, therefore the body and blood together are consecrated under both their proper species; and the Priest in the person of the whole people present offereth, and taketh it under both species, and the whole people in the person of the Priest, do, or aught to believe, that they receive and drink the very blood of Christ by a spiritual kind of taking, which is very sufficient for them, so there can be in them no guilt of omission at all. Now here again give me leave to return to you some Texts, that you may be pleased to consider of, and I hope you will receive the same satisfaction that I have done, in the full right and reason of the point, that it is sufficient for the people to receive the Sacrament under one kind only. First, be pleased to examine throughly the sixth Chapter of Saint john's Gospel, where our Saviour so often calls himself the bread of life. Joh. 6. 3●, 33, 34. My father giveth you the true bread from heaven: For the bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven and giveth life unto the world. Then again, jesus said unto them, I am the bread of life: 48. And again, I am the bread of life: Again, 50. this is that bread which came down fro● heaven, that any man may eat thereof and not die. And again, I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if any man eat of this bread, he shall live for ever; and the bread that I will give is my flesh, which I will give for the life of the world. Here our Saviour is pleased to mention nothing but Bread. Secondly: St. Luke assures us, Luk. 24.30 that our Saviour gave the Sacrament himself but in one kind to the two Disciples going to 〈◊〉: And it come to pass as he sat at meat with them, he t●●k bread and blessed it, and broke, and gave to them, and inmediately their eyes were opened, etc. And this was the only time, that our Saviour gave the Sacrament to the Lairy. Our Saviour therefore taught us in St. Mat. 6.11. Matthew, to pray daily for our substantial Bread; no mention at all of Drink. Then we find in the Acts of the Apostles, immediately after the Ascension of Christ, that the people continued steadfastly in the Apostles doctrine and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, Act. 2.42.46. and in prayers. And again: They continued daily with one accord in the Temple, and breaking of bread, etc. Now for a further confirmation of all this, St. Paul makes this inference: 1 Cor. 5.7, 8. For even Christ our Passeover is sacrificed for us; therefore let us keep the feast, neither with the leaven of malice and wickedness, but with the unleavened bread of sincerity and truth. And in the tenth Chapter explains it thus: For we being many (meaning Priests and people) are one Bread and one body; 1 Cor. 10.17. for we are all partakers of that one Bread. All these Texts, as I am informed, the Holy Fathers of the Primitive Church understood as the Church does now; and being at the point of death themselves, would never communicate but in one species. To the Proofs that you are pleased to produce against the Sacrifice of the Mass, I answer thus. To the first. Those Texts of the Apostle which you urge, are clear to another sense than what you propose: For you are to understand a twofold offering of Christ, yet both real and true; for in both Christ is truly offered and sacrificed. The first way of offering is that with which he once offered his living body and blood to God the Father upon the Altar of the Cross for the sins of the whole world, and salvation of mankind; and of that great offering the Apostle only speaks there, showing the excellency of that sacrifice above the sacrifices of the Law. Of which sacrifice speaking likewise to the Ephesians, Ephes. 5.2. he saith, he hath given himself for us, an offering and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savin. Now this grand oblation is represented by our holy Mother the Church but once in the year, and that is Saturday in the holy week; neither is there any consecration at all made that day of the Sacrament: But the Eucharist that was consecrated the former day, is then received, lest the Church of Christ should remain deprived of the comfortable fruits of our Lord's Passion. The other way of Oblation is clearly Sacramental, and yet nevertheless real, by which Christ is daily offered in the Church, and received by Priests in the Sacrifice of the Mass, under the Sacrament, in commemoration of the Passion, Dead, and that former Oblation once made upon the Cross: So that the Priest in the person of the whole Church, doth present to God the Father the Oblation made by the Son upon the Altar of the Cross, and him offered; and that is the Offering according to the order of Melchisedech. However this Oblation may be but rightly called commemorative; not that Jesus Christ is not rightly and truly offered, but because he is offered here under a Sacrament, invisibly and recordatively, in remembrance of his former Oblation, by his own command, Numb. 28.3. and according to his own Institution. And this is the oblation that was signified by the continual burnt-offering in the Old Law, in which there was a Lamb without spot to be offered every morning and every evening. This second Oblation, I say, the Priests of Christ do make daily by the command of Christ himself, Luke 22. grounded upon those words, Do this in remembrance of me: For this word do cannot refer only to a bare sumption, or taking of the Sacrament, as you would have it, but an Action and Oblation; otherwise they should not have had the power of Consecration by those words. Christ perfected at once the Oblation of himself upon the Altar of the Cross in one bloody Sacrifice, and by the frequent repetition of this unbloody one, the fruits and effects of the former are daily derived to us: So that the Mass is not only a representation of our Lords last Supper, but of his Passion, Death, and Oblation of himself; and therefore our Eucharist is not only a Sacrament, as you say, but it is also a real Sacrifice; a Sacrament truly it is, as it does represent, and is taken; but a Sacrifice it is, as it is offered and sacrificed to God; and by this reason our Mass, in which this great Sacrifice is celebrated, is called a Sacrifice too. To the second and third. In the like manner, I shall answer both your following arguments; for those Texts do clearly speak of the first Oblation that Christ made of himself; our Sacrifices here are but examples of that, and ye● we offer still the same thing, not as in the Old Law, to day one Lamb, and to morrow another, but always the same, so it is still one Sacrifice; for as he that is offered is one body, not many, so is our Sacrifice still but one. Behold how we offer daily one Sacrifice, which once was offered, though (as is aforesaid) there is great difference in the manner of offering; the one by a real bloody oblation, the other by recordation and representation. To the fourth. That our Saviour did say, that his blood was the New Testament, etc. I grant; but deny that therefore the Mass should be so; for that which he spoke was only to confirm our Faith in the New Testament; Exod. 24.8. for as Moses being to confirm the Old Testament, took the blood of Calves and Geats, etc. and sprinkled the people, saying, this is the blood of the Covenant which the Lord hath made with you, concerning all these words: So Christ with his own blood confirmed his New Testament unto us, and entered into the Holy of Holyes. Besides, there be many things of the New Testament, that belong not at all to the Mass, as Baptism, the Power of the Keys, etc. Nay, over and above all this, it does not follow, Heb. 9 that if the Mass were a Testament, it should be therefore no Sacrifice; for a Testament, according to that of the Apostle, includes the death of the Testator; and the Mass being a Testament, does imply the death of its Testator Jesus Christ, and so by consequence must involve the Oblation. To the fifth and last. I shall clearly grant you again, that the Mass is a recordation or remembrance of the Passion of Christ, but not so nakedly, as when a Lay person does simply communicate; but it is a remembrance after this manner, as it is the representative action of the whole Passion. And this Jesus Christ said, do ye, not only take ye, but do ye: that is (if we join the precedents and sebsequents together) consecrate. offer, take: therefore that part of the Mass is called Action. So therefore, as there was a continual Sacrifice in the Old Testament; so in the Law of Grace is Christ our Saviour made our continual Offering, and shall continue so for ever, till Antichrist shall come, as our Doctors do affirm, and then it shall cease for a while. Now give me leave again to return you some proofs out of the Scriptures, of the congruity, and necessity, that the Mass should be a Sacrifice. First, Leu. 5.6.9.14. it is manifest that in the Old Law there was to be an offering for the sins of the people, and it was always the duty of the Priests to offer for their ignorances' and sin's, and for their cleansing: And what Religion was there ever so stupid, as to pretend to the service of a Deity, without some Sacrifice, except some novel Christians, to the very scandal of Jews and Turks. Secondly: Malach. 1.10, 11. The Prophet Malachy does most plainly Prophesy of our great Sacrifice, when he brings the Lord speaking to Israel, I have no pleasure in you, saith the Lord of Hosts, neither will I accept any offering at your hand: for from the rising of the Sun to the going down of the same my name shall be great amongst the Gentiles; and in every place Incense shall be offered unto my name, & a pure offering; for my name shall be great among the heathen, saith the Lord of hosts. Is not this a most plain Prediction of the Cessation of the Sacrifices of the old Law, and the Institution of the Sacrifice of the new Law? Nor can this be meant of that Sacrifice which Christ offered once upon the Cross, because the Prophet speaks of a Sacrifice to be offered in every place, and speaks but only of one oblation; and that is nothing, nor can be, but the pure Sacrifice of the body of Christ, so often repeared upon in our Masses, and upon our Christian Altars. Nay yet examine a little further in this great Prophet, Malath. 3.1, 2, 3. and you will find yet a clearer evidence for our Christian sacrifice; for being about his prophecies of the Messiah to come, and having foretold the coming of the Baptist before him, says plainly that the Lord shall suddenly come to his Temple, even the Messenger of the Covenant, whom you delight in, saith the Lord of Hosts, etc. And he shall sit as a refiner and purifier of silver; and he shall purify the sons of Levi, and purge them as gold and silver, that they may offer unto the Lord an offering in righteousness: Then shall the offerings of Judah and Jerusalem be pleasant unto the Lord, as in the days of old, and as in former years. What can be more plain than this Prophecy, that the Saviour of the world should purify his Priests, that is, our Evangelical one's, to offer Sacrifices, not in blood, but in righteousness; which can be nothing but our most holy Eucharist. The Prophet Daniel comes, yet if possible, Malach. 3.1, 2, 3. closer to the purpose, saying, Many shall be purified, and made white and tried, but the wicked shall do wickedly, & none of the wicked shall understand, but the wise shall understand: And from the time that the daily sacrifice shall be taken away, & the abomination that maketh desolate set up, there shall be a thousand, two hundred and ninety days. This is a clear Prophecy of the coming of Antichrist, and how long he shall reign, during which time the continual, Matth. 24. or daily Sacrifice, and this our Saviour himself affirms shall be fulfilled, that upon the coming of Antichrist, there shall be an universal Cessation of our great sacrifice, for almost four years, and nothing but desolation of Churches. Let them look to it therefore, that are hinderers of this glorious and continual Sacrifice from being offered in private Churches, lest they be convinced to be the forerunners of Antichrist. But yet more plainly let us hear what St. Heb. 5.1, 2, 3. Paul says in the Epistle to the Hebrews; For every High Priest taken from amongst men, is ordained for men in things pertaining to God, that he may offer both gifts, and sacrifices for sins. Who can have compassion on the ignorant, and on them that are out of the way; for that he himself also is compassed with infirmity: And by reason hereof, he ought as for the people; so also for himself, to offer for sins. Can any thing be more plain? here the Apostle being to define the duty of a Priest; declares it to be principally to offer for sins; and whereas you say, that no one man can offer for another; St. Paul sure was of another Religion; for he says the Priest ought to offer for the People's, as well as for his own sins; and to this purpose I have been told by those that are skilled in Antiquity, that it has been called the Sacrifice of the Mass, ever since the beginning of Christianity: So enough I conceive said, as to this point. To what you allege of abuse in our Church, by our Mass being said in Latin, and not in English, I answer thus. To the first. I shall for your satisfaction reserr you to the current of that whole Chapter of St. Paul to the Corinthians, which you so urge against our Mass, where it is plain that he speaks of Prophesying, that is, of preaching, interpreting, and expounding the Scriptures; and sure it would be a very absurd thing, that any man should undertake to preach to the people in an unknown tongue; therefore the Apostle in the 19 verse, explains himself thus, Yet in the Church I had rather speak five words with my understanding, 1 Cur. 14.19. that by my voice I might teach others also, then ten thousand words in an unknown tongue. I pray you mark those words, that I might teach others, which must be understood of Preaching, not of celebration of the Mass, or public Liturgy of the Church. To the second. I answer as before, that the understanding so required by the Apostle, is principally meant of prophesying and preaching. As for praying, I shall not enter into the dispute; for it is too nice a one for me, whether prayers though not understood, be not profitable and meritorious; I am sure some of the most Learned Doctors have concluded that they are. But to our present purpose. I say, that though the Laity, do not all of them understand the words of the Mass, yet they do perfectly all the Mysteries of it, which they learn from their Cradles▪ either by instruction of their Parents and Masters, or by the preaching and catechising of their Pastors and Curates; then having the words of the Mass in their own Mother Tongue, delivered to them in their private Primars and other books, they perfectly understand by those mysterious actions and Ceremonies that the Priest useth, whereabouts in the Mass he is, and what words he is about to say: and this is manifest by the people's actions there, who sometimes kneel, and sometimes stand up, sometimes bow, sometimes beat their breasts, and other times sign themselves with the sign of the Cross, as the several passages in the Mass shall require. By which external actions of theirs it is notorious that they understand more of the mysteries of the Mass, than the most Learned Latinist in the world could, not being instructed in the mysteries. To the third and last. As to this I might refer you for further answer, to what has been said before: for all your arguments upon this point, touch but upon one string; but I will yet show you, how much use and edification more, the people do receive by our Mass, though in Latin. First, there is very much of the Holy Scripture in it, and by that the Holy Ghost speaks, and instils instruction into our hearts, though delivered in any tongue. Then the scope of the whose Mass, is unknown to no body, though never so ignorant; for the end of the Mass, and principal intention of the Church, who ever hears must know, whether he understand the words more or less, to be the offering of the sacrifice, for the living and the dead, in the memory of the passion and death of our Saviour, to the glory of God, edification of his Church, and the honour of our Blessed Lady, and all his Saints: And why should not so much understanding in a Lay person be enough to his edification? Nay I I am confident, that by their scantling of understanding their devotions are usually raised to a greater height, than the most learned and intelligent Auditors, who please themselves with a dry understanding of the words. Nay it is evident, that the devotion of a man, may be very much hindered, by too much attention to words. So much I conceive enough to your Arguments, & to conclude a Latin Mass to be sufficient for the people; but yet if this were all in difference between us, I am persuaded the Church would easily permit you to have it in your own Mother tongue; for in what language it is said, is only matter of Discipline: But yet I have thought good to send you some Arguments likewise to convince you of the congruity and conveniency, if not necessity, that the celebration of those Divine Mysteries should be still in Latin. The Scripture tells us throughout Exodus, Leviticus and Numbers, with what care the people of the Jews were kept off from the holy place at the celebration of their Sacrifices; how many Veils and Curraines there were to be between the Tabernacle and them; and none but the Priests suffered to enter; is not our great Christian sacrifice then to be attended with as much reverence? Nay the Priests themselves went only into the first Tabernacle; but into the second went the High Priest alone; and that but once every year, not without blood, which he offered for himself, and for the errors of the people: Are not the Mysteries of our Faith more sacred? I'm sure all their Sacrifices were but types of ours; and all those reverences which they paid then, were but to teach us our humble distance, and how to behave ourselves before our dreadful, and most mysterious sacrifice now. We find our Saviour in the Garden, withdrawing himself from his Disciples, and praying filently, and secretly, as you may see both in Saint Matthews and Saint Luke's Gospels. He prayed, undoubtedly, for all the world, but his prayers were not heard, much less understood by any. Now that you may be better informed in this point of Discipline, I must tell you that our Church has been ever careful to pay equal reverence to those most sacred Mysteries, insomuch as from the beginning of Christianity, the people, nor yet Princes were ever suffered to come within the Rail before the Altar; and where there is no Rail, the people are forbid to press up towards the Altar, for fear of disturbing him in his great celebration. Nay in the Primitive Church the Christian Altars were covered with as many Curtains and Veils as the Jewish formerly were; and those Curtains never drawn, but at the time of Elevation; and the people were kept at such a distance, as they could not only not hear, but not see: what would you say to such a reverence as that? And truly we are but children to those Primitive Christians, as well in devotion, as in time. Now it would be worth your knowing likewise, how the three principal Languages that were in our Saviour's time were these three, Hebrew, Greek, and Latin, which is clearly by the Title affixed upon the Cross of Christ, that Pilate caused to be written in those three Languages, questionless not without a Mystery: for as his Divine Majesty was pleased, to suffer his name then to be glorified by that Triumphal Title, in those three Languages; so his Church hath ever since thought fit to glorify it, and to perform divine offices principally in those tongues: and therefore in our Mass is retained the Hebrew Allellujah, Osanna, Eya, Sabaoth, etc. Then the Greek, Kyrie Eleyson, Christ Eleyson, Agios, Otheos', Yskyros, Athanatos, Cleyson, Emas; which words are as well now interpreted, and made known to the vulgar, as if they were words in their own Mother-tongues. Then it will be worth your while to take notice, that it is not in the power of any man to find out, that ever divine service was celebrated in any part of the Western Churches, but in Latin. For as we Western Christians received our Faith from Rome; so we have their Language still in divine service; and indeed so speaking, Latin may be called our Mother-Tongue, for so it is of our faith; and what a confusion would follow upon a change of Language in divine service! how should Italians, Spaniards, French, Dutch, Bohemians, Hungarians, etc. Communicate with us, if our Masses were in English; all Christian Nations would seem Barbarians one to another, and the sacred Mass itself, would fall into contempt: whereas now all Nations, as if they were of one Parish, hear service in the same Tongue every where; which may therefore, as I said before, be truly called our Mother-tongue, because it belongs to so many eminent Nations, and proves such a common benefit to: all you may please to add, all this, to that upon reducing of the Mass into vulgar Languages, there would not only follow a confusion upon divers Nations, but a terrible scandal in each particular people and Nation. For let us look no further, than our own little England here, and examine the variety of Language in it, we shall find that some use the same word one way, and others another way, and the same word will signify honestly and well, in one part of the Nation, and knavishly and vilely in another. Then we know that there is such a diversity in Tones and pronunciations amongst us, betwixt North and South, East and West; that these sacred mysteries, falling into such vulgar mouths, that would not only endanger to induce by their ridiculous dissonancy, a Babylonish confusion amongst us, but likewise expose that most sacred thing in Christianity, to a contempt. And yet after all these necessities and conveniences are considered, if you will remain obstinate in your opinion, nor will otherwise be Catholic, but upon such an account as this, that you may have our Mass said to you in English; I tell you again that I dare assure you, your whole Church may have it so; for I have been fairly informed, that it has been already proffered by the Pope, towards an accommodation: for that, I am sure he may for a greater good dispense withal, it being but a pure point of discipline. Thus Mistress N. I have been bold to send you the best satisfaction I could to your ingenious Paper, and I beseech you be pleased to examine what I have here returned, with the sameunbyassed judgement, as I have done what you brought me, and I doubt not but we shall quickly find ourselves at the end of our controversy. So praying God to bless you and yours, I remain your true friend to serve you, M. I pray you be pleased to take notice by the way that I do not refuse to fight with you at your own weapon, that is your own Scripture, clearly waving all the advantages that the difference of our Translations might give me. POSTSCRIPT. The Messenger my Lady sent with this Paper sealed, having delivered it to Mistress N. her own hands, she received it with great humility and kindness, desired him to stay a little whilst she returned a word in answer, which she did, and sealed it up with some papers enclosed; the Contents whereof were to this purpose. Sweet Madam, I have received the favour of your Ladyships answer to the paper left with you; but as yet I have not had time to peruse one line of it; but I will promise your Ladyship that I will do it with the greatest candour, ingenuity and integrity that I can. Now Madam, during the time that you have been drawing up your return to my last Paper, I have been bold to prepare another trouble for you, which I hope your Ladyship will accept likewise and pardon the boldness that I take to make you work: but it is from the encouragement your Ladyships own goodness has given me, and I'm sure your thoughts cannot be employed upon better things; so the Lord give a blessing to our endeavours: and sweet Madam be pleased to continue me, in the quality of, Madam, Your most humble Servant, N. The Messenger Arriving speedily back at my Lady's House, and delivering the Letter, with the enclosed papers, her Ladyship finding the Contents, fell to the work iw mediately, which you shall hear as followeth. Madam, the Doctrine that your Church delivers, concerning good works is a Mother most strange errors and abuses of Christianity; as confession, free will, etc. Which gives me the boldness to make my address to your Ladyship wholly to that purpose. So I shall first endeavour to overthrow your foundation, that is your Doctrine of good works. That good Works signify nothing to the Justification, much less to the salvation of a Christian, by any way of merit, i● most manifest out of Scripture. 1. The Prophet Habakkuk tells us plainly of him that seeks his Justification by his Works, that his soul which is lifted up, Hab. 2.4. is not upright in him, but the just shall live by his faith. The same is insisted on by our Saviour, Joh. 3.36. He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting Life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life, but the wrath of God abideth on him. And St. Paul, quoting the Prophet, tells the Romans; For therein is the righteousness of God revealed from faith to faith, as it is written, Rom. 1.17. the just shall live by faith. And again, Gal. 3.11. to the Galatians, ●ut that no man is justified by the Law in the sight of God it is evident; for the just shall live by faith: And again to the Hebrews, Now the just shall live by faith: What then is become of your grand confidence in good works? Our Saviour tells the woman diseased with an issue of blood, Matth. ●. that her Faith hath made her whole: And in the same Chapter, assures the blind men, because they believed that he was able to restore their eyes to them, that therefore they should see, and saying, according to your Faith be it unto you, their eyes were opened; by this you may see the value that Faith hath in the esteem of God. 3. The Scripture expressly tells us, that Abraham believed in the Lord, Gen. 15.6. Rom. 4. ●. and he counted it to him for righteousness: the same thing St. Paul repeats to the Romans & to the Galatians; Gal. 3.6. Jam. 2.22. and so St. James; by all which it is plain, that Faith is the only thing that justifies, and gives the reputation of righteousness before God. 4. We find in St. Luke's Gospel, that our Saviour bids us to say, when we shall have done all things that are commanded us, that we are but unprofitable Servants, Luk. 11.43 we have done that which was our duty to do. What is become of your doctrine of works? Where is your merit in them, by them, or for them? when after you have done all things, filled the world with Hospitals, Colleges, Churches and Monasteries, given all your goods to the poor, mortified and macerated your bodies, you are yet so far from meriting, that you are but unprofitable Servants. 5. Our Saviour tells us clearly, and with a vertly, verily, I say unto you, he that heareth my word, Joh. 5.24. and believeth on him that sent me hath everlasting life, and shall not come into condemnation, but is passed from death unto life: Can any thing be more plain than this, that by Faith alone we are to gain everlasting life? 6. Charity itself is but a fruit of Faith, so that it is plain, Faith alone may suffice to our justification; and our Saviour taketh frequently works for Hypocritical, and pronounceth a woe to such as depend upon them. 7. Then it is plain there neither is, or can be any such thing as good works, and whosoever pretends to that righteousness is a hypocrite; for the Prophet Isaiah tells us, Isa. 54.6. that we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as filthy rags: And again, the Scripture tells us, that there is not a righteous man upon the earth who does well, Eccl. 5. and sins not. And the Prophet David cried out, Psalm. though a man after Gods own heart, Enter not into Judgement with thy servant, O Lord, for in thy fight shall no man living be justified: Where is then your Justification by works? And St. Paul that great Vessel of Election, complains, Rom. 7.15.23. that he was sold under sin; for that which he did, he allowed not; he did not what he would, but what he hated, that he did; and that he saw another Law in his members, warring against the Law of his mind, and bringing him into captivity to the Law of sin, which was in his Members: what then must become of us poor creatures, if we confide in our own works? That Auricular Confession of Sins to a Priest is so fare from being a good work, and acceptable in the sight of God, that it is merely to be esteemed Will-worship, and humane invention, is proved thus. It is plain out of the very Text, which you so much urge for your opinion, Joh. 20.23. which is in St. John, Whosoeurr sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them, and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained, That Christ commands nothing there concerning confession, but only requires Priests to give their absolution. 2. And St. James when he seems to command Confession, speaks only of a brotherly Confession, Confess your faults one to another: Jam. 5.16. there is not a word of confession to Priests. 3. Then our Saviour said not to the woman taken in adultery, go and confess thy sins to a Priest, but go and sin no more. 4. Again, we read of Peter's tears, and great repentance, how he wept most bitterly; but we read not a jot of his going to confession, and yet his sin was most undoubtedly pardoned. 5. Then I have read in Ecclesiastical History, that Confession was in one Age wholly abrogated and forbidden in the Church. That your Doctrine of satisfaction for sins, is most dangerous, if not desperate for Christian souls, is proved thus. 1. St. John the Baptist being sent to be a Preacher of Repentance to the people, taught only the observation of the Commandments of God, expressly forbidding them to do more, than what was appointed for them to do; nor makes he mention at all, of any satisfaction for sins. The Lord himself declares, by his holy Prophet Ezekiel, Luk. 3.13. that if the wicked will turn from all his sins that he hath committed, and keep all his statutes, and do that which is lawful and right; Ezek. 18.21. he shall surely live, he shall not die. Here is nothing imposed upon a penitent, but to do Judgement, and righteousness, etc. not the least word of satisfaction. The Prophet Micah does most plainly deride all those that seek to make a satisfaction for their sins, Micah 6.6. by pretended good works, in this Pathetical expostulation. Wherewith shall I come before the Lord, and bow myself before the high God? Shall I come before him with offerings, with Calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of Rams, or with ten thousands of Rivers of oil? Shall I give my firstborn for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? Then the Prophet concludes immediately, He hath showed thee, O man, what is good; and what doth the Lord require of thee, but to do justly, and to love mercy, and to walk humbly with thy God? What can be more evident than this, to show, that God Almighty requires nothing of a sinner, but a faithful return to his Duty: Where is then your pitiful satisfaction? Our Saviour Jesus Christ did most sufficiently satisfy for our sins, by his own most bitter passion and death, as is abundantly clear in Scripture: nor was his precious Passion sufficient only to take away the sins of the whole world; which (it may be) you will willingly grant; but also to take away the pains and punishments due to us for them; for the Prophet, I say, affirms it thus, surely he hath born our griefs, and carried our sorrows: Isai. 53.4, 5. and again, he was wounded for our transgressions, he was bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed. Thus it is plain, aswell the punishment of sin, as sin itself, was taken away by him, without any piece of our satisfaction required. And Jesus Christ, the great Physician, he always makes a perfect cure of sin and punishment; what need then is there of our satisfaction? That the Root and foundation of all these your doctrines is extremely false, and that Man hath no freewill at all, is proved most plainly thus. The Blessed Baptist assures us that man can receive nothing, except it be given hipe from Heaven. Saint James likewise tells us, John 3.27. that every good gift, and every perfect gift, Jam. 1.17. is from above, and cometh down from the Father of Lights, etc. Saint Paul yet more plainly, 2 Cor. 3.5. that we are not sufficient of ourselves to think any thing, as of ourselves, but our sufficiency is of God. 1 Cor. 4.7. And to the same Corinthians saith, What hast thou, that thou didst not receive; now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it? With the truth of all these Texts, how can your Doctrines of stand? 2. Rom. 9.19.16.18. Isa. 63.17. Jerem. 10.23. Prov. 16.1. Prov. 30. Again, Saint Paul to the Romans quctes the Words of the Lord to Moses: I will have mercy on whom I will have mercy, and I will have compassion on whom I will have compassion; & from thence draws an Argument himself against your , to than it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that showeth mercy; Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will be hardeneth. what now will become of your . The Phophet Isaiah expostulates somewhat strangely with God about this. O Lord why hast thou made us to err from thy ways, and bardned our heart from thy fear. What can man do then with his . 4th. The Prophet Jeremy declares it for a truth of his own knowledge: O Lord I know that the way of man is not in himself, it is not in man that walketh, to direct his steps. Solomon assures us likewise that the preparation of the heart in man, Jerem. 10.23. Prov. 16.1. Prov. 20.24. and the answer of the Tongue is from the Lord; and again, man's go are of the Lord; how can a man than understand his own way? if he cannot understand it, he can sure left direct it. The Prophet Isay, and S. Paul tells us, Isay 45.9. Rom. 9.20. that it is an extravagant thing, for the thing form, to say to him that form it, why hast thou made me thus? and the Apostle in the same Chapter, says, that God of his free grace, and mere election saves some, and not for any thing of their works, or freewill, that is exprelly said in the Text, if it were not, it would however follow from reason, for otherwise grace would not be grace at all; and then concludes as a foresaid, that it is not of him that willeth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that giveth mercy: what could be said more clearly against your Church's doctrine? Our Saviour tells his Apostles, as three Evangelists do jointly, and severally assure us, Mat. 10.19. Mark 13.11. Luke 12.11. that they should take no thought how, or what they should speak, for it should be given them in the same hour what they should speak; for said he again, it is not ye that speak, but the spirit of your father which speaketh in you: if then our ability be so short to speak, how much less must it be to do his will? S. Matthew again tells us in the same Chapter, Mat. 14.29. how our Saviour argues the matter with them, are not two sparrows sold for a farthing; and one of them shall not fall to the ground without your Father: if a Sparrow fall not without him, how shall a thought, word or action of ours? Our Saviour very positively concludes this point in S. John's Gospel thus, John 6.44. no man can come to me, except the Father which hath sent me draw him, and I will raise him up at the last day, what can poor we do then, with all the strength of our will, or works? so I beseech the same Father to draw your Ladyship, and all erring Christians to himself. This paper my Lady had no sooner read, but she sent a messenger with a letter back to Mrs. N. to thank her for the favour of her paper, and to assure her of the best satisfaction, she should be able to give to it, but chiefly to desire her for the future, to forbear Scholastic questions, lest by their little skill in those niceties, they might before they were a ware, engage themselves in Blasphemy or Heresy. So Mrs. N. returned thanks to her Ladyship for her kind caution, and promised to avoid all speculative disputes, and to proceed upon things more moral and practical, with which the Lady was satisfied, so fell to work upon the papers thus. To what you allege against our doctrine of goodworks, and for your justification by faith alone, I answer thus. To the first. We do humbly believe, acknowledge and profess, that the just must live by faith, for faith is the foundation of the spiritual building, Heb. 11. and the substance of all things hoped for; as the Apostle tells us; But what you do from thence gather, of your faith alone, is a mere tearing, and a falsifying of all those texts, out of the Prophet's Apostles and Evangelists. For it is not where said, that the just shall live by faith alone. Now to believe truly in God, according to the received use of Scripture, is to adhere to him by love, and this our Divines call a form faith, which can never be without charity, as S. Paul most amply explains to his Galatians. Gal. 5.6. For in Jesus Christ saith he, neither circumcision, availeth any thing, nor uncircumcision, but faith which worketh by love. Here S. Paul assures us, that it is not every faith that is sufficient to justify us, but only that which worketh by love. To the second. You might be satisfied in this, by the answer before, but I shall add, that such a faith, as that of the woman with the issue of blood, and of the blind men in the Gospel, might obtain such a temporal benefit, as the curing both of the one and the other, I say, temporal benefits may be procured by an unformed faith, as the Romans and other Heathens have visibly found God's blessings to follow them, for their many virtues, and this S. Paul intimates, when he tells the Hebrews, that by faith the Harlot Rahab perished not with them that believed not, when she received the spies with peace, here was a good work too went along with her faith. Heb. 11.31. Rom. 4. Heb. 11. And there is no doubt, but an unformed faith, accompanied with charity, humility, and devotion, may obtain by grace, a justification from sin; and whosoever does believe in Jesus Christ that he can justify a sinner, it shall be imputed to him for righteousness; for without faith, it is impossible to please God. To the third. What you urge out of Genesis, S. Paul; and S. James, is sufficiently explained, and answered by the foregoing words of the said S. James 5.21.22. James, was not Abraham our father justified by works, when he had offered up Isaac his son upon the Altar? seest thou how faith worketh with his works, and by works was faith made perfect, and in the verse immediately following that which you urge against us, he concludes, ye see there, how that by works a man is justified, Ver. 24. and not by faith only: for as the body without the spirit is dead, so faith without works, is dead also. To the fourth. What you urge out of S. Luke's Gospel, is to be understood as the context shows, of servants, that do what they are commanded only to do, and that is but their duty, and no thanks are due to them; in like manner those that keep the commandments of God, do but their duties: our Saviour says nothing, by your favour, of those that observe the Evangelicall counsels, as the building of religious houses, giving our goods among the poor, or mortifying of our bodies, which you seem to draw into the same conclusion. Besides, as to the keeping of the commandments, do you think, the meaning of that text is, that there is no merit at all due to that: it cannot possibly be so understood, must the case be the same, between him that does his duty well, and him that does it not at all, for so it must be as you seem to understand it; for at the worst they can be but unprofitable, and at the best you would have them be so too; and this would not only throw confusion into all divinity, but would be the destruction of all civil government, and humane conversation. It is true what our Saviour says, when we have done all that is required of us, we are unprofitable servants, that is to him whom we serve, we are unprofitable, what does the Almighty and infinite creator, get by the salvation of his creature, nothing can be added to him. But the text tells us not, that in so doing we are unprofitable to ourselves, God forbidden, for that would be to discourage all virtue, piety, and Christianity itself. To the fifth. I answer perfectly as to your first, for that text of S. John, cannot be understood of a bare belief, but such a one, as is accompanied with charity, for it is impossible, that a good faith, should be without it. To the sixth. I say you are most clearly mistaken, for charity is not a fruit of faith, but a fruit of the spirit, as indeed faith itself, is no less, as S. Paul instructs the Galatians, Gal. 5.22. The fruit of the spirit, is love, joy, peace, long-suffering, gentleness, goodness, faith, meekness, temperance, etc. And that our Saviour taxeth Pharisaical works for Hypocritical, is granted, who planted all their Religion in Ceremonies, and neglected the weightier matters of the law, which were the true good works and always commanded, not censured by him. Besides our Saviour chargeth us expressly in these words, Mat. 5.16. Let your light so shine before men, that they may see your good works, and glorify your father which is in heaven. To the seventh and last. To what you allege first out of the Prophet Isaiah, I answer, that the Prophet there speaks comparatively, between the righteousness of the Law, and that of the Gospel, for the legal purity compared to the Evangelicall, is impurity itself, as our righteousness compared to Gods, is no righteousness, so our Saviour tells us, Luke 18. Mat. 19.17. that none is good but one, that is God, because our goodness compared to God's goodness, is no goodness, is no goodness. To your next text I answer, that it only infers, that there is none so righteous, but at sometimes sins, not that a man when he does well sins. Then to what you allege out of the Psalms, it is very plain, that the prophet David begs of God that he would not judge him, according to his own divine righteousness, that is so absolutely pure, and without sin; for so, saith he, Psal. 25.21. no flesh living can be justified, for he saith in another Psalm, let integrity and uprightness preserve me, for I wait on thee. Last of all, to what you urge so hard out of S. Paul to the Romans, S. Paul himself answers in the beginning of the next Chapter; There is therefore now no condemnation to them which are in Christ Jesus, who walk not after the flesh but after the spirit, for the law of the spirit of life, in Christ Jesus, hath made me free from the law of sin and death, that is both from sin, and the punishment of it; Rom. 8. and so proceeds to show, that though there be a repugnancy in the Law of the flesh, to the Law of the spirit, yet they that mind the things of the spirit shall be judged accordingly, and no sin imputed to them, which I conceive clean contrary to the sense that you would impose upon the Apostle. Now Mrs. N. I must desire you to give me leave to follow my former method, and to return to you some Texts, that as I conceive do expressly conclude our Church's doctrine, which is that faith does not, nor can suffice without works, and that works are something in the sight of God, that is, meritorious of eternal life, by the grace of God accepting them, as it had before pleased to assist in the doing of them: All which I prove by these express Scriptures. God commands Abraham to walk before him, and be perfect, Gen. 16. and he will be his exceeding great reward. The Prophet Esay says of God, Isay 40.10. Jer. 31.16. Prov. 11.28. that his reward is with him. The Prophet Jeremy tells us thus, for thy work shall be rewarded, saith the Lord. The wise King Solomon assures us, that the wicked worketh a deceitful work, but to him that soweth righteousness, shall be a sure reward. The Lord recompense thy work, Ruth 2.12. and a full reward begiven thee of the Lord God of Israel. Out of these and infinite more places in the old Scriptures, it is plain that God does promise and assure rewards to those that do well; But the Evangelicall Scriptures are yet more full. He that reapeth receiveth wages, john 4.36. and gathereth fruit unto life eternal (that is man) so that he that soweth (that is God) and he that reapeth may rejoice together. Our Saviour in his Sermon in the Mount, Mat. 5.12. Luke 6.22.23. to encourage his disciples against persecution, speaks plainly thus, Rejoice, and be exceeding glad, for great is your reward in heaven; in like manner S. Luke relates it, Blessed are ye when men shall hate you, persecute you, or reproach you for the son of man's sake, Rejoice ye in that day, and leap for joy, for behold your reward is great in heaven, etc. Here reward is plainly promised, now we know that reward, and merit are such relatives, that one cannot be understood without the other. Not every one that saith unto me Lord, Mat. 7.21. Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven: but he that doth the will of my father which is in heaven. Thus clear it is, that is not enough ●o believe in the Lord, that we may enter into life, but we must do his will. Again, Mat. 10.42. Whosoever shall give to drink to one of these little ones, a cup of cold water only in the name of a disciple, verily I say unto you, be shall in no wise lose his reward. Yet again the same Gospel tells us, that all the labourers in the Lord's vineyard were to receive their reward, Mat. 20.7, 8, 9 from the last unto the first, and so they did, every one their penny, and adds, whatsoever is right that shall ye receive, observe how the Lord makes the reward of man's works, a piece of his justice. The same S. Matthew still tells us, Mat. 19.17. how our Saviour chargeth the young man in the Gospel, if he will enter into life, to keep the commandments, something therefore is to be done on our parts. But above all, the same Evangelist in another place quite states the question. Come ye blessed of my father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world, Mat. 25.34, 35, 36. for I was a hungry, and ye gave me meat, I was thirsty, and ye grve me drink, I was a stranger and ye took me in, naked and ye clothed me, I was sick and ye visited me, I was in prison and ye came unto me. Here our Saviour was pleased to instance in all the works of charity, to show how they are all, and every one of them meritoriously accepted by him. Does not S. John likewise plainly tell us, john 5.28.29. our Saviour's express words, that those that are in their graves shall hear his voice, and shall come forth they that have done good unto the resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the resurrection of damnation; and again, you are my friends if ye keep my commandments; can you yet think that there is nothing due to good works. Will you hear what S. Paul tells you, that God will render to every man according to his deeds, Rom. 2.6 10. glory, honour and peace to every one that worketh good, etc. and then concludes, that not the hearers, but the doers of the Law shall be justified. Again, 1 Cor. 3.8. to the Corinthians he says, every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour, and in his second Epistle to the same Corinthians he tells them thus, 2 Cor. 5.10. 1 Cor. 9.17. For we must all appear before the judgement seat of Christ, that every one may receive the things done in his body, according to that he hath done, whether it be good or bad; again, if I do this willingly, I have a reward, 1 Cor. 15 58. and at last concludes that great Chapter concerning the Resurrection; Therefore my beloved brethren, be ye steadfast, unmoveable, always abounding in the work of the Lord, for as much as you know, that your labour is not in vain in the Lord. The same Apostle forewarns the Galatians not to be deceived, Gal. 6.7. God is not mocked, for what soever a man soweth, that shall he also reap. The same Apostle prays hearty for the Collosians, Colos. 1.10. Colos. 3.23.24. that they might walk worthy of the Lord, unto all pleasing, being fruitful in every good work; and then afterwards tells them plainly, that whatsoever they do, they should do he artily as to the Lord, and not unto men, knowing that of the Lord they shall receive the reward of their inheritance, etc. To the Hebrews he says plainly, Heb. 6.10. For God is not unrighteous, to forget your work and labour of love, which you have showed towards his name, Heb. 13.16. in that ye have ministered to the Saints, and do minister; and in another place adviseth them, that to do good and to communicate they forget not, for with such sacrifices, God is well pleased. S. John in his second Epistle general adviseth all the world to look to themselves, 2 John ver. 8. that they lose not those things, which they have wrought, but that they receive a full reward. S. Peter is no less clear in this sense, 2 Pet. 1 10, 11. as you may see by the Counsel general that he gives, wherefore the rather brethren give diligence to make your calling and election sure, for if ye do thus ye shall never fall, for so an entrance shall be ministered unto you abundantly, into the everlasting kingdom of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ. And then in his first Epistle, he exhorteth to an honest conversation etc. that the world may be convinced, by the good works which they shall behold, and glorify God in the day of visitation. Then that faith is utterly vain without works, James 2 14. ver. 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 24. see how throughly the blessed Apostle S. James delivers it; What doth it profit my brethren though a man say he hath faith, and hath not works can faith save him? then a little after tells us, that faith, if it hath not works, is dead being alone, then says the Apostle, I will show my faith by my works, thou believest there is one God, thou dost well, the devils also believe and tremble, but wilt thou know O vain man, that faith without works is dead? was not our father Abraham justified by works, etc. and after the Apostle had upon the matter, stated the whole question, he concludes, ye see then now that by works, a man is justified, and not by faith only. Can any thing be more clear than this? yet see how S. Matthew justifies this doctrine, relating our Saviour's last charge and Commission to his Apostles thus; Mat. 28.19.20. Go ye therefore and teach all nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the holy Ghost: teaching them not only to believe, Johu 9.6.7. but to do and observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded, etc. S. John relates how our Saviour would not cure the blind man, with that omnipotent salve, the clay made of his spittle, but he would enjoin him, to go and wash in the pool of Siloam, something he would have done on his part; Then S. Paul assures us that if he hath faith to a perfection, nay so much as to remove mountains, and hath not charity, he is nothing, what then are we without it. Nay S. Paul teacheth Timothy how to press the matter, 1 Tim. 4. that they do good, that they be rich in good works, ready to distribute willing to communicate, laying up in store for themselves a good foundation, against the time to come, that they may lay hold on eternal life, etc. and concludes of himself, I have fought the good fight, I have perfected my course, I have kept the faith, from hence forward is laid up for me a crown of glory, which the Lord the just judge shall render to me in that day, here S. Paul clearly expects from the justice of God, a retribution to his merit. Now over and above all this, John 8. it is plain that faith itself is a work, for to the question that was asked our Saviour, What shall we do, to do the works of God, he answers presently, this is the work of God, to believe on him, whom he hath sent, and again, saith he, Gen. 15. if ye are the children of Abraham, you would do the works of Abraham, now the principal work of Abraham, was his faith, for Abraham believed, and it was accounted to him for righteousness, see faith is plainly to be reckoned up amongst works, now if a man by faith be to be justified, than he is so by works. Last of all, what you seem in all your discourses to infer, that the best works are full of sin; so by consequence cannot justify: observe I beseech you what S. John says to you; 1 John 3 7, 8, 9 little children let no man deceive you, he that doth righteousness, is righteous, even as he is righteous, he that committeth sin is of the devil etc. whosoever is born of God does not commit sin, for his seed remaineth in him, and he cannot sin, because he is born of God. Note here if you please, that he cannot sin, that follows the inclinations of charity, according to which a man is said to be born of God: For S. Paul assures us too, that charity does nothing amiss. Thus if I have not darkened this truth, with too thick a cloud of witnesses, I presume it must be clear as light itself, that your doctrine of only faith, & depressing of good works is not only against the whole stream of Scripture, and so unchristian, but also against all the rules of humane reason, so impertinent & unpolitick, to the destruction of all civil conversation: and therefore I am bold to insist the longer upon it, which I desire you to pardon, and I will make a speedy amends, in the contraction of myself upon the other heads. To what you are pleased to allege against our Auricular Cenfession, I answer thus. To the first. It is true, that in that Text of S. John there is no confession mentoned, but sufficiently, employed in the power of absolution. It is enough to satisfy any reasonable Christian, that our Saviour has so clearly declared that high power and prerogative, which he conferred upon his Priests, and to show us our Physicians and remedy, that we may have recourse to them for our health, if we so please, but if we will not confess we are sick, we have no need of a Physician, at least he cannot be at all useful to us. Now that use and practice of this high power and prerogative of remision of sins, the Church has learned and derived, from the very times of the Apostles; by the conduct of the holy Ghost, as you shall see more hereafter. To the Second. I must likewise grant S. james not precisely to determine in that Text, to whom we should confess, nor was it at all needful, for it was to be presumed that no man would confess, but where he thought to find a pardon, now that power of pardoning, was apparently in the Apostles hands then, and in their successors continues since. It was enough therefore for the Apostles to express so much, as was necessary to that great business of absolution, that is confession, without pointing out that particular person to whom to be made, indeed it is, as before, sufficiently employed. To the Third and fourth I do acknowledge that our Saviour said no more to the woman taken in adultery, but go and sine no more, but there the power of absolution was not settled in the Church, how then could the adulteress and the Magdalen and Peter be obliged to confession, before confession was instituted. Besides these were miraculous pardons of sins, not by any former prescription, for we know that the indulgence of a spiritual privilege to any one, is not to be drawn into a consequence for others, or made a general rule of, by us. To the Last I do utterly deny that confession was ever abrogated in any one age, something I remember in ecclesiastical history, that public and open confession was solemnly forbidden, but never private, and auricular; on the contrary give me leave to prove the necessity of it, by Scripture against you. David confesseth his sins and is pardoned by the prophet Nathan. 2 Sam. 11.13. S. Matthew tells, how our Saviour enstated Peter in this power of the keys, the other Evangelists speaks of his disposing of it amongst his Apostles, by all which it is plain, that to deny the power of the keys to be given to the Church, is to deny that our Saviour never had them in his custody, which I take for blasphemy. The text you urge out of S. James 5.16. James, is alleged for our doctrine against you, by all our divines, as I am cold, I am sure it is clear, as to me. This great duty of a Christian, was absolutely taught and prefigured in the Baptism of John, for S. Mat. 3.6 Matthew tells us how all the people round about flocked to him, And they were baptised of him in Jordan, confessing their sins. The wise Solomon assures us that he that conceals his wickedness shall not be directed, Prov. 8. but he that confesseth it shall find mercy. That this duty of confession was both preached, and practised in the Apostles days, is plain by that express place, And the name of the Lord Jesus was maguified, Acts 19.28. and many that believed came and confessed and shown their deeds. No less express is that text of S. John if we confess our sins, he is faithful and just to forgive us our sins, and will cleanse us from all wickedness. To figure out this great●duty of confession to us, our Saviour chargeth the Leper; whom he cleansed, Mat. 8. to go and show himself to the Priest, and offer the gift that Moses commanded. Luke 17. In the like manner he commanded the ten lepers, and says to Lazarus when he had raised him from the dead, lose him and let him go. These things I say are clear prefigurations, of this duty of confession, which was afterwards to be established, in the Christian Church, and has been ever since the Apostles times, most universally practised. To what you allege against our doctrine of Satisfaction for sins I answer thus. To the first. I do absolutely deny, Luke 3.11. Mat. 3. that the Baptism taught no satisfaction, for he taught alms and works of mercy, for him that had two coats, to impart to him, that had none, and him that had meat to do likewise. They that came to him for batisme, were to confess their sins, as I said before, that according to their qualities, they might have several penitencies imposed upon them, Luke 3.8. and therefore exhorts them to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance which fruits, are the works of satisfaction understood by us: by this it is plain, that the holy Baptist enjoins us more than our duty: and besides those words which you quote, were spoken to the Publicans, whom he bids to exact no more than what was appointed them, you have strained the text hard to bring it to us, that we should do no more than we are commanded to do. To the Second. I answer, that the Prophet speaks there of the life of grace only, which to attain, if satisfaction be not performed before, it is required to be in purpose and intention, and is necessary to the preservation of that life of grace, when it is acquired. Besides, though there should be no mention at all of satisfaction in these words of the Prophet, that you quote, does it therefore follow that there is no such thing required, or that the prophet has deceived us, God forbidden, for we find, what is wanting in one place, abundantly supplied in other Scriptures, as here the Prophet mentions nothing but justice, says not a word of fortitude, temperance, chastity etc. which we know are equally requisite, and su●iffiently laid down and commanded in other Scriptures. To the Third. I answer, that the Prophet Micah in those words you quote, does not seclude, but rather include works of satisfaction, for by doing judgement and justice is to be under stood a severe censure and condemnation of ourselves, by loving of mercy, are understood those works of mercy, alms and piety, that are to be exercised upon the poor, by charity, and to walk humbly with God, what is it but resignation of ourselves to him, and perfect submission to his will, joined with an exact care to keep his divine precepts, in this point of penance, we are required to show all the severity in the world against ourselves, that we being judged of ourselves, be not judged of the Lord, as the Apostle tells us. Besides the Prophet Micah there, rebukes not those, that go about by good works to satisfy for their sins; but those that foolishly thought, by their pitiful sacrifices, and burnt-offerings with the blood of Rams and Bulls and Goats etc. to satisfy the divine wrath for sins. Now that was impossible as S. Paul tells us, Heb. 10. Isay 1. and the Prophet Isay assures us, that those things were not in themselves acceptable to God. To the Fourth and Last. I do answer and grant, that the passion of Christ is sufficient to take away all sin, and the guilt of punishment, as well temporal, as eternal, it follows not therefore that nothing is required on our parts to be done; for in the Sacrament of penance, we partake of the virtue of the passion of Christ, by a method of some proper acts, which are the matter of penance, wherefore the Apostle Paul exhorts his penitents thus, not to yield their members as instruments of unrighteousness unto sin, but to yield themselves unto God, as those that are alive from the dead, and your members as instruments of righteousness unto God. Now to what you imply of argument in that Christ Jesus is the great Physician, and so likely to make a perfect, cure as well from guilt of the punishment, as from the guilt of the sin itself. I do acknowledge him to be the great Physician of our souls, and to cure perfectly as you say, yet very differently, Luke 4. and sometimes suddenly, and all at once, as Peter's wife's mother, who was perfectly restored to perfect health, sometimes again he is pleased to cure very leisurely, as when he cured the blind man, first he was pleased to restore him to an inperfect use of his sight, Mar. 8. as to see men like trees walking, than he was pleased afterwards to perfect his cure, and make him to see clearly all things; just so he is pleased to pass his spiritual cures upon us, sometimes he is pleased to turn the heart of man, with such a power, that it shall presently enjoy a perfect spiritual health, as he did that of the blessed Magdalen; sometimes again he remits the sin, by his operating grace, and afterwards works so with his cooperating grace, that in process of time, he takes away all the guilt of punishment, and all the other relics of sin; it is not therefore to be proved by any of Christ's corporal, or spiritual cures, that the sin being remitted, all the punishment is remitted likewise, but rather the contrary, and I shall proceed further to prove it thus. The Catholic doctrine that I am to prove now against you, is this, that sins being by contrition, confession and absolution perfectly forgiven, the penitent aught yet to satisfy for the temporal punishment due to them. Adam without doubt repent himself of his sin, Gen. 2.17. notwithstanding he was not presently absolved from the punishment that was threatened by God for it; which was this, for in theday, that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely die. Nay after the transgression of the divine precept, beyond the business of death, which was before threatened, God adds others, saying to Adam, Gen. 3.17. because thou hast harkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee saying, thou shalt not eat of it, cursed is the ground for thy sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thorns also and Thistles shall it bring forth to thee etc. Gen. 3.16. in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground, for out of it wast thou taken, etc. Then he said unto the woman, I will greatly multiply thy sorrow, and thy conception, in sorrow shalt thou bring forth children, and thy desire shall be to thy husband, and he shall rule over thee, etc. Rom. 5. and as in Adam all sinned so all in him are to die, as the Apostle tells us. Therefore it is plain, that though the guilt of original sin be taken away by repentance, and baptism itself, there remains still a punishment of death, and divers other penalties inflicted. Mariam the sister of Moses, Num. 12 after the sin o murmuring against Moses was committed, was struck with a Leprosy, but she was not presently cured, no not by Moses his prayer to the Lord for her recovery, but she was cast out of the Tents, by the Lords command, for seven days, for the punishment of her sin, though the guilt was forgiven her, and she remained all that while in her Leprosy. God forbidden Moses and Aaron, Num. 20 the going in, and leading of their people with them into the land of Promise, for their sin of unbelief, at the water of Strife, though without doubt God Almighty had forgiven the sin to those holy men. So the sons of Jacob, Gen. 41.21. for their offence committed against their brother Joseph, conceived what they suffered to be very due to them; and David after he had confessed his sin of adultery and murder, 2 Sam. 12.13, 14, 15. and was pardoned by the Prophet Nathan in these words, the Lord also hath put away thy sin, thou shalt not die: yet adds, howbeit because by this deed thou hast given great oncasion to the enemies of the Lord, to blaspheme, the child also that is born unto thee, shall surely die, and the Lord strake the child, that Vriahs' wife bare, etc. See the punishment of Eli and his house, after the sin was pardoned. 1 Sam. 3 12, 13, 14. In that day I will perform against Eli all things which I have spoken concerning his house, when I begin, I will also make an end, for I have told him, that I will judge his house forever, for the iniquity which he knoweth, because his sons made themselves vile, and he resprained them not, and therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli, 1 Sam. 4.14. etc. that the iniquity of Eli's house shall not be purged with sacrifice, nor offering for ever. All this must undoubtedly be understood of a temporal punishment only; accordingly Hophni and Phinehas were slain, Eli falling backward, broke his neck, and Phinehas' wife died in travel. David we know had his great sin pardoned him for numbering of the people, 2 Sam. 24.18. etc. yet he was punished with a most grievous pestilence, to the destruction of so many thousands, and yet at last was commanded by the Prophet Gad, to make a further satisfaction, to rear an altar unto the Lord in the threshing-floor of Araunah, etc. and his offering cost him fifty shekels of filver. We find that the Ninivites at their grand repentance, fasted, and put on sackcloth, Jonah 3.1 Kings 21.27. Ahabrent his clothes, and put sackcloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackeloth and went softly, by which humbling of himself he did in part, satisfy and pacify the divine wrath conceived against him. Jerem. 18.8. This the Prophet Jeremy most clearly expresseth, saying in the person of God, if that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evil, I will repent of the evil that I thought to do unto them, and according to the measure of the fault, so ought the measure of the punishment to be, as we read in the book of Deuteronomy. Deut. 25 All this is clearly confirmed by S. John in his Apocalypse, saying, how much she hath glorified herself, and lived deliciously, Revel. 18 7. John 5.14. so much torment and sorrow shall be given her, but above all we find it clear in the Gospel, where our Saviour after he had cured the man that was sick of the Palsy eight and thirty years he said unto him, behold thou art whole sin no more, lest a worse thing come unto thee, plainly intimating, that this great and long infirmity, was inflicted upon him for his sins, and though those sins were probably pardoned before, by the great mercy of God, and patience of the person suffering, yet the punishment lasted still upon him. Now that prayer, fasting, and alms, which are enjoined to penitents, are necessary to the Sacrament of Penance, appears plainly by these Scriptures. We find in Leviticus how God commands several sorts of Sacrifices to be offered for the sins of the Priests, Levit. 4.5.6. Prince and People. I pray you then observe how the Prophets call upon us for these duties, therefore also now saith the Lord, turn ye even to me with all your heart, and with fasting and with weeping, and with mourning. So the Prophet Joel. Then the Prophet Daniel says, more clearly yet to Nebuchadnexzar, wherefore O King let my counsel be acceptable unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteousness, and thine iniquities by showing of mercy to the poor, it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity etc. We finde again how the Ninivites repenting at the preaching of Ionas proclaimed a fast, and put on Sackcloth, from the greatest even to the lest of them. The King himself arose from his throne, laid by his Robe, and covered himself with sackcloth and sat in ashes, crying all mightily unto God, and turning from their evil ways, and the violence in their hands. And God saw their works that they turned from their evil way, and God repent of the evil etc. is not here a plain fatisfaction performed by the Ninnivites, and so accepted by God, and as clearly expressed by the Prophet? and is not this repentance, and satisfaction of the Ninivites highly commended by our blessed Saviour? saying the men of Ninnive shall rise up in the judgement with the men of this generation (that is obstenate impenitent siners, Luke 11.32. such as refuse to satisfy for their sins) and shall condemn it, for they repent at the preaching of Ionas etc. That great preacher of repentance, Mat. 3. Lxke 3. the holy Baptist, cries out to bring forth fruits worthy of repentance: does not our Saviour plainly pronounce a woe unto Chorazin and Bethsaida for their impenitence? Mat. 11.21, 22. assuring them that if those mighty works he did there, had been done in Tyre and Sidon, they would have repent long ago in sackcloth and ashes, and therefore concludes, that it shall be more tolerable for Tyre and Sidon in the day of judgement, then for them, and in another place tells them, that unless they repent, Luke 15. they shall all likewise perish, as those upon whom the tower of Siloam fell, and to conclude all this, lest I again endanger to bring an obscurity upon this truth, by too great a cloud of witnesses appearing for it, S. Paul exhorts us all to approve ourselves as the Ministers of God, in patience, 2 Cer. 6.4.5. in watching, and in fastings, so I presume you will not still deny, that satisfaction is very requsite nay necessary to a perfect penitent. To what you allege against the doctrine of our Church, in point of the Liberty of the will, I answer thus. To the first. I answer, by granting that all good comes from God, the donor, but some of those good things he gives, through the action of our freewill, and others he gives clearly without it. So we humbly confess our merits to be the gifts of God, and given by God, preventing cooperating, and following us, in all our thoughts, words and actions, but this does not at all follow, that therefore our freewill cannot actively concur, to make a merit. To the Second and Third. I say in like manner, that God of his great mercy prevents our freewills, by moving them and mercifully cooperates assisting them, and our Church prays, Prevent us O Lord in all our actions, etc. so that when people do sin, God Almighty cannot be made to be the Author of the sin, or error, and when we read, the text you urge, thou hast made us to err, it is to be understood, thou hast suffered us so to do; or that thou hast hardened, it is to be understood, thou hast permitted our hearts to be hardened, and by this the activity of the freewill is so far from being hindered, or deprived, that is plainly implied and proved. To the fourth. I must most clearly acknowledge with the Prophet, that the way of a man is not in himself, as to the executions of all his elections, in which whether he will or no, he may be many ways hindered, but the elections themselves, are in man, with the supposition of divine help, and therefore man's will is said to be free, not of his actions, but action, which consists in his judgement, and his determination to do, or not to do. To the fifth. I confess it to be an extravagant thing, for a man to rebel against, or expostulate with his Creator, as for any thing form to do the same thing, with or against the workman, that form it, or an instrument with the Artificer, for every creature is an instrument of the divine power, but by all this I cannot see, how the liberty of man's actions in a concurrence with the Creator, is at all infringed, but seems to me rather confirmed, the Creator making the Creature instrumentally to cooperate with him. To the sixth. What our Saviour there adviseth, not to take thought how, or what to speak, for it should be given in the same hour etc. was only to take away all anixiety, and solicitude of fore thniking. Now the case of the Apostles knowledge, and ours are very different, for theirs was altogether infused, and their freewill was merely passive, in the execution of divine dictates, it is to be understood far otherwise with us, who are bound by our good works, freely to cooperate with divine grace. To the seventh. I humbly conceive that text of the falling of sparows, not to concern the matter of free will at all: but only that our Saviour, would have us clearly to understand, and believe, how all things are Subject to the providence of God. To the eighth and Last We must grant that there is no man saved but by grace, not by his works, excluding grace, because works signify nothing without grace. For as S. Paul tells us, Rom. 8. the sufferings of this present world are nothing to the future glory, that shall he revealed in us. And to that text, that none can come to him, unless the father draw him, we do acknowledge, that there must be such a drawing, by the divine grace, preventing, and coopperating but how to acquiesce in, and submit to, that divine drawing, and not to harden our hearts, against his divine drawing, nor to shut our ears, if we mean for to hear his voice calling to us, that is the part of our own free-wills. So I beseech you good Mirs. N. to have a care lest you be found resisting to those divine ealls, and attractions, which his divine grace is always offering to you, and consult with those clear texts of Scripture, that I shall here recommend to you. We find the Lord saying to Cain, Gen. 4.6. why art thou wroth? and why is thy countenance fallen; if thou do well shalt thou not be accepted and if thou dost not well, sin lieth at the door etc. does not our Lord, her clearly convince Cain of his freewill. How more plainly yet does God Almighty expostulate with the Isralites and require their obedience to his law, Deut. 30.10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15. and the freedoms of their wills. For this commandment saith he which I command thee this day, is not hidden from thee, neither is it far off, it is not in heaven that thou shouldst say who shall go up for us etc. neither is it beyond the Sea etc. But that word is very nigh unto thee, in thy mouth, and in thy heart, that thou mayst do it. See I have set before thee this day: life and good, and death and evil etc. can any thing be clearer for the liberty of man's will; The Prophet Jeremy tells us, Jerm. 5. that these which remain of this last and worst generation, shall choose death rather than life. There is choice given to the Jews whether they will serve the Lord, Josh. 24.15.21. 2 Sam. 24.13. Num. 30 or no, and the people said nay but we will serve the Lord. There was a choice given to David, which of the three plagues he would have. There was a choice given to the husband in the old law concerning the vow of his wife, now there can be no choice at all, without liberty of will. Job tells us, Job 5. Numb. Deut. Psal. 107 108, 118 that the righteous shall be saved but in the cleanness of his own hands. How much do we read of the freewill offerings in the old Testament? and David declares that he will freely sacrifice to the Lord, again, my soul O Lord is always in my hands, my heart is ready, O Lord my heart is ready, and nothing more frequent than such expressions clean throughout the Psalms. The Prophet Isay yet more largely speaks to this purpose, Isay 1.16. v. 19 wash ye, make ye clean put away the evil of your do from before mine eyes, cease to do evil etc. and then presently after, if ye be willing and obedient ye shall eat the good of the Land but if ye refuse and rebel, Isay 46.12. ye shall be devoured with the Sword etc. and again, harken unto me ye stout hearted, that are far from righteousness etc. The Prophet Ezekiel declares, Ezek. 18.27.28.30. that when a wicked man turns away from his wickedness that he hath committed & doth that which is lawful and right, he shall save his soul alive etc. Therefore, Ezek. 18.31.32. I will judge you O house of Israel every one according to his ways etc. Repent and turn yourselves from your transgressions, so iniquity shall not be your ruin, cast away from you all your transgressions, whereby ye have transgressed and make you a new heart and a new spirit: for why will you die O house of Israel. For I have no pleasure in the death of him that dyeth, saith the Lord God, wherefore turn yourselves and live ye, does not God Almighty here plainly require the operation of his people's wills towards their own good, and this sense runes at large, through all the Prophets calling us to turn to our God, and then assuring us, that he will turn to us. But the new Testament is yet more full of this sense. Mat. 23.37. Luke 13.34. Mat. 11. Our Saviour in those bleeding words, he utters over Jerusalem, speaks it out thus. O Jerusalem, Jerusalem, thou that killest the Prophets and stonest them that are sent unto thee: how often would I have gathered thy childerens together even as a hen gathereth her chickens under her wings, and ye would not etc. Here it is plain, that God was willing, man only unwilling, and resisting to his own ruin. Our Saviour adviseth freequently, that if we would enter into life, we must keep the commandments: and such like expressions are abounding in the gospels, but in the parable of the Talents, Mat. 25.16.17. when he that had received five Talents, went and traded with the same, and made them other five Talents, and so he that had two did likewise, now the servant could not be said to gain, unless his freewill had actively concurred to the gaining of them, other wise he should only have said, that he had received his ten Talents. S. Paul speaks it plainly to the Corinthians I have planted, 1 Cor. 3.6, 7, 8. and Apollo watered, but God gave the increase, but here is a working still with God nay the Apostle expresseth it in the next verses, for we are labourers together with God. And every man shall receive his own reward, according to his own labour etc. and this doctrine he perfectly explains in the other Chapter where he tells them, 1 Cor. 15 10. that the grace which was bestowed on him, was not in vain, but that he laboured more abundantly than they all, and yet not he but the grace of God which was with him, so then grace may very well cooporate with the freewill of man. Nay yet more punctually the Apostle professeth this great truth, 1 Cor. 7.37. in another chapter of the same epistle. Nevertheless he that standeth steadfast in his heart, having no necessity, but hath power over his own will and hath so decreed in his heart, that he will keep his virgin, doth well. etc. S. John S. james S. Judas S. Peter, 1 John 2.3. 1 Pet. 1.22, etc. and all the rest of Apostolical writings, are full of nothing more than, persuasions to a good life, to turn from sine, to purify ourselves, as he is pure, to be righteous as he is righteous, now to what purpose were all this, if man had not a power to cooperate with divine grace, by the freedom of his will. To conclude all, 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. S. Paul tells us that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for doctrine for reproof, for correction, for instruction in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished to all good works. Now if all our actions be by necessity, and constraint, to what purpose is it to teach, reprove, correct, or instruct? if a man have not some liberty of will, how should he be furnished to all good works, Phil. 14. and the same Apostle tells Philemon that he would advise him nothing against his consent that his benefit should not be as it were of necessity, but willingly, I could produce infinite testimonies more to establish this truth, but I fear I have been too large already, in a business that common sense itself me thinks were able to convince, for if all things do come to us by an absolute necessity, and our wills have no power of action, there will be nothing lest to be done by the power of prayers, preach, counsels, public governments: There would be no rewards due to virtue, or punishment to vice; all Laws, Statutes, Orders, Precepts, must be to no purpose, all admonitions, reproofs, persaw asions must cease, for all these require a liberty to be understood, and are utterly nullified by a necessity; and in short, it would amount to this, that all wickednesses, blasphemies, and villainies would be cast upon God. For who can justly tax Judas of his wicked treasons, if he did commit it by an inevitable necessity? But these are the most difficult questions, that we can pick out of the whole body of Divinity, so I shall be bold to desire you, good Mrs. N. not to offer any more of these subtleties to me, and though in order to your commands, I have endeavoured to satisfy your doubts, yet I must tell you, that it hath been full sore against my will, and if I have by this bold adventure committed any errors, as I fear I have too many, I do humbly beg God, and his holy Church to pardon me. This Paper was no sooner perfected, but my Lady called for her Coach, where her Ladyship was no sooner sat, and the welcome of the house presented, but they thus fell into their old discourse: and my Lady began after this manner. Lady M. I am come now dear Mrs. N. to wait on you, and to make you a double payment, first, for your late kind visits, which have not lain in my power since to return, then to make a payment of the thanks, & best satisfaction that lay within my power, for your last too learned paper; though sweet Mrs N. I must beg your pardon, if I never do the like again, for in earnest it is too hard a task for us, to engage in those sublime points, that the learnedst Doctors in the world of one side or tother, may be foiled in, and sure we that cannot swim as those divine Doctors can, must not dare to wade in those unfathomable depths. Mrs. N. I most hearty thank you, sweet Madam, for your kind correction of me in this particular, and I faithfully promise, never to offend in that more. And truly Madam, if I had read your first paper before I had sent my last, I had not given your Ladyship any further trouble at all, for indeed I have perceived enough by that to convince me of some errors, that I was before possessed of, the one was that you Papists especially women and Lay people, were not at all conversant in Scripture, the second was, that you did over vilify our translations, and would be judged only by your own editions of Scripture, which we are informed are false, and framed only to your own intents and purposes, but I find your Ladyship quotes no Scripture, that is not word for word in our Bibles. Then thirdly, I am already satisfied that you have more reason for your Religion, than I before imagined, if those Scriptures which you produce, have had such an understanding in the universal Church as you allege: and Lastly, that it will be utterly impossible for us to make an end of the controversy, without some learned Moderator, for otherwise it will be, but your sense upon Scripture and mine, and we both abounding in our own, as it is too much given to us women to be, I am in despair of the good end, Madam, that I proposed. Lady M. For the first three things, that you pretend to be satisfied in, I cannot believe, dear Mrs. N. but you dispose yourself rather to Raillery then to deal really with me: but as for the last I do most cleeply concur with you in opinion, that it will be necessary for us, to have some Learned Arbitrator, or otherwise we shall but beat the air, and bring nothing to conclusion. Mrs. N. Why then dear Madam, how shall we agree in the choice of him, for it is neither fit for your Ladyship, nor for me alone to have the nomination, and it will be very difficult to find one, that may be so indifferent, as to please us both. Lady M. Why truly yourself, Mrs. N. if you please, shall make the choice, and for my part I think none fit than your own husband, if he please to accept the trouble, for I take him to be a very learned, prudent, and impartial person, thorough by his profession he may appear engaged against us; but I am confident, that will not so much over by ass his judgement, as to say a malicious untruth. Mrs. N. Well then since your Ladyship is pleased to offer so fair in that particular, I must tell you yet a further difficulty, that occurs to me, whether I should make a present rejoinder with your Ladyship's replies (for that is I perceive your intended method) or proceed still to object, & refer all my answers to your Ladyship's replies till the very last, for though the the first will be more to your Ladyship's present satisfaction, yet the bestwill a void much of both our trouble, for I humbly conceive, I shall be able to wipe off many of your Ladyship's arguments, upon several occasions, with one compendious answer. Lady M. In that do as you shall please, good Mrs. M. for either shall be indifferent to me. Mrs. N. Why then sweet Madam, I shall proceed to object against some of the most practical points of your Religion, as your Ladyship hath required me, avoiding all subtleties, relating to the Schools, and so I have accordingly prepared another paper for your Ladyship's view, and I shall not be bold to offer above one, or two more, and then I shall endeavour to rejoin, and humbly refer to better judgements. So after many mutual thanks and particular kindnesses were passed on both sides, my Lady being attended by Mrs. N. to her Coach, departed away with her third paper, which coming home and opening, her Ladyship found to this effect as followeth. That your Church has so overladen the souls of Christians with their own Traditions, and humane constitutions, that it has not only abridged Christian liberty, but hardly left room for the observation of divine precepts, I prove thus by express Scriptures. We find in Deuteronomy, Deut. 4.2 how God does absolutely command his people by the mouth of his servant Moses, not to add unto the word, Josh. 1.7. which he commanded them, nor to diminish aught from it. The like was commanded by the mouth of Joshuah, that from that law, which they had read, they should not turn neither to the right nor to the left. The wise King Solomon gives the same caution, Prov. 30.5.6. every word of God is pure etc. and then proceeds, Add thou not unto his words, lest he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar, and S. John assures us, That if any man shall add unto the words of his prophecy, Revel. 22 18.19. that God shall add unto him the plagues that are written in that book, and if any shall take away etc. God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and yet notwithstanding these clear commands, and terrible threaten, your Church dares to do those things daily, by ading of mere humane inventions. S. Mark 7.6, 7, 8, 9 Mark tells us plainly, how our Saviour did severely rebuke that kind of Religion, and professeth plainly, that in vain such do worship him, who teach for doctrines the commandments of men, saying immediately before, how such do honour him with their lips, but their heart is far from him, and so proceeds sharply inveighing against men's Traditions, yet your Church does nothing but over-load men with them. 3. S. Paul give a most strict warning to the Corinthians and so to us, 1 Cor. 7.22.23. to avoid any captivity of that kind, for he speaks to all that are called; who are the Lords freemen, and therefore concludes, ye are bought with a price, be not ye the servants of men, that captivity I am sure none can avoid that is of your Church. 4. Gal. 5.18. Again he tells the Gallatians yet more plainly, that if they be led of the spirit, they are not under the law, so than we Christians, are subject to no humane constitutions whatsoever. 5. Again the same Apostle tells us, 1 Tim. 1.9. that the Law is not made for a righteous man, but for the lawless, disobedient, ungodly, etc. what then are good Christians concerned in your new-fangled Laws? and again he tells the Romans, that the Law worketh worth, Rom. 4.15. what then have we Christians to do with it? 6. Lastly, 2 Cor. 3.17. the same Apostle assures the Corinthians that where the spirit of the Lord is, there is liberty, and largely relates to the Gallathians, how Jesus Christ did purchase this liberty for us, Gal. 4. and that we are no more under the law, nor sons of the Bond woman but of the free, why then should your Church, by its devises, endeavour to reduce us into bondage again? That amongst the rest of your new inventions your commanded days of fasts, and abstinence, especially a whole lent together, is a burden insupportable, and abusive to our Christian liberty, I prove by Scripture thus. 1. Does not our Saviour in S. Matthews Gospel, call the multitude expressly about him, Mat. 15.10, 11. to teach them this piece of doctrine, and bids them hear and understand, not that which goeth into the mouth, defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man etc. why does your Church then, tie up men's mouths from meat at any time? 2. 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. S. Paul tells us, that now the speaketh expressly, that in the latter times, some should departed from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of Devils, speaking lies etc. forbidding to marry, and commanding to abstain from meats, which God hath created, to be received with thanksgivings, of them which believe, and know the truth; for every creature of God is good, and nothing to be refused, if it be received with thanksgiving, for it is sanctified by the word of God, and prayer. Here the Apostle plainly calls it a doctrine of Devils, and mere lies, to command abstinence from any meat which God has created for the use of the faithful, to be taken with thanksgiving. 3. Tit. 1.14 15. Does not the same Apostle forewarn us, not to give heed to such doctrines as those, which he calls the commandments of men, that turn from the truth, and gives this reason that unto the pure, all things are pure, but unto them that are defiled, and unbeleiving, is nothing pure etc. How dares your Church then impute iniquity to any thing of meat, or make such a distinction between meats, as you do. 4. Colos. 2.16, 17. Does he not command the Colossians thus. Let no man therefore judge you in meat or in drink, or in respect of a holy day, or of the new moon, or of the sabbath days, which are but a shadow of things to come etc. yet you are pleased to make your ceremonies, to be the very substance of your Religion. 5. Again he tells the Romans thus, Rom 9 If by the Spirit, you shall mortify the deeds of the flesh, ye shall live, he says nothing of mortification by fasting, therefore that must be, purely your invention. 6. Lastly we may say to you, as S. Acts 15.10. Peter in the Acts, why tempt you God, to put a yoke upon the neck of the Disciples, which neither we, nor our Fathers were able to hear; Christian liberty endures no such burdensome bondage, for Christ himself never made any distinction of meats or commanded any such observations, why then should Christians, his faithful people be subject to them. That your making and observing of v●●s, especially of chastity and single life, though in your Priests themselves, is another intolerable abuse and burden laid upon Christianity, I prove thus. 1. It is plain, that Jesus Christ our Saviour bestowed a freedom upon us, which we call Christian, Deut. 4.2. Revel. 22 18. etc. why should vows then reduce us into bondage, Nay our Saviour clearly showed that he would have all his counsels free, and yet your votaries make them necessary as commandments, These vows therefore, are those humane inventions so much spoken of forbidden and reproved in Scripture, by consequence most unlawful. S. Paul forewarns Timothy from all those external works of piety, which are not capable to renew a man, but are fit rather to make men hypocrites, than saints, and in such words as seem almost pointed at old Nuns, 1 Tim. 4.7, 8. But pr●fain and old wives fables refuse, excercising thyself rather unto Godliness, for bodily exercise profiteth little but godliness is profitable unto all things, having promise of the life that is now, and of that which is to come: by this it is plain that it is the exercise of the soul, which God deligheth in, and not those vowed bodily observancies. 3. Nay all those external works must of necessity be enemies to Christianity, for they extinguish faith, weaken hope, and cause men to repose their confidence in them, more than in the mercies of God: and it is plain that your late votaries, like those old Pharisees, that our Saviour reproves; do value more such empty traditions, than they do the commandments of God, to whom he pronounceth a woe for no other reason, Luke 11.42. etc. but for tything of Mint, Rue, and all manner of herbs, and passing o'er judgement, and the love of God, etc. 4. Over and above all this the grand presumption of your votaries appears in obliging themselves to a straighter rule of living, than the evangellical rule, to which every faithful Christian is tied in Baptism when it is plain, that by all the endeavours that a Christian can use, he cannot attain to a greater perfection, and very hardly perform so much as is required. Then as to your vows of chastity, and restraining of Priests from marriage, I prove the absurdity of all that thus. 1. First it is plain by the old Testament, that the Priests, Gen. 1. & 2. of the old Law might marry and had wives, than the Greeks and divers other Christians, ever had, and shall have their wives. 2. Your vows of Chastity, and restraints, from marriage, are most plain oppositions to a divine precept, which God so often inculcated into all creatures, and particularly to man, be ye fruithful and multiply. 3. S. Paul foretells, that in the latter times, 1 Tim. ●. 1, 2, 3. some shall departed from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of devils &c. forbidding to marry etc. who should this be but, you, for no other Churches else does it. 4. Tit. 1.5.6. The same Apostle commands Titus, that amongst the rest of the things, which he was to set in order, as he had appointed him, he should ordain a Bishop the busband of one wife, and having faithful children, by which it is plain that Priests might marry then. 5. 1 Cor. 7.9. Chastity is, and aught to be free, but your vows, and invented traditions make it to be necessary, notwithstanding that S. Paul says plainly, that it is better to marry then to burn, and bids all men if they cannot contain themselves, to marry. 6. 1 Cor. 7.28. And a little after in the same Chapter, he says positively to all; but and if thou marry thou hast not sinned, and if a virgin marry she hath not sinned etc. and your Church is pleased to make it worse than the breach of a commandment. 7. In fine there can be nothing more clear, than that vows of virginity are vain and in plain English foolish, because impossible; it were the same thing to oblige a man to live without meat or drink; and your Pope pretends by his humane traditions, to mortify men's flesh, when it is impossiple to do that without a constant recourse, to the grace of God. But abive all the Abuse of your Church it manafest in multiplying of Sacraments, and making them out of mere humane constitutions, which I prove in short thus. 1. All Sacraments ought to be of our Saviour Christ's own institution, but your supernumerary Sacraments, are after constitutions of the Church, therefore they cannot be Sacraments. 2. As for your Sacrament of Penance, I have showed sufficiently already in my last paper, upon those two parts of it, confession and satisfaction, which being proved to be impertinent, your Sacrament of Penance must needs fall. 3. Then for your Sacrament of Orders; and confirmation, it is plain that there was nothing of them instituted by Christ, but constitutions of the Church afterwards established them, how thou can they be reputed Sacraments? 4. For matrimony, there can be no pretence to make it a Sacrament, (but out of a few mistaken words of S. Paul, Ephes. 5.32. who had no power to make a Sacrament neither) for when he says marriage is a great Mystery, you read as I am informed, that it is a great Sacrament; nor does the Apostle say absolutely; that it is of itself a great mystery or Sacrament, but only in relation to what it signifies between Christ, and his Church. 5. Then last of all, for your extreme Unction, there is a less pretence, James 5.14.15. for first, at most there can be but an Apostolical authority for that, & no Apostle as I said before, had power to institute a Sacrament, besides there is a great dispute, amongst the learned, about the authority of that Epistle, and some very principal persons, have agreed, that it should be thrust out of the Canon of the Bible. Thus have I been bold to make it the business of this paper, to show you, how your Church abuseth you with their own inventions, and would obtrude them upon us, for divine institutions. To what you allege against our Church for over lading the souls of Christians, with Traditions, and humane corstitutions etc. I answer thus To the first. I acknowldedge it to be, as you say, both wicked and damnable, to add any thing to, or diminish from Scripture, that is of the essence, and being of Scripture, or shall go about to corrupt, or deprave it; otherwise if the Church, or any civil power shall promote any thing, that is not literally there, so it be but consequentially it is enough, or if it be to advance, what is commanded or consulted of in Scripture, Now all the Church's constitutions, even those you most tax, though they are not expressly and in proper form to be found in Scripture, yet they are all clear emanations from thence, as I shall plainly prove hereafter. Again that Text you quote out of the Proverbs clears all the rest, Prov. 30.5.6. add not unto his words least thou be found a liar, so it is not every simple addition that is forbidden, but only such as is false and lying, that is either to the corruption, or adulteration of the Text. To the Second. It is plain that our Saviour does not there in that Gospel, reprove all Traditions of men absolutely, but only such as they made contrary to the law of God, or such as swerved from it, for so we find by the context of the same chapter, Mark 7.8, 9 as for laying aside the commandment of God hold the tradition of men, etc. and then again fullwell you reject the commandments of God that ye may keep your own tradition in the same manner S. Matthew delivers it, Mat. 13. which two Gospels S. Paul sufficiently explains thus, not giving beed to Jewish fables, 1 Tit. 14 and commandments of men that turn, from the truth, so it must be only such as those, that our Saviour finds fault withal, and not simply all humane constitutions. And hence it is that the woes of eternal damnation are threatued by God, and pronounced by the Prophet, against the makers of such wicked constitutions and traditions, Isay 10.1.2. in these words. Woe unto them that decree unrighteous decrees, and that writ grievousness which they have prescribed, to turn aside the needy from judgement, and to take away the right from the poor of my people, and that they may rob the fatherless etc. But this makes nothing at all to your purpose, for the constitutions of our Church, are so far from being guilty of that, that they are acknowledged by all temperate persons to be the greatest promoters and advancers of divine worship, the greatest restrainer of the concupiscencies of the flesh, and do dispose men to the keeping of God's commandments a more expeditious and clear way, inflaming all men to brotherly kindness, and charity. To the Third. S. Paul it is true forbids us, to be servants of men, that is as you will find by the context, not to make schisms in the Church, by pretending to follow some leading men, for one to say. I am of Cephas, and another, I am of Apollo; this is to rebuke an error of yours, and nothing at all of ours, for we endeavour to keep ourselves within the bonds of Catholic unity, and you do all you can to break those bands, and fall into the captivity of private opinions, by rendering yourselves servants, nay slaves to some single Doctors of your own, that best agree with your fancy, but you had best take heed of that according to S. Paul's warning, which you urge here against us. To the fourth. What the Apostle tells the Gallatians, that they which are led of the Spirit, are not under the Law, we acknowledge, but it is to be understood that he speaks of the Mosaical and coercive Law, which they that are perfectly led by the spirit, need not at all, but he cannot mean the divine and directive Law, which must last to govern faithful Christians, for Adam himself had such a law in Paradise. To the fifth. We say not that the law is made for the righteous, as he is righteous, and governed wholly by the Spirit of God, but for so much as the flesh lusteth against the Spirit, he ought to have a reforming law; or indeed the former answer, to your fourth argument, might have served the turn so far, and as for what you allege all out of the Romans, that the law worketh wroth, it must be understood of the Mosaic law, which worketh wroth indeed, if we be not relieved by divine grace, but we are helped by grace and Truth by Jesus Christ. To the sixth. You must give me leave to tell you here, that you very much mistake Christian liberty, for by that, we are not exempted from the power of, and obedience to our superiors, but that liberty opposeth itself only against the servitude of the Mosaical Law, and slavery of sin, it cannot possibly be meant that it should free us from the wholesome constitutions, and commandments of the Church, which are all made for the advancement of godliness, Gal. 5.13. this S. Paul sufficiently explains thus, for brethren you have been called into liberty, only use not liberty for an occasion to the flesh, but by love serve one another; 1 Pet. 2.16, 13, 14, 15. Rom. 6.7. & 8. and S. Peter notes, when he says, as free and not using your liberty for a cloak of maliciousness but as the servants of God, so he chargeth them, to submit to every ordinance of man for the Lords sake, etc. and assures them that that is the will of God. In fine it is plain that the true Christian and evangelical liberty is nothing else but as S. Gal. 5. Paul pleaseth to define it, a redemption, or absolution of us from the servitude of the law and of sin, made for us by Jesus Christ, and by which as he says in another place, being dedicated to God, and righteousness, we receive the adoption of sons, John 8.36. and of this freedom it was that our Saviour spoke in S. John's Gospel, if the son therefore shall make you free, ye shall be free indeed: and that freedom God of his mercy bestow upon us all. Now that Humane Constitutions, the commands of Councils, and Bishops are to be kept, and all Ecclesiastical rites and ceremonies duly observed, I prove by express Scriptures thus. S. Luke recites our Saviour's words thus, speaking to the seventy that he sent out, Luke 10.16. He that heareth you, beareth me, and he that despiseth you, despiseth me, and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me. Observe I pray you, how he that despiseth the Prelates, and Ecclesiastical constitutions of Christ's Church, is judged by Christ himself to despise him, and his holy Gospel. S. 1 Thess. 4.2. & 8. Paul speaks home to the Thessalonians in this point, first tells them of the commandments that he had given them, than afterwards, be therefore that despiseth despiseth not man but God, who hath also given us his holy Spirit. Moses and Aaron when the people murmured against them, told them frequently, Exod. Levit. Numb. Deut. that they heard their murmuring against the Lord, and again, what are we, your murmuring is not against us, but against the Lord. Observe what S. John says, We are of God, 1 John 4.6. he that knoweth God heareth us, he that is not of God heareth not us, hereby know we the spirit of truth from the spirit of error; you had best therefore have a care of yourselves. Nay S. Paul proceeds a little more terribly in the point, Let every soul saith he, Rem. 13.1, 2. be subject to the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained of God, whosoever therefore resisteth the power resisteth the ordinance of God, and they that resist shall receive to themselves damnation. Now that men have power to make Laws and Statutes to obliedge consciences, it is plain by the precedent of the Apostles, Acts 15.19. who commanded the Christians then, to abstain from things strangled, offerings unto Idols, and from blood, with divers other Acts, which they have left us. Then we find how S. Paul himself made Laws, that you will not dare deny obedience to: as for the constituting of Bishops, concerning widows, and women to be veiled, and not to preach in Churches, of not forsaking the unfaithful husband, or wife and of many profane and mere secular things and judgements, as to be seen throughout in his Epistles, and the Acts of the Apostles, and yet S. Paul himself was but a man. Nay it is plain the Priest of the old Law had power of making and altering of Laws, Deut. 12. 1 Sam. 7 1 Kings 18. in matter of discipline, we find in Deuteronomy, how the Lord commanded that no Altar should be set up but where was the Ark of the Covenant, and yet Samuel whilst the Ark remained in Shilo, set up an Altar at Masphar, and Elias did the same thing in mount Carmel. All this is abundantly confirmed by our Saviour Christ himself who bids us, Mat. 18.17. if one shall neglect to hear, to tell it to the Church, but if he neglect to hear the Church, let him be unto then as a heathen man and a Publican. Then for Traditions it is altogether as plain that they are to be observed, first S. 2 Thess. 2 Paul. tells us, that we must hold fast the Traditions we have received as well by his word as his Epistle. Then that the Church of Christ has been, and is to be governed by custom, is plain by-another text of St. Paul's, where he says, we have no such custom nor the Church of God. Again to the Philipians he says finally Brethren whatsoever things are true, Phil. 4.8.9. whatsoever things are honest, whatsoever things are just, whotsoeverthings are pure, whatsoever things are lovely, whatsoever things are of good report, if there be any virtue, and if there be any praise, think on these things; Those things which ye have both learned, and received and hard, and seen in me do etc. Now what are all these things but Traditions, and ecclesiastical constitutions? Acts 15.41.16. We find in the Acts how Paul and Silas went through Syria and Cylicia confirming the Churches, Acts 15.41; and so afterwards we find how Paul, Silas and Timothy passed through cities delivering the Doctrines and ordinances which were decreed by the Apostles & Elders that were at Jerusalem, observe that ordinances, or decrees not one decree only of the cessation of the legal rites, and ceremonies. Our Saviour not only gave a power to plant his Church by preaching, but also governing which includes the power of making laws, Acts 21.28. with out which there can be neither living, nor governing, and that is plain likewise out of the Acts, take heed therefore unto your selses, and to the flock over which the Lord hath made you overseers to feed, as your translation reads it, but ours, to govern the Church of God, and indeed what is a Bishop or an overseer made for, unless to govern, the preaching part may be performed by other inferior priests and Deacons. And does not Paul to the Hebrews call them Rulers, Heb. 13.7.17. as in one place, remember them which have the rule over you and again, obey them that have the rule over you, and submit yourselves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may do it with joy, and not with grief for that is unprofitabele for you. Then the same Apostle requires the Corrinthians that all things de done decently and in order, 1 Cor. 14 40. now it is plain that order supporteth a law, and rule, which the Church of Christ is, or aught to be governed by. Lastly, St. Paul may very well conclude this business and dispute of Tradition which his positive command to the Thessilonians. 2 Thess. 3.6. Now we command you Brothers in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye with draw yourselves, from every Brother, that walketh dissorderly, and not after the Tradi, tion, which he received of us, if this be not clear, I declare for my part, that I can see no light. To what you Allege against our days of fasting, and abstinence and especially the holy fast of Lent, I answer thus. To the first. I say that our Saviour in the Gospels that you cite, says not one word of fasting, but endeavouring to take away that Jewish error and superstition, which was, that to eat meat with unwashed bands, made the meat unclean and the eater two, tells them, that not that which goeth into the mouth defileth etc. This I say was only to rebuke that foolish error of theirs, for he could not mean it absolutely, otherwise they that in the Apostles time, should have eaten meats offered to Idols, things strangled, or blood, or poison willingly and knowingly, should not have been defiled, but so we know they were, Over and above let it be granted that all meat whatsoever, which enters the mouth, passeth into the belly, and is cast out into the draught, does not defile a man, Yet when a man shall against the commandment of God and his Church, or the custom and Tradition of it, or against his own vow, or with the scandal of his neighbour, take any meat whatsoever, it does, and must of necessity defile him, for this proceeds out of an evil, and malicious heart, that is from a plain contempt of God and his Church, in so slighting their precepts, Thus if the Rechabites had drunk wine, though in itself good, they had defiled themselves, because it was against the command of their father. And it is plain that God approves their abstinence for that very reason, and pronounceth a blessing to the whole family, for being obedient to the precepts of Jonadab their father● In the like manner the Angel Gabriel foretold of John the Baptist, Luke 1. Mat. 3. Mark 1. Luke 3. that he should neither drink wine, nor any strong drink, and that his fool should be Locusts and wild honey, Now I would ask the question, whether if the Baptist had transgressed that rule, he had offended, or not, but enough of this. To the second. I say the Apostle, in those words, that you so much insist upon, means only that he would not have such a judicial observance, continued amongst Christians, as to hold some meats absolutely, unlawful, and perpetually forbidden, as swine's flesh, excepting only what was decreed against in the Council of the Apostles. Acts ●. But the Church of Christ believes every creature of God to be good, though for a while, and to mortify the old man's, he commands an abstinence from some. Again the Apostle speaks not here at all of fasting or mortification of the flesh, but because certain heretics there were, that held some creature to proceed from an evil principle, the Apostle goes about to beat down that opinion, and tells them, 1 Tim. 4. that every creature of God is good to be received with thanks giving, and that is our religion, though we hold not that every good thing is good at all times, and seasons, nor does the Apostle here command it should be so. To the Third. You are to understand that by the old law some creatures were unclean, but that Typically and by signification only, though the Jews were so sottish, as to believe that they were so in their one nature; This error the Apostle goes about to destroy, saying to the faithful all things are pure, and so by consequence to be eaten in their seasons but that it is not lawful, to abstain from a sort of lawful meat, for a certain time, is a wonder to me how you could draw into that Apostles sense who was himself, as he says so often in fastings, and some of the fathers, as I have read in story, never drank wine, or eat flesh in all their lives. To the Fourth. I answer in the like manner, that the holy Apostle would not have his Collosstans nor any other faithful Christians, judged about meat and drink and holy days, after the old Jewish fashion, and not a word of fasting there. To the fifth. I shall freely grant to you that it is by the spirit that we are to mortify the deeds of the flesh, but I must tell you again, that the spirit receives strength from the weakening of the flesh, and crusifying of it with fasting, as the Apostle himself whom you urge, explains it to the Gallatians, Gal. 5.23.24. when he first tells them that Temperance is the fruit of the spirit, and after assures them that they who are Christ's, have crucified the flesh, with the affections and lusts etc. but above all I pray you observe, what he says to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 9.25, 26, 27. And every man that striveth for the mastery is temperate in all things etc. I therefore so run not as uncertainly, so fight I not as one that beateth the air: but I keep under my body and bring it into subjection, lest that by any means when I have preached to others, I myself should be a cast away. Thus it is plain that S. Paul thought that he advanced the vigour of his spirit, by his subjugation of his flesh. To the sixth and Last. As for your pretence of Christian liberty I have showed you plainly before, that it pertains not a jot to this purpose. As for what you say that Jesus Christ himself never made any distinction of meats, nor commanded any such thing, I grant it for he employed himself whilst he was on earth, in matters of greater moment to our Salvation, and left those things which were to expedite, and promote our way to heaven, to the direction and government of his holy Spirit, that was to animate his whole Church. Besides though our Saviour says nothing of distinction of meats, he does not withstanding much of fasting, and to give us example did most miraculously practise it in his own person: so now I presume you will give me leave to prove my part. And first I prove that the Church does lawfully forbid certain meats, for certain times, by express Scriptures thus. First the Apostles themselves being assembled in counsel, laid an injunction upon all Christians Solemnly so to do, in these words: For it seemed good unto the holy Ghost and to us etc. Acts 15.28, 29. that ye abstain from meats offered unto Idols, and, from blood and from things strangled etc. S. Rom. 14.20, 21. Paul declares freely to the Romans, that we ought not for matter of meat, destroy the work of God, all things indeed are pure, but it is evil for that man who eateth with offence: it is good neither to eat flesh nor to drink wine, nor any thing whereby thy Brother stumbleth, or is offended, or is made weak etc. here is a perfect abstinence commanded for certain times, and particular reasons. Again he says to the Corinthians, that meat commendeth us not to God, for noither if we eat, are we the better, neither if we eat not are we the worse etc. and then concludes, wherefore if meat make my Brother to offend, I will eat no flesh whilst the world standeth, lest I make my Brother to offend; here again is abstinence for certain time and certain reasons. Then that such an abstinence is acceptable to God, see the express words of the Prophet Daniel speaking of himself. Dan. 10.2.3. I Daniel was mourning three full weeks, I eat no pleasant bread, neither came flesh nor wine into my mouth, neither did I anoint my filf at all etc. Then said the Lord unto Daniel, fear not, ver. 12. for from the first day that thou didst set thine heart to understand, and to chasten thyself before thy God, thy words were heard etc. here you see how the Prophet Daniel did abstain from meat, and wine, and God reproved and loved him for it. In the like manner I shall prove fasting to be a holy institution, for the maceration of the body, the explusion of the evil Spirit, the imploring of divine grace, and the imitation of Jesus Christ, by express scripture in S. Math. Gospel thus First our Saviour saith, Mat. 9.15. can the Children of the Bride-chamber mourn, so long as the Bridegroom is with them, but the days will come, when the Bridegroom shall be taken from them, Luke 5.35, 36. and then they shall fast, and in S. Luke's Gospel he says, can ye make the Children of the Bride-chamber fast whilst the Bridegroom is with them, but the days shall come etc. and then shall they fast in those days. And these words of our Saviour's were abundantly fullfiled by the Apostles, as you may see in the Acts. Acts 13.2.3. first as they ministered unto the Lord and fasted the holy Ghost said etc. And again, when they had fasted, and prayed etc. Acts. 14.23. And in the next chapter it is said, and when they had Ordained them olders in every Church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord etc. S. Paul declareth to the Corinthians, how he and others that were engaged in the service of the Church should behave themselves thus. 2 Co●. 6.4.5. In all things approving ourselves, as the ministers of God etc. in watch and in fastings. And that this duty of fasting was acceptable to God even before Christianity, Jonah 3.5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10. we may see in the example of Ninniveh. So the people of Ninniveh believed God (that is the word which was preached to them by the Prophet Jonah) and proclaimed a fast, and put on sackcloth from the greatest of them even to the least of them, and it follows, it was decreed by the King and all his Nobles, saying, let neither man beast, heard nor flock taste any thing, let them not feed nor drink water but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, etc. And God saw their works and that they turned from their evil way, and God repent of the evil that he had said, that he would do unto them and be did it not. Thus you may see how acceptable to God, this solemn fast of the Ninnivits was, and yet you will question that duty. But to sum up all this in a few words, Mat. 6.16, 17, 18. I pray you observe what our Saviour says in S. Mathews Gospel. Moreover when ye fast, be not as the Hypoerites, of a sad countenance, for they disfigure their faces that they may appear unto men to fast, verily I say unto you, they have their reward but thou when thou fastest, anoint thy bead, and wash thy face, that thou appear not unto men to fast, but unto thy father which is in secret, and thy father which seethe in secret shall reward thee openly. Here our Saviour does not only implicitly commend, this duty of fasting to us, but prescribes us the manner of it, and assures us it is meritorious, for he saith that God shall reward it openly; I think this should be enough to satisfy any reasonable Christians. Why then should our lenten fast so much offend you when it is so ancient in the Church as I have been informed, ever since the Apostles times and ordained in humble imitation of our Saviour, who as the scripture tells us, when he had fasted forty days and forty nights, Mat. 4.2. he was afterwards an bungred, can we perform think you a more Christian, duty, Deut. 9 than to follow so great an example, so far as we can? Again we find that Moses fasted forty days, and forty nights. And that the Prophet Elijah did the same. 1 Kings 16. Nay how much this duty of fasting is pleasing to the Lord, we may find in the Prophet Joel who cries out, Joel 2.15, 16, 18. blow the Trumpit in Zion, fanctify a fast, call a solemn, assembly gather the people, sanctify the congregation, assemble the elders, gather the Children, and those that suck the breast, let the Bridegroom go forth of his chamber, and the Bride out of her closet etc. Then will the Lord pity his people etc. The Prophet David frequently acknowledgeth that he did humble his soul with fasting, Psalms and the Scripture throughout is full of nothing more than that God did accept of that humiliation still when it was hearty, 1 Kings, 21. Tob. 12. Luke 2. as Abab, Hezekiah, Tobiah, Judith, Hester, Daniel, the Niunivites, Ann the widow, and agreat many more, that would be infinite to recount. So for a close of all I shall only put you in mind, that there were a sort of Devils, of whom our Saviour himself says, Mark 9.29. that that kind is not to be east out but by prayer and fasting who then shall cast out Devils, from them that are enemies Professed, against that great and holy duty of fasting. To what you allege against our Vows, especially those of Chastity and single-life though in one Priests themselves. To the First, I answer that. I grant indeed that Vows do reduce us into Bondage, but it is only to Christ, and such a slavery, is the nighest libercy. It is such a servitude as the Apostle speaks of, being freed from sin ye are made the servants of Righteousness and to God, and to serve God is to Reign with him: from whence it is plain, that our obligation to pay our Vows, does in nothing repugn or Straighten our Christian liberty, no more than our obligation to keep the Commandments does: and just so as the Transgression of the Commandments throws us into the servitude of sin; so does the breach, or not observance of our Vows. It is true, the Evangelicall Counfells are at first free, but after a promise is once made, they become Obligatory; shall we make a conscience to observe our Contracts with men and violate our Covenants with God? God forbidden. The Lord commands us not to make Vows, but to pay and render them when they are made: as Matrimony before a Contract, is free, but when the Contract is once made, it is then firm and indissolveable, and therefore impossible (unless in our Saviour's case) to procure a Divorce. At first every man hath in his to vow, or not to vow, but to pay the vow being once made, is so necessary, that a man cannot recede from it, without hazard of his salvation. Our Saviour says, That no man setting his hand to the Blow, and looking back, is fit for the Kingdom of God. And again, Remember Lot's Wife, Luk. 9.17. Gen. 19 Matth. 10. chap. 24. 2 Thes. 2.7. Prov. 20.25. Matth. 22.31. who looking back was turned into a pillar of Salt. Again, he that perseveres to the end shall be saved, that is, till death. The wise King Solomon assures us, it is a snare to the man who devoureth that which is holy, and after vows to make inquiry; Our Translation reads it thus, It is a ruin to man to devour the Saints, and after vows made, to retract them. Let all pious Votaries therefore, according to our Saviour's Words in St. Matthews Gospel, Renden unto God the things which are Gods, that is their Vows, that through his mercy, they may deserve to be saved. To the second. I freely grant that Vows of themselves, and all the external works of piety, dictated from the severest Rules of Monastic life cannot renew the inward man, yet doubtless they are very helpful to the spirit, and keep the body from too much oppressing the soul; nay I'll grant too, that if those external works, as you call them, be done that they make seen of men, they are Hypocritical, if done clearly to the glory of God, you must sure grant them, at least to be laudable: Besider, the Apostle says not, that bodily exercise profiteth nothing, but grants that it profiteth a little, if it be employed to piety. To the Third. Whereas you say that external works are enemies to Christianity, and do extinguish faith, and weaken hope etc. They are so far from that, that they are the very life and nourishment of faith, for St. James tells us, that faith without works is dead; Jam. 2. and it must strengthen his hope, for by works both his faith and he must be justified, as was sufficiently proved to you in my last Paper: Luk. 17. But indeed if he dare to presume in his works, than he is not only guilty but condemned already, For when we have done all that we can, we must say that we are but profitable Servants, To the Fourth. Whereas you say it is grand presumption in our Votaries, to oblige themselves beyond the Rule of Baptism, and the Evangelicall Rule, etc. It is plain, that they make their Vows to no other intent or purpose then to dispose themselves to perfect the Evangelicall precepts, and what they promised in Baptism with more commodiousness and greater facility; they undertake their Rules only to promote in their way to perfection, and to enable themselves with more expedients in the service of God. To what you allege against our vows of chastity, and restraining of Priests from Marriage, I answer thus, To the first. I grant that it was indulged to the Priests and Levites in the Old Law to have Wives, because they had a long time of vacancy from the exercise of their Ministry or Priesthood. For there was a great multitude of them, and they served by course; The case is not the same now, for our Priests are in daily service of the Altar, and commanded to be always ready, and without delay to attend their Ministry; so it would be very inconvenient for them to be clogged with Wives, besides the indecency of it. Again they were to be only of one Tribe, the Tribe of Levi, that were to be taken into their Priesthood, it was therefore necessary for the conservation of the Tribe, and propagation of the Priesthood itself, which otherwise in one age would have failed that their Priests should marry. Besides we find that those that were to sacrifice in the Old Law, did abstain sometime from their Wives likewise: so that St. Luke testifies of Zacharias, And then it came to pass that so soon as the days of his Ministration were accomplished, Luke 1.23.24. he departed to his own house, and after those days his Wife Elizabeth conceived, etc. Over and above all this the Priests of the Old Testament did handle but their proposition bread, with the flesh of Goats, Oxen, Lambs and the like, but ours do daily handle the precious body and blood of Christ. As to the other part of your Argument, that the Greeks and other Christians have a liberty for their Priests to marry. I say you are mistaken, for no Priest amongst them is permitted to marry, after he is a Priest, but one that has taken a Virgin to Wife, may be afterwards made a Priest, and if his Wife die he must remain single. So a married man may be made a Priest, but no Priest can be made a married man: To the Second. That command of the Almighty which you insist upon, to increase and multiply, was given when the earth was to be replenished, & heaven too for then then there were but few to procreate, now they are innumerable. Therefore that command is not to be taken amongst those permanent Laws, which were to oblige all Mankind, and every particular person, for then St. John the Baptist had been a sinner, who lived and died a Virgin: Our blessed Lady had sinned, who is the grand Example of Virginity. Paul himself had sinned, who was the great Counsellor of Virginity: and out Saviour Christ had never commended Eunuches for the Kingdom of Heaven. In like manner that precept, and repeated by our Saviour, Whom God hath joined let no man separate: concerns not sure every one in the World, though it be given to every one multitude of, the World. So the command concerning Tillage and Husbandry, does not make it necessary that all the World should be Husbandmen, though some must be. Neither is it necessary for every individual of mankind to employ himself in procreation, though it is necessary that some must make it their business to propagate. And so it is in an infinity of other things, that are necessary for a whole community, and yet not at all for every single person; but it sufficeth, that it be done by some. To the third. I deny perfectly that the Church forbids marriages at all; but when any man is tied by his own voluntary Vow to the contrary, the Church prohibits the violation of that Vow, for before his vow it was as free for him to marry, as for a married man, it is impossible to contract again. The Church takes a care in this point only, that he whosoever he is that vows shall not deliver up the power of his body to another, which was before delivered up to Christ. And the Heretics which you speak of, Mark 15. 1 Cor. 10. which Saint Paul mentions, were those that succeeded presently after, as I am informed, that did absolutely condemn Matriages for unlawful. To the Fourth. That Saint Paul commands Titus to choose a Bishop that was the Husband of one Wife we do not deny, but sure you do not believe, that he commanded, that a Bishop should of necessity be a married man, for then neither he himself nor Titus neither had been Bishops, nor many of your own, whom you would take it ill, if we should deny to be Bishops, and yet have very conscientiously avoided marriage. The Apostle would not therefore, that a Bishop should be found guilty of so much carnality as to be husband to two Wives, and the Church taught by Saint Paul has forbid bigamy ever since, and St. Paul only here lays down the Rule of a Bishop's continence, that h●● should not take a second Wife. To the Fifth. I grant chastity to be free, but necessary after it is vowed, and then commanded, nor does that at all oppose the liberty of the Spirit, but promote it, for God himself does freely and yet necessarily produce the holy spirit. It is true likewise what the Apostle says that it is better to marry then to burn, but the same Apostle tells you likewise, that it is good for a man not to touch a Woman. St. Paul would not have a man burn, that is tempted of the flesh, but he is burnt that is overcome with the flames of concupiscence, and for such a man, saith he, it is better to Marry, than to be always wallowing in the mire: if you will put any other sense upon St. Paul's words, you will make St. Paul himself to marry, because he had a Prick in his flesh, etc. I do confess that I believe it to be very difficult to contain, but the Kingdom of Heaven suffers violence, and the violent take it, as our Saviour assures us, and St. Paul tells us, That though we are tempted of the flesh, yet God is faithful who suffers not to be tempted above that we are able, and will be always present to support us, if we implore his help. To the Sixth. To what you urge out of the same Apostle to the Cor. That if thou marry, thou hast not sinned, etc. I answer that St. Paul speaks plainly there of one that was free to marry or not to marry not I say of the Virgin that has dedicated itself to God already, but of that which is free, and at its own dispose. To the Seventh. Whereas you say that our vows of Virginity are vain and indeed foolish because impossible; I do truly grant, as to nature, an impossibility, and so are many other things that are absolutely commanded. But if you consider the assisting grace of God, nothing is impossible: and every man is capable to receive that whom God shall think worthy to bestow it upon: and neither the Pope nor any of his, do trust in their external mortifications at all, but that God will please to assist those their endeavours, with his Almighty grace, which he never denies to those that so dutifully and instantly ask it, as they do. There is something else, that you say in your argument, which though it be sufficiently answered, I must desire you yet to advise better upon, and think whether it was so well said of a woman; for which very words, Luther himself as I am informed lost much of his credit with his own Disciplcs. To what you allege against us for multiplying of Sacraments, and making them, as you say, out of mere humane inventions, I answer thus. To the First. Whereas you are pleased to begin so briskly with me, and as I take it, with a syllogism: I profess I know not whether it be true or false in the form; but one proposition I am sure is false: First that we have any supernumerary Sacraments, or any Sacrament that was not of Christ's own institution; as you shall see how I will prove anon. To the Second. Whereas you say you have sufficiently already convinced the Sacrament of penance to be none, by overthrowing the parts of it, Confession and Satisfaction: I answer, that I humbly conceive that I have sufficiently in my reply, restored that Sacrament, both in whole and in its parts, so shall insist upon it no further neither. To the Third. Whereas you say, that our Sacraments of Confirmation and order are but mere constitutions of the Church, and not of Christ. I have but your bare word for it, and so you must give me leave to deny it. To the Fourth. As you are pleased to give me something like an Argument, so I shall give you something like an answer. You say there can be no pretence for to make Matrimony a Sacrament, but a few mistaken words of Saint Paul, who had no power to make a Sacrament neither, etc. I concur with you that Saint Paul had no power at all to constitute a Sacrament, nor any but our Saviour Jesus Christ and that it was he who constituted it a Sacrament; I shall prove ●non. As for the mistaken words in which you pretend, Sacrament for Mystery; I do confess that Matrimony is a mystery but how dare you therefore infer that it is no Sacrament, when we know that all Sacraments are mysteries, and so the Greeks (as I am informed) do generally call all the seven. Then that it is a great Sacrament in Christ and his Church, as the Apostle tells us, does it therefore follow that it is e'er the less a Sacrament? on the contrary the Apostle here explains how it is a Sacrament, that is how it comes to be the sign of a holy thing and that not of grace only, as all the others are, but of something more, that is of the union between Christ and his Church: so upon the matter, it is so fare from being no Sacrament, that it may be well reputed as a double one, with Reverence be it spoken. To the Fifth. Whereas you say, we have a less pretence for our extreme unction to make it a Sacrament, I do in one sense submit to it, for it is not so literally constituted a Sacrament, by our blessed Saviour, as the other was: but yet it was of his own institution, as we shall show anon, and if it were not, I do not find any matter of false faith in it, that an Apostle by the commandment of Christ, and possessed with his full authority, should have the power to institute a Sacrament. But it is plain, that our Saviour did institute it, and Saint James only publish and declare it. And though it were at s●me time doubted, whether that Epistle were written by any body else besides Saint James; yet it is plainly now admitted to be Canonical, and never denied yet by your own Church. And truly he that shall refuse to hear the Church (in this particular) approving the Epistle of this Apostle, will presently throw all Scripture into uncertainty, and by the same reason may deny the Epistles of St. Paul, or any other Apostles. Now because you seem to take for granted that our Sacraments are for the most part humane constitutions, and it is of faith that they are of divine institution, 1 Pet. 3.15 and we ought to be as St. Peter adviseth us, Always ready to give answer to every one that asketh us a reason of the saith and hope that is in us. I shall take some pains to prove it to you thus. As for our Sacrament of Penance, as you conceive enough said on your part against it, so I conceive I have said sufficiently for it in my reply to those two parts of it, Confession and Satisfaction, to which I refer you: So I shall make it my business now to prove the other four, to be Sacraments, and of divine institution; and I shall begin with the Sacrament of Confirmation. Every Sacrament is a sensible sign, having an infallible assistance of the grace of the Holy Spirit; and such I prove Confirmation to be, by most express Scriptures thus. We find in the Acts, That when the Apostles which were at Jerusalem heard that Samaria had received the Word of God, Act. 8.14.15, 16, 17. they sent unto them Peter and John. Who when they were come down, prayed for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. (F●r as yet he was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptised in the Name of the Lord Jesus) Then laid they their hands upon them, and they received the Holy Ghost. Here was manifestly a confirmation after Baptism, and a sensible sign, to wit, Imposition of hands, by which the grace of the holy spirit was conferred, and that is enough to make a Sacrament. Again we find in another Chapter of the same Acts, Act. 19.2.3, 4, 5, 6. That Paul being at Ephesus, and finding some Disciples there, said unto them, have ye received the Holy Ghost since ●e believed, and they said unto him, we have not so much as heard whether there be any holy Ghost; and be said unto them, unto what then were ye baptised? and they said unto him, John's Baptism, than said Paul, John verily baptised with the Boptism of Repentance, saying unto the people that they should believe on him which should come after him that is on Christ Jesus: when they heard this they believed on Christ Jesus. And when Paul bade laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spoke with Tongues and Prophesied. Here is I say again, after Belief and Baptism, an Imposition of hands, by which, the grace of the Holy Spirit was ferr'd. Now that this Sacrament waa instituted by Christ himself, is plain by the Gospels, John 16. where he promiseth his Apostles the Comforter, his Holy Spirit, with which they should be confirmed, by virtue from above, now the mission of the Holy Ghost in the time of Penticost, either was the Sacrament of confirmation itself, or instead of it: Mark. 11.13, 14. Matth. 10. again we find in the Gospels, That they brought young children to Christ, that be should touch them and his Disciples rebuked them that brought them, but when Jesus saw it be was displeased, and said suffer the little Children to come to me, for of such is the Kingdom of God, etc. Now it is very probable that he did either institute this Sacrament then, or at least insinuate it. So enough I coceive said to that. Now that the Sacramnot of Orders, was instituted likewise by Christ himself, and with a sensible sign conferrs grace, I prove this by express Scriptures. First we find that when Jesus had called unto him his twelve Disciples, Mat. 10.1. he gave them power against unclean spirets, and to heal all manner of sickness and all manner of diseases. Then again, Jesus going up into the Mountain, and called unto him wh●m he would, and they came unto him, and he made that Twelve should be with him, Mark. 6.7. and he sent them to preach, etc. And after these things, the Lord appointed other seventy also, and sent them tweand two before his face into every City and place whither he himself would come. Then again we find, Luk 10.1. that taking bread he broke it, giving thanks and saying; this is my Body, etc. Do this in remembrance of me. Then last of all look into St. John's Gospel, and you will find yet a more express Ordination and mission. As my Father h●th since me so send I you. L●k. 28. And when he had said this, he breathed on them and saith unto them, receive ye the holy Ghost: John 10. ● 21, 22, 23, Whosoever sins ye remit they are remitted unto them, and whosoever sins ye retain, they are retained. Thus you have in the four Gospels the institution of this Sacrament: Let us now look a little into the Apostolical practice. We find in the Acts, Act. 13. ●● As they ministered to the Lord; and fasted, the holy Ghost said, separate me Barnabas and Saul, for the work whereunto I have called them: and when they had fasted and prayed and I did their hands on them, they sent them away. Here again is plain Ordination and Mission. St. Paul gives direction to young Timothy, how to behaave himself in his Ministry, and then says, 1 Tim. 4.14. Neglect not the gift that is in thee, which was given to thee by Prophesy, with the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery. Then again he says, Lay not thy hands on any man over haftily, and again, the Elders that govern well, are worthy of double honour. Then the same Apostle tells Titus, 1 Tim. 6. For this Cause I left thee in Crect, that thou shouldst make Elders in several Cities. 2 Tim. 1. Then to Philemon he says of those Elders, those that are of this sort, have a great regard to, thus you see what respect St. Paul had to holy orders, and yet to admonish us further of our duties to them, he makes it his humble request to the Thessalonians, thus, Phil. 1. We beseech you brethren, to know them that labour amongst you, and over you on the Lord, and admonish you in the Lord, and to esteem them very highly in love for their works sake, and be at peace amongst yourselves. See what charge St. 1 Thes. 5.12.13. Peter gives the Elders: The Elders which are among you, I exhort, who am also an Elder, etc. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the eversighe thereof, etc. And when the chief Shepherd shall appear, ye shall receive a Crown of glory that fadeth not away. So St. Paul, again, in the Acts of the Apostles, Exhorts the Elders of Eph●sus thus, Take heed therefore unto yourselves, and to the Flock over which the Holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, (or Overseers as you would have it, for it is all one) to feed the Church of God, which he hath purchased with his own Blood. Act. 20.28. Ge●. 1.37 Observe that the Holy Ghost made them Bishops and Overseers, and yet you will deny Orders to be a Sacrament, but it is plain it is, for Imposition of hands is the visible sign, which carries with it the invisible grace of the Holy Spirit, as you have seen at large proved by Scripture. That Matrimony is a Sacrament, and instituted by Christ, I likewise prove by express Scripture thus. First it is very probable that the blessing which God Almighty gave to Adam and Eve in Paradise, was not unaccompanied with divine grace. But howsoever the institution of our Saviour I'm sure could not be without it: Matth. 19.1.6. and first he is pleased to repeat the words of the first Institution. For this cause shall a man leave his Father & mother & shall cleave to his Wife, and they twain shall be one flesh, wherefore they are no more twain, but one flesh: What therefore God hath joined together let no man put asunder. Now if God hath joyndthemtogether, it must be a divine conjunction and that cannot possibly be without divine grace. But this is most fully expressed by Saint Paul to the Ephesians thus, Wives submit yourselves to your own Husbands, as unto the Lord, for the Husband is the head of the Wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church; and he is the Saviour of the body, therefore as the Church is subject to Christ, Ephes 5.22, 23, 225 so let the Wives be to their own Husbands in every thing. Husband's love your Wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it, etc. And then concludes, for this eause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joined with his Wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great Mystery, or Sacrament, choose you which. Here the Apostle clearly proclaims it a Sacrament, because the Conjunction of man and wife, is the visible sign of that Sacred Conjunction between Christ and his Church. Again to the Hebrews he says thus, Marriage is honourable in all, and the bed undefiled, Heb. 13.4. but Wheremingers and Adulterers God will judge. Now if there were not a divine and Sacramental grace in marriage, how could the Bed be undefiled? Again to the Corinthians, he adviseth every one to have his own Wise, 1 Cor. 7.2. for the avoiding of Formeation; yet it is not to be supposed, that any man by the help of a Wife only, be she what she can be of virtue and beauty, can be capable to avoid Fornication without the said Sacramental Grace. Again, to the Thessalonians thus. 1 Thes 1. Let every one amongst you know how to possess his Vessels in sanctification and honour, now sanctification, we know cannot be without divine grace. Then he tells Timethy, that a woman shall be saved by Childbearing, if she remain in saith and love, now to beget children, without the grace of this Sacrament, would be more probably occasion of damnation than salvation. Then again to the Corinthians he saith, 1 Cor. 7.12, 13, 14 If any brother hath a wife that believeth not, and she be pleased to dwell with him, let him not put her away. And the woman which hath a busband that believeth not, and if he be pleased to dwell with her, let her not leave him. For the unbelieving husband is sanctified by the wife, and the unbelieving wife is sanctified by the husband: else were your children unclean, but now are they holy; which must needs be understood; as by the grace of this holy Sacrament. I shall conclude all concerning this, Prov. 19 with what the wise King Solomon tells us, that a house and riches we have from our Parents, but a prudent wife is from the Lord. Thus we must acknowledge God to be the immediate Author of Marriages, as we say matches are made in heaven, and by the grace of this Sacrament, only to be made happy. That extreme Unction is a Saeroment likewise, and a visible sign of an invisible grace, I prove by ezpress Scripture thus. We find in Saint Marks Gospel, how our Saviour called unto him the twelve, Mark. 6, 7, 8.9, 10, 11, 12, 13. and began to send them out by two and two, and gave them power over unclean Spirits, etc. And after he had given them their mission fully, with orders how to behave themselves, in their business, we find, that they went out accordingly, and Preached that men should repent, and they cast out many Devils: And then anointed with Oil many that were sick, and healed them. This it is not to be thought, that they did this upon their own heads, but by their Master's command, by whose power they did those mighty works, and having his command, sure than none can deny but it was his Institution. Then this Sacrament is so loudly proclaimed by Saint James, that I admire how any Christian can believe in Scripture, and doubt the other. It any sick among you, says the Apostle, James 5.14, 15. let him call for the Elders of the Church, and let them pray over him, anointing him with Oil in the Name of the Lord, etc. and if he have committed sins, they shall be forgiven him. Here is plainly a most visible sign, and as plainly, a most extraordinary grace accompanying it, that is to say, remission of sins. Thus you may clearly see, how extreme Unction is a Sacrament of our Saviour's own Institution, or at least plainly implied to have been instituted by him, and that by the action of the Twelve Apostles before his face, whilst he was upon earth, and at large declared to be so by the express words of one of the Twelve that is Saint James. Over and above this, we have the universal tradition of the Church of Christ, that in these matters of faith, we know cannot err: and that alone indeed might have been a sufficient proof of the verity of it, if our Saviour himself, his Apostles, and Evangelists had been silent in it. The truth is, that the Evangelists being to write in short (for if they had writ at large, the whole world had not been able to contain the books that might have been written, as Saint John tells us) of the Acts, and words of our Saviour Jesus Christ, made it their principal care to deliver punctually to us only those things that were most highly necessary to our salvation; as we see how amply they have set down the Sacraments that were absolutely necessary, as Baptism, Penance; and Eucharist, and as for confirmition, and extreme Unction, they do not so much as insist upon, because they are not of absolute necessity to salvation, though they are very great expedients towards it; the one to confirm us in grace, after Baptism, the other to remove the relics of sin, after a hearty repentance. And it is the opinion of the learned in this point, that the benefit of this Sacrament, is such, that a penitent with attrition only receiving this Sacrament, receives likewise such a grace along with it, that by virtue of it, his sins though mortal, may be forgiven him. Thus I conceive enough said as to this, and all the rest of your last paper; and when you please I am ready for another, and to serve you with any thing, that may lie within the power of Your faithfully loving and true friend, M. This paper my Lady had no sooner dispatched, but she sent it away by one of her servants sealed up, and by him she roceived this Answer. Madam, I have received your Ladyship's Letter and Paper enclosed, for which I teturn my most humble thanks, and instead of another which you seem to require of me, I have sent you two, herein enclosed, the one to show you the superstition, Idolatry, and Will-worship of your Church; the other to convince you of the Pride, Arrogancy, Tyranny, and Usurped power of it, which when your Ladyship hath been pleased to peruse, and as well as you can, to answer, I shall sum up all that you have said rogether, and make a short rejoinder to the whole of your replies; for I am refolved to trouble your Ladyship with no more Papers, so praying God for your Ladyships good health, both of Body and Soul, I take leave to remain, Madam, Your Ladyship's most assured faithful servant, N. My Lady upon the return of her servant, opening the Packet that Mistress. N. had sent back to her, found the Papers enclosed, whereof the first was to this effect as followeth. That which your Church teacheth concerning the invocation of Saints, is a Doctrine very injurious to God, and yet not more profane than superstitious, and impertinent, and that I will prove thus. 1. Jesus Christ our blessed Saviour, with God the Father, God the Holy Ghost, Holy Trinity in Unity, three Persons and one God, alone is all-sufficient, alone is most liberal, and alone is most merciful, and who alone loves us more than all the Saints. There is not a Christian living, that I think dares deny a word of this, if there should be such a monster, a were easy to prove every word of it, by express Scripture: who can think it rational then to invoke any other thing; and besides that, this all-bountifull, all-mercifull, all-powerfull, most good, most gracious, and most loving Lord God, has not only enjoined us, but importuned us to pray to him, and him alone, promising to hear, and grant our requests, and that I prove by most express Scriptures thus. 2. First by the Gospels it is most clear, our Saviour in Saint John assures it with a Verily, verily, I say unto you, whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name, he will give it you, John 16.23, 24. and then in the next verse, Ask, and ye shall receive, thus it is but ask of God and having, and yet you must think fit to go about by the Saints. 3. Then in Saint Luke's Gospel we find, and I say unto you, ask and it shall be given you, Luke 11.9.10, 11, 12, 13. seek and ye shall find, knock, and it shall be opened unto you. For every one that asketh receiveth, and he that seeketh findeth, and to him that knocketh it shall be opened. Then by the parallel of God with a good Father granting his child's requests he concludes how much more shall your heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask him. Again, what you ask in prayet believing ye shall receive, as Saint Matthews Gospel tells, Matth. 2. with an infinity of other places; too many to repeat to that purpose, wherefore Saint Paul most pithily concludes, Heb. 4.16. Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of Grace, that we may obtain mercy, and find grace to help, in time of need. 4 The Apostle tells us, 2 Cor. 1.3. that God is the Father of mercies, and the Lord of all comforts, who comforteth us in all our tribulation, that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble, by the comfort wherewith we our selus are comforted of God, etc. If all our comfort then be from God, had we not better make our address to him, that we know is the fountain of all Grace, than to the Saints, who can have nothing but what they derive from him. 5. The same Apostle tells Tymothy plainly that there is but one Mediator between God and men, and that is Christ Jesus; what an offence than must it needs be to God, to make more Mediators, that is, the Saints? Then we find frequently in Scripture that he alone maketh intercesion for us, as in Isaiah that he makes intercession for transgressors: 1 Tim. 2.5. Isai. 53.12. Rom. 8.26.24. Heb. 7.25. and Saint Paul tells us, that he ever liveth to make intercession for us. And again, who always maketh intercession for us, why should we date to make more intercessors, that is, the Saints. 6. In fine to sum up all in short, your Doctrine of invocation of the Saints, is highly injurious to God, who is a jealous God, and will only be worshipped. It is injurious to Jesus Christ, who is the only Mediator between God and man. Thirdly it is injurious to ourselves, for it is an argument of a diffidence and distrust in God, when we fly to the Saints for succour: and then lastly it is an impertinent and unprofitable piece of devotion, because the Saints in heaven neither do nor can hear our prayets, nor know our wants or what is done here amongst us as Job tells us, Job. 24.21 Eccles. 9.5. his sons came to honour, and he knoweth it not, Ecclesiastes assures us, that the living know that they shall die, but the dead know not any thing: and the Prophet Isaiah yet more plainly, Isai. 63.16. doubtlessthou art our Father, though Abraham be ignorant of us, and Israel do not acknowledge us, etc. Thus it is plain that the Saintf in heaven are incapable to know our wants, or hear our prayers, much less to help us. That your Doctrine of Veneration of Images is an abominable, Idolatrcus Dactrine, and prejudicial to divine Worship, I prove Thus. First, out of the plain words of the Commandment. Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image, Exod. 20.4, 5. Deut. 4.5. & 2●. or any likeness of any thing that is in heaven above, or that is in the earth beneath; or that is in the waterunder the earth, thou shalt notbow down thyself to them, nor serve them, etc. The same thing is repeated at the latter end of Ex●dus, and in several places of Deuteronomy; and in many other places of the Old Testament. 2. Again we find how good Hezekiah, 2 King. 18.4. removed the high places, and broke the Images, and broke in pieces the beazen Serpent that Moses had made etc. Yet your Religion strives to restore to Christians that kind of worship. 3 How well our Saviour is pleased with that kind of Worship, Joh. 22, 23 24. you may see in Saint John's Gospel, where our Saviour says, ye worship, ye know not what, etc. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true Worshippers shall worship the Father in Spirit and in Truth, for the Father seeks such to worship him. God is a Spirit, and they that worship him, must worship him in Spirit and in Truth Now I would feign know what a Spirit hath to do with Images? or how can the worship of Images, be thought a spiritual worship. 4 Over and above the danger of Idolatry, and many unclean thoughts, that may be occasioned by Images, I shall only add this one Argument, against so foul a thing, and that is this, either Images are commanded, or commended for good means of divine worship, or they are not, if they be, then show it by Scripture, if they be not, than it must follow, that it is a piece of will-worship, and that all Images, are mere fond and vain things. That your, Doctrines of Indulgences, Purgatory, and Prayer for the dead, are derogatory to God's glory, and abusive to the world, Iprove by Scripture thus. And First, as to your business of Indulgencies, I shall give but one blow, and that I presume will be a mortal one, out of Saint Paul to the Romans where he saith, for I reckon. that the sufferings of this present time, Rom. 8.18. are not worthy to be compared with the Glory which shall be revealed in me. If then the merits of the Saints upon earth, are more then enough rewarded, by the glory which the Lord is pleased to confer upon them in heaven, how can there be a superabundance of their merits, picked up by your Church, and laid up in a storehouse, or treasury, for the Pope to take out at his pleasure and apply to the use and advantage of other men? which is as I am informed the profane and sottish opinion of your Church. Then as to your Doctrine of Purgatory, I shall disprove it thus. The Prophet Daniel mentions but two ways for souls to go: The one to everlasting life, Dan. 11.2. Matth. 25.46. John 5.29. the other to everlasting contempt. Our Saviour does mention no more, And these shall go away into everlasting punishment, but the Righteous into life eternal, so St. Matthew; And again in St. John's Gospel, They that have done good unto the Resurrection of life, and they that have done evil, unto the Resurrection of damnation. How dare any man invent a third place upon his own head, when God himself has appointed but two. Again, the Scriptures plainly tells us, that those which are to be saved, go immediately to Heaven, without any stop or stay by the way, therefore your Purgatory must needs be very much out of the way. Luk. 23.43. As first we find in Saint Luke's gospel, our Saviour's own words to the Thief upon the Cross. And jesus said unto him Verily I say unto thee, to day shalt thou be with me in Paradise: that is understood, immediately after his death, without any delay in Purgatory, Phil. 1.23. or else where Then again St. Paul tells the Philipians, that he had a desire to departed, and to be with Christ: therefore after departure, the saved soul goes immediately to Christ, without any rubs, stops or stays by the way: what then is become of your pitiful purgatory? So I presume I need not trouble your Ladyship with any more arguments, to convince so foul an error. I shall only produce one or two more against your prayer for the dead, which is a consequent of your Purgatory, and so conclude this Paper. That your Doctrine of Prayer for the dead, is an impertinent piece of devotion, and contrary to Scripture, I prove thus. 1. It were enough for the satisfaction of any reasonable person in this point, to have disproved purgatory, as I have done already, for if there be no Purgatory there can be no prayer for the dead useful at all, but I will proceed more particularly to prove against prayer for the dead thus, The Prophet Jeremy not only forbids to pray, but to weep for the dead, saying Weep ye not for the dead, Jer. 22.10. neither bemoan him, but weep for him that goeth, astray, etc. If the dead be not in a condition to be wept for, they are mch less in a condition to be prayed for; and by consequence again, there can be no Purgatory. 2. Luk. 7.13. Our Saviour again in like manner forbids the Widow to weep for her Son that was dead; so still it follows, if there ought to be no weeping, than no Purgatory, and if no Purgatory than no prayer for the dead. 3ly. and Lastly, for the Explication of all that has been said, 1 Thes. 14.13, 14, 15.16, 17, 18 and the conviction of all gainsayers, Observe what St. Paul says to the Thessalonians. But I would not have you be ignorant brethren, concerning them which are asleep, that ye s●rrow not even as others which have no hope, for if we believ, etc. So to the end of the Chapter comforts them, with an assurance of resurrection to life eternal, without any the least mention of Purgatory, or prayers for the dead. This Paper my Lady had at sooner perased, but she disposed herself immediately to her pen, and writ as followeth. To what you are pleased to allege against our Doctrine, for the invocation of the Saints in Heaven, I answer thus. To your first, second, third, and fourth I shall answer together, and with good reason, for there runs the same fallacy along with them all; and I do wonder you should be so deluded by the Sophisms of your Doctors; for those very Arguments that they have furnished you withal against us in this point, do as well take away the Intercession of Christ himself, and the prayers of the Saints living upon earth, as the intercession of the Saints in heaven. For if this be a good consequence, God is only to be worshipped; therefore it is not lawful to invoke the Saints in heaven, than this must be a good consequence too, God is only to be worshipped; therefore it is not lawful to invoke or desire the Saints on earth to pray for us: For this word only exclude; as well one as the other; and must of necessity, as well condemn the invocation of the Saints Militant, which all of you use, and the Apostle himself did too, as the invocation of the Saints Triumphant. Besides we do acknowledge it to be our duty to pray and ask of God, and to pray and ask in Jesus his name, and to pray and to ask with confidence, as the Apostle would have us, but nothing of all this can make an exclusion of the Saints. For by the Saints, as our fellow Members, we pray in the name of Jesus our head; wherefore our Church always doth conclude its Collects of the Saints, with through Jesus christ our Lord; and you are to understand, that though God be most good, most gracious, and merciful, yet he is a God of order, and disposeth of all things so sweetly, that all Inferiors may lead us to Superiors, and so in this particular case, our Church is likewise well pleased, that we should come boldly to the Throne of Grace, to the fountain of Grace, Father of Mercy, and God of all comforts; but this she tells us, that we may more commodiously do it by the Saints, then only by ourselves, who are most miserable sinners, and so must of necessity be abhorred by him: And the Scripture tells us, that our God is a consuming fire; and we may justly fear lest we perish before his face, as wax melteth before the face of the fire, Deut. 4. Heb. 13.19. and for this we beg the mediation and intercession of the blessed Saints in heaven. To the fifth. To what you urge out of the Apostle to Timothy, that there is but one Mediator I do acknowledge, that there is but one Mediator of Redemption, that is Jesus Christ, because he alone redeemed Mankind; nor is there any other name under heaven, by which we can be saved, but that hinders not but that there may be more Mediators of intercession; so then there is but one Mediator by Redemption, as but one Saviour; for he is the only good Shepherd, who gave his life for his flock; but there are more Mediators by intercession, as the Scripture names more Saviour's, Mediators, and Redeemers too. Moses says of himself, that he was set apart or chosen for a Mediator between God and the children of Israel. Again, he raised up a Redeemer, Deliverer, or Saviour to them, one Othoniel; Deut. 3. Judg. 3.9. Nehem. 9: Gen. 4.1 and Nehemiah tells us how God did raise unto the children of Israel Saviour's, and Pharaoh calls Joseph a Saviour. To the sixth. I say, that as to the injury which you pretend, done to God, by the invoking of his Saints, I have sufficiently answered already, in my return to your first Arguments; for the injury which you allege done to Christ, I answer in like manner, if this be a good consequence, Christ is our only Mediator; therefore we do an injury to him, to invoke the Saints in heaven, than this must be likewise a good Argument, therefore it is injurious to Christ, to invoke the Saints upon earth, and that you all are guilty of, praying one another to pray for you, and doubtless you do not do amiss in it. Again, if we show our diffidence, and distrust in Christ's Mediation, by invoking the Saints in heaven, than it will follow likewise that you diffide in Christ's mediation, by invoking one another, or any Saints upon earth. As for your supposition (which indeed is the strength of your Argument) that the Saints in heaven do not hear our prayers, nor know what is done amongst●ns, and therefore must be much less able to help us, and as to the places of Scripture, which you pretend to bring to that purpose, I answer, that they all signify nothing; for here we speak not of those, who in the time of the Old Testament, were either in Hell, or in the Limbus that was appointed for them; but of the Saints, that since the time of the New Testament are in heaven; we may safely grant that all those were ignorant of what was done here, bua that proves nothing as to these last beattified souls in heaven. And yet I know, you'll be importunate to know how the Saints should be capable to hear our prayers, and understand our inward affections and desires. I would ask you again, how the Saints in this life, can know the secrets of other men's counsels, and contrivances. 1 Sam. 19 Samuel knew all things which were in the heart of Saul, and told him all that was in his heart. 2 Kings 5.26. 2 Kin. 6.33 Did not Elishah know all things that were done by his servant that was at a great distance from him, and so the same Prophet knew all the secret Counsels of the King of Syria. Dan. 2.26. Did not Daniel know the dream of Nabuchadnezzar, and the interpretation of it, before he sent to him, and did not the Apostle Saint Peter know the hidden fraud, and close collusions of Ananias and Saphira: And to conclude, I would fain know, what things were they which were hidden from the Prophets, though never so close from the eyes of men? And can these things be done on earth, and not possibly be done in heaven? Now that this veneration, or invocation of Saints is expressly commanded in Scripture I cannot say, nor see any reason that it should be; first it could not be well in the old Testament, where the people were so prone to idolatry, and the Patriarches besides were but in a Limbus, Esay 63. reposed till our Saviour's triumphant entry into heaven, so they could not be beatified or made capable of hearing of prayers of men: and therefore it was said, Abraham knows us not, and Israel does not acknowledge us. Again under the Gospel it was not absolutely commanded, lest the Gentiles that were newly turned from Paganism, should believe that they were brought again to the worship of earthly gods; for that was their use, to worship their deified persons, not as Patrons but as very Gods indeed; as at Lyraania, they would have sacrificed to Paul and Barnabas. Besides if the Apostles and Evangelist, had taught expressly that the Saints are to be prayed to, it might have been thought as a piece of arrogance in them, as if they had been after death, ambitious of that honour to be done to them. The holy Spirit therefore would not by express Scripture, teach this doctrine of veneration and invocation of Saints, but the Church being once established, quickly found by the Miracles and succours, that those Saints performed to men, that they were to be worshipped, and invoked with prayers, that they would please to pray for us: and this is a worship far different from that, which we pay to God, therefore no way prejudicial to the divine Majesty, no; though express Scripture, as I said, we have none for this, yet very much inclining to, and favouring of our purpose. That the saints, the friends of God, are to be implored that they will please to intercede for us, I prove by express Scripture thus. Our Saviour in S. John's Gospel says thus, if any man serve me, John 12.26. him will my Father honour, if therefore God does honour his saints, why should not we mortals give honour to them? Our Saviour says again in S. Mat. 25.40 Mathews. Gospel verily I say unto you insomuch as ye have done it unto one of the least of these my brothers ye have done it unto me; the honour therefore that is given to the saints of God, he takes as done unto himself. We find in Job how Eliphaz says to him, Call now if there be any that will answer thee, Job 5.1. and to which of the saints wilt thou turn? which words though Eliphaz spoke, yet Job reprehends them not, but takes it as wholesome council from his friend. Again in another place, Job 42.1, 9, 10. the Lord himself says, go to my servant Job, and my servant Job shall pray for you, for him will I accept, lest I deal with you after your folly etc. so they did as the Lord commanded them, the Lord also accepted Job, and the Lord turned the captivity of Job, when he prayed for his friends etc. Then we find how Absalon after he was reconciled to his father, 2 Sam. 14.28. stayed two years in Jerusalem, before he saw his father's face, so a sinner though reconciled to God, will not dare presently to thrust himself before his divine Majesty, that he has offended, but by mediators and intercessors. The wisest of Kings Solomon, risen up to meet his mother, and bowed himself unto her, 1 Kings 2.19. and caused a throne to be set, for his mother, and she sat on his right hand, and shall not Jesus Christ, a greater and a wiser than Solomon, honour his mother in the like kind? It is most manifest that the Angels are assisting to us, and pray for us, Mat. 2.8. Mark 12 Psalm 33 then why should not we pray to them, and there is the same reason for the saints, as for the Angels; who are their equals in heaven as we find in the holy Gospels, Psalm 90. how freequently in the Psalms does the Royal prophet speak of Gods sending his Angels to snatch us out of dangers, to guard us, and to keep us in all our ways etc. Then we find in the Prophet Zachcariah, Zach. 1.12.13. how the Angel of the Lord interceded for the people in these words, O Lord of Host, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, Heb. 1.7 and on the Cities of Judah, against which thou hast bad indignation these threescore and ten years, and the Lord answered the Angel with good words, and comfortable words. Then S. Acts 12.12.7, 8. Paul calls the Angel's minnistring spirits, and we find how freequently they have delivered God's servants, as S. Peter out of prison etc. now I say if it be in the power of the Angels in heaven to help us by their prayers, the same reason will hold for the saints, who are as the Evangelists aforesaid tell us their equals, both in their favour, and power with God. And that they do too, is as manifest, for the Lord has sometimes sought for a saint, to stand in the gap, as he says himself in Ezeckiel, Ezek. 22.30.31. and I sought for a man amongst them, that should make up the hedge, and stand in the gap before me for the land, that I should not destroy it, but I found none, therefore have I poured out mine indignation upon them, I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath etc. therefore did the Lord do it for want of an acceptable intercesor. But it is most clear in the Apocalypse, Revel. 4. & 5. how the four beasts and four and twenty elders are continually falling down before the Lamb and interceding for the faithful on earth, with their Viols full of precious ointments, which are the prayers of the saints. And then again it is expressly said, that another Angel came and stood at the Altar, having a golden censer, Revel. 8.3.4. and there was given unto him much incense that he should offer it with the prayers of all saints, upon the golden Altar, which was before the Throne, and the smoke of the incense, which came with the prayers of the faints ascended up before God, out of the Angel's hand etc. If yet there be any doubt remaining, me thinks mere reason raised from a most undoubted Scripture, should clear this point, as first we find, and I think no body questions it, that Jesus Christ, as he is man does continually interred for all mankind, especially his faithful ones, if any man does doubt, let him look into S. Paul, to the Romans, Rom. 8. Heb. 7. and Hebrews, where it is positively said in divers places, that Jesus Christ does constantly interecde for us. And S. John tells us, if any man have sinned, 1 John 2. we have an Advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and he is the propitiation for our sins, nor for our sins only but for the sins of the whole world. If therefore Christ our head according to his humanity pray for us, why should not his members, the saints that rain with him, and are conformable to him, intercede likewise in their proportion, for their fellow members upon earth, for we are all members of the same mystical body. Again the living pray for one another and frequently obtain? Exod. 17 & 31. Mat. 15. Luke 7. Acts 17. Collos. 4.2. 2 Thes. 3.1. as Moses prayed and obtained for the people, the woman of Canan for her daughter, the Centurion for his servant, Paul for those that sailed with him. Nay S. Paul desired the Colossians to be instant in prayer, and particularly for himself and so to the Thessalonians, he says, finally hretherens pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course etc. If therefore the living may pray for one another why may not the glorified saints in heaven do the same for us, who are more perfect in charity, more powerful with God, and more pure in understanding? for if they may not pray for us, as the living do, it would appear unworthy of Christ's grace and favour to them, which we cannot apprehend; or it must be because it is a purpose of the excellency, that it is fitting only for Christ himself to do it, and no person else, and then it will not be lawful for us mortals to pray for one another. But that we know the contrary by what has been before set down, and as S. Paul does earnestly beseech the Romans, Rom. 15.30.31. James 5.16. for the Lord Jesus Christ sake, and for the love of the Spirit, that they pray to God for him, So I do humbly beseech, the blessed mother of God, and all the saints of heaven, to pray for me, and all the world besides. And so as S. james adviseth us, let us pray one for another, that we may be saved. I pray you here take notice, that I have made use of no Scripture out of Baruch the Maccabees, or any parts of Scripture, which you question for Apocrypha, though by all the Canons of the Church they are received, so I proceed. To what you allege against our use of images, which you call an abominable and idolatorrious doctrine, I answer thus. To the first. I say that God Almighty in that commandment, has sufficiently explained his own mind, both in the precedent, and subsequent words, for as he did forbid the worship of strange Gods, so he forbid the Images of them to be erected. But we worship not the saint; for Gods, therefore we are not at all prohibited by that commandment, to set up their Images. For in the first place he says, thou shalt have no strange Gods before me, than follows; thou shalt not make to thee any graven Image etc. then last of all, thou shalt not bow down to them, nor worship them. see then the whole drift of that commandment is evident, that Images should not be made to that end, and purpose, and so we concur with you. For if to make and erect Images were absolutely, and in itself unlawful, than it would follow that Moses himself had sinned, immediately after the giving of that commandment nay that God Almighty had showed the first way to break his own commandment, for God commanded Moses thus, Exod. 25.18. And thou shalt make two Cherubims of Gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy seat, It would likewise follow, 1 King. 7 that Solomon had sinned in his Architecture of the Temple, when he made twelve little Lions and set them over the Throne. And when he made Oxen, Lions, and Cherubims or brazen bases. Thus we see the end to which those Images are made, and erected, does altogether alter the case. To the Second. I grant that Hezekiah broke the brazen serpent's Image, therefore must the Image of Christ and his saints be broken, I deny it. First because the Image of the brazen serpent was made by Moses, 2 Kings 18. that they which were bitten by the fiery serpents should look upon it, and be healed; so long as that end lasted, the Image lasted, but that ceasing, it was fit for nothing else, but to be broken. Then the brazen serpent began to be an occasion of idolatry, and they burnt incense to it, so than it ought to be broken, but the Image of Christ and his saints cannot be occasions of that amongst Christians, for we retain, the use of Images, only as they are the representations of him from whom we have received so great benefits, and of those his blessed servants, who are to be our examples To the Third. I grant to you that God is, and aught to be worshipped in Spirit and in truth, which that we may do the better, we make use of images, for they put us in mind of our duties, and call us to a remembrance of those benefits we have received, which cannot but inspire a devotion into a heart of stone. And why I would fain know, or wherein a spiritual worship should be at all hindered by the sight of an image, more than the operation of Sacraments, be taken off, by the sensible signs whereunder they lie, and as under those visible signs, we receive an invisible grace, so are we led by the visible images of Christ and his Saints, to the true and spiritual worship of those things invisible, of which they are but the representations. To the fourth. I say, there can be no danger at all of Idolatry amongst Christians, for there is none so simple but knows, that the veneration that is used, refers not at all to the image of wood, Stone or Brass, but to the prototype, or person represented, and that is enough to rectify their intentions; then for the danger of unclean thoughts, there is care sufficiently taken by the Church, to inhibit Painters and Carvers, all manner of laciviousness, or probable dispositions towards it. Then as to your argument that you think is so strange, and in your opinion caries horns with it, you will find upon better examination, that they are but a pair of ears. You say either images are commanded, or they are not, if they be, than we are to show it in Scripture, if they be not, than you say, it must follow, that it must be a will worship, or Idolatry. I answer, some things are commanded in Scripture, and yet not to be observed, as the observation of the Sabbath day holy, or sanctifying it, as the Scripture speaks, as also the forbearing of things strangled, and of blood etc. It is enough to satisfy any reasonable Christian, that the Church hath appointed images to be set up, for the use of Christians, as I say, for profitable, and almost necessary expedients to their devotion. So I return your horned argument upon yourself, thus, either to sanctify, or celebrate the Lords day, that is the first day of the week, is commanded, or it is not, if it be, let Scripture be showed for it; if it be not, than it is will worship, a fond, and a vain thing to do it, and that I am sure, none of your Church, will ever yield to. That the use of Images is lawful, and profitable in the Church of God, I prove by Scripture thus. I must confess we have nothing express in the the new Testament for it, and the reason I conceive was the fierceness of the primitive persecution, which would hardly permit the persons of Christians to meet, much less to adorn their meeting places, with images or any thing else. And yet we have it by universal Tradition, that the use of images is Apostolical, and that we have our authority for the use of them, from the Apostles themselves. Then we have in our Ecclesiastical histories, as how our Saviour sent his picture to Abagarus King of the Edessens, which is yet as (I am informed) preserved and to be seen at Genoa. Then we have again in the same story, that our Saviour himself impressed the picture of his countenance upon a piece of linen cloth, which he gave to Veronica, by the virtue of which picture, the Emperor Tiberius was recovered from a dangerous disease, and for that reason Cesar would have decreed to Christ divine honours. Then again we have in history, and clear Tradition that S. Luke the Evangelist did draw the picture of the blessed virgin, which was for many ages preserved in great veneration: and to say that there were no Painters, Mark 22 Carvers or Engravers in that age, is most extremely false, for we find our Saviour ask in the Gospel, whose image and superscription is this? But all this I must pass by, because we have resolved to insist only upon Scripture, and in the old Testament we find enough. First we find in Exodus, as a foresaid, Exod. 25.18. and thou shalt make two Cherubims of gold, of beaten work shalt thou make them, in the two ends of the mercy-seat. Numb. 21.8. Then we find the Lord saying to Moses, make thee a fiery Serpent, and set it upon a Pole, and it shall come to pass that every one that is bitten, when he looketh upon it, be shall live, and Moses did so, and it was a certain cure to them. Now this Brazen Serpent, was the figure or Type of Christ, hanging upon the Cross, for as they that were bitten by the fiery Serpents, were cured by looking upon the Brazen Serpent, so all they that are bitten by the devil, are cured by a faithful looking upon Jesus Christ Crucified, as we find in the Gospel of S. John, from whence I think I may conclude. The figure must of necessity be of less value than the thing that is figured. as Moses who was likewise the figure of Christ, was of much less value than Christ himself, the Paschal Lamb less to be esteemed then our Eucharist, and circumcision than Baptism. If then the image of the Brazen Serpent was honoured, as we know it was, how much more ought the image of Christ be honoured? nay it is plain that the Serpent had not been honoured at all, but as it was the figure or shadow of the image of Christ upon the Cross, nor had it cured those that were bitten by the fiery Serpents, but by the virtue of Christ, who cures still all that are bitten by the devil. As to the breaking of it by Hezekiah, I have hinted already, that the end for which it was made ceased, it was of no use longer than the children of Israel were in the wilderness, for there was no more danger of Serpents in the land of promise. But the image of Christ Crucified is made to this end, to represent to us our bleeding Saviour, and to call to mind those benefits that we receive by that his bitter death and passion, now this end, must last till the end of the world, therefore his image is still to be retained, and kept with honour for ever. 2 King. 8 Besides the brazen Serpent, after the end of its making ceased, began to be as a foresaid an occasion of Idolatry, which the image of Christ cannot be amongst us Christians, for we know it is set up to no other intent of purpose, then to represent our Saviour, and his benefits to us. Again, Levi. 26.1. Josh. 24.26. we find in Leviticus forbidden to make idols, or graven images, nor to rear up a standing image, nor to set up any graven stone in the land, and yet we find that Joshua, took a great stone, and set it up there under an oak that was by the Sanctuary of the Lord: and so the Altar that was built by the children of Reuben, and Gad, and the half tribe of Manasseh, was permitted to them, though contrary to their Law, so soon as they had satisfied their brethren, Iosh. 22. that there was no intention of Idolatry, in their so doing, and in the like manner did Samuel, which I have before insisted upon. Again, if to set up Images in the house of God, had been absolutely Idolatry, 1 Kings 7 would Solomon have done it? Nay it was done by Gods own order; so many Lions, Oxen, and Cherubims; and all carrying a divine moral, or signification with them, had never sure been set up in that glorious Temple, the beloved house of God, if they had not been as well useful, as lawful, and specious. And so let the use remain in the name of God, and the abuse be taken away. In the last place I beseech you tell me now, if that Scripture, and the whole Church were filent in this case; by what reason you proceed when you endeavour with so much charge and artifice, to paint, adorn, and preserve the statues and Pictures of Princes, and great persons, the pictures of Parents, Children, husbands, and wives, you will not deny but this you do, and you think well done too. What madness therefore must it needs appear to be in you, to contemn the picture of Christ, Spit upon his Images, or throw dirt in the faces of them, beat 'em down, abolish, or exterminate them would not any indifferent person say, that sees those actions, that you have a greater kindness for a parent, kinsman, child, or friend, than you have for your Crucified God, I must tell you, that a good honest Pagan would blush and be troubled at it, a good Jew would no doubt be pleased at the action, yet angry with all those that did it; and none but the Devil could rejoice, and make sport with it. I am sure, I pity it, as the action of poor blind men, that are led by those that are wilfully blind that is blinder than themselves. To what you are pleased to allege against our doctrines of Indulgencies, Purgatory and prayer for the dead, I answer thus. To the first. Now first as to the matter of Indulgencies you say you have but one blow to give me, but that must be a mortal one, and that must be out of S. Paul to the Romans; well I shall freely and humbly grant all that the holy Apostle says, that nothing that we suffer, here can be compared to the glory that we are to receive, by his favour he●reafter. But you must understand, that as the works of Jesus Christ upon earth, so are those of his saints here, as well satisfactory, as mertorious. For he merited both for himself. & us. For himself he merited, because by the humility of his passion, he merited the glory of his Resurrection, for so S. Paul tells us, Phil. 2.9, 10. that being found in fashion as a man, he humbled himself and became obedient unto death; even the death of the Cross, wherefore God hath highly exalted him, and given him a name, which is above every name etc. Then he merited for us, Rom. 5.17, 18, 19 as S. Paul declares to the Romans, for if by one man's offence death reigned by one, much more they which receive abundance of grace, and of the gift of righteousness, shall reign in life by Jesus Christ therefore as by the offence of one, judgement came upon all men to condemnation; even so by the righteousness of one, the free gift came upon all men to justification of life for as by one man's, disobedience many were made sinners so by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous etc. For all this his works were meritorious. Now they were satisfactory, not for his own sins, because he had none as S. Peter tells us, Who did no sin, 1 Pet. 2.22. Esay 5.4.5, 6. Ephes. 5.2. 1 Pet. 2.24. neither was guile found in his mouth, but for our sins, as is apparent out of scripture, he was wounded for our transgression and bruised for our iniquities, the chastisement of our peace was upon him, and with his stripes we are healed, All we like sheep have gone astray, we have turned every one to his own way. and the Lord hath laid on him the iniquity of us all etc. therefore S. Paul tells us, that he hath given himself for us an offering, and a sacrifice to God for a sweet smelling savour. and S. Peter says that his own self bore our sins in his own body on the Tree, that we being dead to sin, should live unto righteousness, by whose stripes we are healed, 1 John 2 2. and S. John assures us, that he is the propitiation for our sins, and not for ours only, but also for the sins of the whole world. just so we are to conceive of the works and sufferings of the saints, which as they are meritorious, are more then enough, and infinitely beyond their merit remunerated, as the Apostle whom you so urge, does diliver to us. But as they are satisfactory for punishment, we do find that there are many saints, who have satisfied and suffered more than they ought to have done for their own sins; as is plain in holy Job, Job 6.2.3. in whose book and divers others of holy writ, it is said, that he suffered much more than he deserved, and S. Paul speaks it most plainly of himself, Colos. 1.24. thus, who now rejoice in my sufferings for you, and fill up that which is behind of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh, for his body's sake which is the Church. Can any thing be more plain than this for the doctrine of Indulgence, that the residue of his satisfaction and sufferings, should be added to the sufferings of Christ, and applied to the body of Christ, that is his Church, out of the treasury of Indulgencies? And sure this satisfaction of the saints, does turn to their greatest glory. As for example, if the satisfaction and suffering of La●erence, does pay the punishment due to John, being a penitent, will not Laurence have a kind of additional joy in heaven, for that, his satisfaction has paid for his brother John, and so the works of the saints, as they are sattisfactory and penal, are perfectly remunerated to the Saints, in that others enjoy the benefit of them, being aplyed by the Church's indulgencies. And this you may please to accept, not only for a sufficient answer, but also a reply, as to this particular. To what you are pleased to allege against our doctrine of Purgatory I answer thus. To the first. I grant that which those texts you urge requir which is that after the day of judgement there shall be but too places, for those which are grown in years, and that is all which can be enforced out of those Texts. But as yet there are, as also there were in the old Testament, more places, or receptacles for souls. And truly granting that there were but too; I would fain have you, or any man to tell me; where the fouls of those were who died, and were afterwards raised again to life? I would fain know I say, how the son of the widow of Sarepta, was raised by Elias, how the Shunamites son was raised by Elisha, how the Son of the widow in Naim, and the daughter of Jarus, the Ruler of the synagoge, and Lazarus, in Beth●ny were raised by Jesus Christ; how Tabytha was raised by S. Peter, and Eu●yous by S. Paul? I would fain know, I say where the souls of these persons were between the time of their death, and there raising to life? They could not be in Hell, for from thence there is no redemption. Nor in heaven, for than it had been so far from being a benefit, as it would have proved a loss, if from the joys beatitudes there, they should return to miserable mortal life. It must then follow of necessity, that they were in some third place, distinct from heaven, and from Hell, so call it what you will, your argument is answered. To the second. I answer and grant, what you collect out of those Scriptures which you quote, that the righteous after this life ended, are presently admitted into heavenly glory, but I must tell you, not all the righteous neither, who leave nothing to be purged out of them, after this life, they questionless are admitted presently into heaven. But they that have any thing to be expiated, left in them, shall be admitted in Gods good time, but so as by fire; as the Apostle tells us. Nor are your testimonies out of Scripture any thing importing to the contrary. F●r that, to day shalt, thou be with 〈◊〉 in Paradise, was a singular thing, and particular privilege indulged to the good Thief, to whom Christ did most liberally forgive all his sins without any further obligation of temporal punishment after death, ●ut this is not granted to all no more than the privilege of one, is to be drawn into a precedent for another. Then out of that Text, I desire to be dissolved and to be with Christ, nothing else can be collected, then that the Apostle had a great desire to live with Christ, which desire, you and I may likewise have, especially, if we can truly say, with the same Apostle, I do chastise my body, and bring it into subjection. Such a mortification as that on earth, may give us indeed a present life in heaven; which God of his mercy grant us both, and all the world besides, if so be it may confist with his blessed will. To what you say against our doctrine of praying for the dead which is a consequence of Purgatory I answer thus. To the first. To what you allege out of the Prophet Jeremy, I answer that the Prophet Jeremy does not speak it absolutely of all the dead, but of one only, that was the King Joachas, who died in captivity in Egypt, so saith the Prophet. Weep not for the dead, neither bemoan him, but weep for your following Kings, undoer whom you are to suffer greater Tribullation. To the Second. I grant that Christ did forbid the widow to weep for her Son, but it was, because he was immediately to raise him from the dead, so she was not to weep for him as dead, but to be comforted, for the miraculous life which he was to receive. I must profess that I see not a word against Purgatory, or prayer for the dead in all this. To the Third and Last. I say that which you bring so confidently out of S. Paul, as a most invinsible and unanswerable argument, give me leave to tell you comes off but very lamely for you, for the words of the Text, do sufficiently clear themselves, that ye sorrow not, for those that sleep, as others which have no hope; so we agree, that to weep for the dead out of any despair of a future resurrection, is so far from being the practice of our Church that we hold it to be a sin, or to weep for a dead friend out of diffidence that we shall never see him again, or a fear that we have for ever lost him, is very injunious to God and Christianity; but when we weep & ad●prayers to our tears in the behalf of our dead friends, we are so far from weeping, as those without hope, that we testify our Christian Confidence, and assurance in the Security of his condition, for being in Purgatory he is sure of salvation, though he may stay some time for it, to pay the temporal punishment there due for his sins here. That there is a third place, which we call Purgatory, and that the prayers of the faithful upon earth, are very helpful to them, I prove thus. First we find it delivered at large by S. 1 Cor. 3.12, 13, 14, 15. Paul in these words. Now if any man build upon this foundation, gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble, every man's work shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man's work of which sort it is, if any man's work shall be burnt, he shall suffer loss, but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire. Here it is most plain, that though a man do works to be burnt, as shall appear in the day of every man's particular judgement, that is his death, yet he shall be saved by fire, that cannot be meant of infernal fire, for from thence there is no redemption, it must be then understood of Purgatory. Our Saviour in the Gospels implys Purgatory plainly, though under a Parable, in these words. Matth. 5.25.26. Luke 12.38. Agree with thine adversary quickly whilst thou art in the way with him, lest at any time the adversary deliver thee to the Judge, and the Judge deliver thee to the officer, and thou be cast into Prison, verily I say unto thee, thou shalt by no means come out thence, till thou hast paid the uttermost farthing This prison our Saviour speaks of has been always received by the Church for Purgatory. Again our Saviour says in S. Mat. 12.32. Matthews Gospel that whosoever speaketh against the holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, nor in the world to come. By which it is manifest that some sins are to be purged, and forgiven in the next world. S. Paul, is likewise very plain in this, in his Epistle to the Philippians, Phil. 2.10. wherein he tells them that at the name of Jesus every knee shall bow of things in heaven, and things in earth, and things under the earth. Here are clearly three sorts of persons spoken of, as for those under the earth it is impossible, should be meant of those in hell, no the damned souls are so far from paying a reverence to the name of Jesus that they are always busy in blaspheming of it, it must then of necessity be the faithful souls that are in Purgatory. In the like manner we find in the Revelation of S. Revel. 5.13. John, how the Apostle saw every creature which is in heaven, and on the earth, and under the earth, and sea and all that are in them, and heard them saying, blessing, hnour, glory and power be unto him that sitteth upon the throne, and to the Lamb for ever and ever. Now observe how the Apostle makes a threefold order of the prayers of God, first of the blessed in heaven, then of the righteous upon earth, than of those that remain to be purged under the earth, and it must be so understood for the damned in hell, as I said before, are so far from praising and glorifying of God, and blessing him that fits upon the Throne, that their malice does wholly employ itself in cursing and blaspheming of his divine Majesty, and all the blessed souls with him. Again, 2 Mach. 15. Mat. 17. Mark 9 Luke 9.24. a great evidence of the truth of Purgatory, and a convincing one indeed, may be taken from the frequent apparitions of many departed souls, to pass by those in the Maccabees of Onias and Hieremias that appeared to Judas, we find that Moses and Elias did appear to Christ when he was transfigured, and the disciples themselves, after the resurrection of our Saviour, when he appeared to them thought that they had seen a spirit, which they would never have thought, unless they had known that the spirits of some departed, did make usual apparitions, now granting such a thing, as the apparition of a spirit, which I take to be already proved, it must follow that those souls must be reposed in some place that is not in heaven, for than they would never wander here to so great a loss, nor can they be in hell, from whence there is no redemption. Again, we find the Thief upon the Cross saying to our Saviour, Lord remember me, when thou comest into thy kingdom, which he had never said, but that he thought that Jesus Christ had a power to pardon sins after this Life. S. Paul likewise was certainly of this opinion, where he tells the Corrinthians thus, else what shall they do which are baptised for the dead, if the dead rise not at all, why are they then baptised for the dead? which plainly shows that it was a practised course amongst the Christians then to undertake duties and voluntary afflictions in the behalf of the dead; which sure was imagined to be for their advantage, and yet you think much to pray for them. Now the reason of all this is very clear, for we know that a man who sins mortally, may have the mortality of that sin forgiven him, and consequently be freed from the guilt of eternal punishment, and yet may be obnoxious to some temporal penalties, which if he does not satisfy in this life, he must expect to do it in the next. As for example, we see a King does often pardon an offender his life, which he has forfeited to the Law, and deserved to lose, and yet he may inflict banishment, or imprisonment, upon the same person, and this very course we find taken by God in Scripture. Num. 20 12. Deut. 32.48. 2 Sam. 12.13, 14. 2 Sam. 24.10. First we see the sin of unbelief forgiven by God, to Moses and Aaron, that is as to the eternal punishment, and yet they were punished with a temporal death. Again we find King David, after he had obtained a pardon for his fins of Adultery and Murder, was punished yet with the death of his son, nay after the prophet Nathan had declared, that the Lord had put away his sin, he should not die yet his son must, and again the same King David for his sin of pride in numbering the people, was pardoned, as to the eternal guilt, and yet we see what a temporal punishment followed upon it; and he was forced to choose one of the three Plagues for it. I might be infinite in examples of the like kind, but I have something else to say to this point, so must not insist too long in that particular of it. We know again, that a righteous man may sometimes happen to die with a great many venial sins about him, especially if he be prevented with any sudden death so cannot possibly have time enough to bethink himself, much less to repent of them, so must still remain obnoxious to the temporal punishment, that is due to those sins, certainly in such a case, that person cannot be admitted into the joys and glory of heaven, till he be freed from those venial sins, and the guilt of that temporal punishment that is due for them. So we find in the Revelation, that there shall in no wise enter into it, Rev. 21.27. any thing that defileth neither whatsoever worketh abomination, or maketh a lie etc. now such a person is possible to be, and we may very well suppose it, that he cannot be freed in this life, therefore after it, it must be: nor can this be in Heaven, or in Hell, therefore it must be in Purgatory. Over and above all this, the undeniable practice of the Church in praying for the dead is a most invincible argument for Purgatory, and no man can deny, but that custom is much ancienter than Christianity, and has continued ever since That it was ancienter than Christianity, we find in the Maccabees, which book though you shut out of the Cannon of holy Scripture, (with as much reason as you do other things) yet you allow it more credit than any ordinary Author, 2 Mach. 12.43, 44, 45. how then should it fail so grossy as to make a lie in matter of fact as well as matter of faith. We are told there of a sacrifice offered for the dead, and that he sent two thousand Drachmas of silver to Jerusalem, to offer a sin-offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindful of the resurrection: for if he had not hoped that they that were slain, should have risen again, it had been superfluous and vain to pray for the dead, and also in that he perceived that there was a great favour laid up for those that died godly (it was a holy and good thought whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, and that they might be delivered from sin. 2 Tim. 1.16, 18. But if you will deny the authority of this book, you will not sure deny that of S. Paul, who prays for the whole household of Onesiphorus, some whereof were dead in all probability, and Onesiphous' himself dead in history, before the writing of that Epistle, wherefore he prays to the Lord to give mercy unto them and that Onesiphorus himself may find mercy of the Lord, in that day; it is plain from hence, that there is a capacity for mercy at the lastday by consequence therefore there must be a third place, that is nesther Heaven nor Hell, and so by consequence again, prayer for the dead must be a a very good devotion, and available to the case, and release of those poor souls. And to this truly, if all Scripture were perfectly silent, the practice of the Church of Christ has been clear and universal, that no prudent Christian can deny his assent, if he be not resolved to shake the very foundations of Christianity itself. which the gates of bell, shall never prevail against. Thus my Lady having dispatched her answer and replies to this paper, made haste to open the next, which she found to this purpose following. Madam, this is the last paper that I shall be bold to offer to your Ladyship, which indeed might have served for all the rest, for it strikes at the very root of all your Religion, and what a pitiful, weak, and sandy foundation you have you shall see if you shall please impartially to consider what follows. That your Pope or Bishop of Rome, is not, nor can be head of the Church of Christ, nor S. Peter successor as you pretend, nor has any priminary, or superiority over other Bishops. I prove out of Scripture thus. 1 S. Rom. 12.5. Paul tells the Romans plainly that we being many are one body in Christ and every one members, one of another. Here the Apostle acknowledgeth no head but Christ, and concludes Peter to be as much a member, as any one of the faithful and that not only in respect of Christ we are members, but in respect of ourselves is clear by those words, every one members, one of another so that Peter, Pope or Bishop be he what he will is not only a member of the body of the Church, as he has relation to Christ the head, but as he does relate to the other faithful members. 2 Again as the head and the other members, make up one entire natural body, 1 Cor. 12 so Christ and his Church make up; one entire mystical body, which is so made up of head and members as the Apostle tells us, therefore all others besides Christ who is the head, are but members of the body of the Church, and none but Christ can be the head of the Church. 3 We find in the Gospels, Math. Mark Luke John that Jesus Christ does equally commend the care of his Church to all his Apostles, for he said to all the rest as well as Peter, as the father sent me, so send I you again, go ye and teach all Nations etc. then again we know that he did teach, and instruct them all equally, and sent the holy Ghost to them all equally, and indifferently at the time of Pentecost, therefore Peter had no privilege nor prehemminence over the rest. 4 S. Gal. 2.11 Paul tells us, that when Peter was come to Antioch, he withstood him to the face, because he was to be blamed, therefore Peter was not then taken for the head of the Church; For S. Paul had he believed that, would not have showed such arrogancy, and perverseness as to resist the head of the Church in such an open manner. 5. Then it is manifest that the Church of Christ could not be built upon the person of Peter, for then the gates of Hell had prevailed against it and him, when he was terrified from his faith by the voice of a silly wench. And so by consequence it cannot be built upon his successors, who are daily guilty of such personal crimes. 6 Again we find that the Church of Christ is built upon a Rock, and that Rock was Christ, 1 Cor. 3. 1 Cor. 10 therefore it could never be understood of Peter for another foundation can no man lay, besides that which is already laid, as the Apostle tells us. 7 Then it is very disputable, whether Peter was ever at Rome, and sure we are out of Scripture, that he was eighteen years at least after our Saviour's passion in and about Jerusalem, where was then the Roman Church. 8 Then again how could Peter be the Rock upon which he would build his Church when our Saviour himself said to him, Mat. 16. get thee behind me satan, he never intended, sure satan should be the head of his Church, as it is too much to be feared he makes himself now to be of yours. 9 We cannot find that S. Peter did ever exercise any power or jurisdiction over the other Apostles, Acts 8. but they did plainly over him, when they sent him and John into Samaria. 10 Again Peter knew fulwel that such a power or superiority was expressly forbidden by our Saviour himself, Mat. 20.25. Mark 10.46. Luke 22.24.25. in all the Gospeles; you know, saith he, that they which are accounted to rule over the Gentiles, exercise Lordship over them and their great ones exercise authority upon them, but so shall it not be amongst you but whosoever will be great amongst you shall be your Minister & who soever of you will be the chiefest shall be servant of all. All which our Saviour spoken rebuke a strife that was amongst them who should be the greatest? Nay it is plain by the Text in all those Gospels, that it is only for the Kings and rulers of the Earth to take upon them power and Authority, Bishops therefore of the Church have nothing to do with it, therefore not the Pope. 11 Nay our Saviour shows such a detestation of this affected superiority that he rebukes the Diciples for it and warns them against it in several other places of the Gospels and set a little child before them and tellls them, Mot. 18.4. Mark 9.46. that whoosever shall humble himself as that little child, the same's is greatest in the Kingdom of heaven etc. How well your Pope is an immitator of Jesus Christ, and follower of his commands I will leave yourself to judge, who takes upon him not only a power over all Bishops, but Princes. That it is not in the power of the Pope, neither by himself, nor with all his Cardinals, and counsels, to determine any matter of faith, I prove thus by Scripture. 1 We find in Isay, that we are commanded to the law, and to the Testimony, Isay 8.20 if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them as the Jews were commanded to their law and to their testimoney, Luke 16.29. so are we Christians to our Scripture for our judge of all things in difference, so our Saviour brings Abraham in the Gospel, saying, that they have Moses, & the Prophets, let them hear them, woe are not therefore to have recourse for any matter of faith to Pope, or any power else whatsoever. 2 Again our Saviour commands us thus, Starch the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life, and they are they which testify of me. John 5.39. Christ therefore remits us to Scripture only for a judge of controversy. 3 Again we find in the Acts of the Apostles how those of Berea were commended & acknowledgeed to be more noble than those of Thessalonie, Acts 17.11. in that they received the word with all redyness of mind, and Searthed the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Here we find, I say, that those of Berea did not overhastyly believe what the Apostles themselves delivered to them, but did examine all things by the Rule of Scripture is it not therefore fit, that we should follow their example, and acknowledge nothing but Scripture for our Rule and judge? 4 It is manifest by reason, that the judge of all controversy in matter of faith ought to be infallible, for if the judge should err, all that follow his judgement must err likewise, now it is plain on tone side, that Scripture is infallible, being the word of God which cannot err, and on the other side that all men are liars, and subject to errors, as we find in the Romans, Rom. 3.4 Psal. 111 God is true, but every man is a liar. Now the pope is but a man; all the Cardinals are but men, nay counsels themselves are but collections of men, no man therefore that builds himself upon their judgement in point of faith can have any security at all, but only by depending upon the infallible and true P●●le of Scripture. 5 Counsels we know have, erred in matters of faith, and made decrees one against another, at least altered one another's constitutions, and if that any such things as counsels, are to be, why should not lay men be made a part of them, since they are a part of the Church, as well as any priests, or Bishops and their salvation as much concerned in those decrees, as any Clergy men whatsoever, it should be therefore as necessary for them to be present there. That the Scripture itself, is, and aught to be the entire Rule of faith, and that neither your whole Church, nor all the Traditions of it, have any power to prescribe to to us in matter of Faith, I prove thus. The authority of Scripture is greater than the Authority of the Church, for the Church ought to be governed by Scripture; the Word of God we know is to yield to no man, nor is it lawful for any man, or power of men whatsoever to oppose or diminish it. 2. We find expressly in Deuteronomy, Ye shall not add unto the Word which I command you neither shall you diminish out from it, Deut. 4.8. that ye keep than Comandements of the Lord your God which I command you, all your tradition therefore are to cast away, for they add to the written Word of God. 3. Again, We read in another place of the same Book thus, Deut. 1●. 32. Whatsoever thing I command you, observe to do it, thou shalt not add thereto, nor diminish from it. That therefore is to be done only, which God commands, what men require or add of their own, is unlawful and not to be obeyed. 4. St. Paul declares his mind in this particular, very freely to the Galatians thus, but though we or an Angel from Heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed, and presently reputes As we said before, so say I now again, If any man preach any other Gospel unto you, Gallat. 1. tha● that ye have received, let him be accursed. I say therefore that we are to admit of no Traditions, nor any thing else besides the Gospel. Again, We have most solemnly said in the Revelation of St. John, Revel. 22.18.19. That if any man shall take away from the Words of the Book of that Prophecy, God shall take away his part out of the Book of Life. And so if any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plague; that are written in that Book: Therefore it is not lawful to add your Traditions. 6. 2 Tim. 3.16, 17. St. Paul assures Timothy, that all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and is profitable for Doctrine, for Reproof, for Correction, for Instruction in Righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect, throughly furnished unto all good works. Therefore we have no need of Traditions. Our Saviour tells such Observers of Traditions as you are, Mat. 15.6. Thus have you made the Commandments of God of none effect, by your traditions; and the Apostle gives the like caution to the Colossians, Col. 2.8. beware lest any man spoil you through Phlosophy and vain deceit, 1 Pet. 1.18. after the tradition of men, after the rudiaments of the World, and not after Christ. And St. Peter puts the whole World in mind, how they were redeemed from their vain conversation, received by Tradition from their Fathers. Thus you see how much Jusus Christ and his Apostles were careful to forewarn and forbidden us, and yet you will restore to us the vanity of those very Traditions. 8. Again, Rom. 1.17. how can that be said to be determined by the whole Church, which the Pope, with his Cardinals, Gal. 7.11. and it may be his Bishops assembled in Council does determine, Heb. 10.38 when the Church is a Congregation of all the faithful and a connexon of them in the true saith by which the just man lives, as the Apostle tells us. It is not therefore what all the Popes. Cardinals, Bishops, or Councils tell us, though backed with all the strength of your Traditions, which is to be believed, for they can be at most but a part of the Church, not the whole Church. 9 Then Lastly, when you speak of the whole Church, you speak of what you no ways understand, for it is a spiritual thing and hidden from the eyes of men, it cannot be visible, for if it were then it could not be an Article of faith, as we know it is, so I would fain know, what obligation can possibly come from such an unknown thing, Apostles Creed. and that is impossible for the eyes of men to discover, or no find it out where it is. That not only your Church, which I take to be but a part, but the whole Church of Christ, may and must err sometimes in faith, I prove thus. The Jewish Synagouge, where was the true Church of God, and which was the true Type of the Church of Christ made often sailings in ●●●ch as first in the time of Moses, when Aaren with all the people worshipped a Calf. Exod. 32.4 Again in the time of Elias, when there remained none faithful but himself, as he himself complains, I have been very jealous for the Lord God of Hosts, because the Children of Israel have forsaken thy Covenant, thrown down thy Altars, 1 Kings 19 14. slain the Prophets with the sword, and I, even I only am left, and they seek my life to take it away. Then in the time of the Prophets Isaiah and Jeremy, Isai. 1.7. when we see there was an universal revolt of the people from the Lord. And Isay complains how the Ox knew his owner, and the Ass his Master's Crib, But Israel has not known me, etc. And the Prophet Jeremy complains thus, for my people have committed two evils, Jer. 3.13. they have forsaken me the fountains of living waters, and heated them out Cisterns broken Cisterns that can hold no water, etc. And yet more plainly we may see in the Chronicles, 2 Chro. 15.3. how Azariah the Prophet says, that for a long season Israel was without a true God, and without a teaching Priest, and without Law. And then last of all the Synagogue was seen to fail, when it and all its devises, were abolished by Jesus Christ. And I hence conclude that if the Jewish Church did so grossly fail, than the Christian Church may, for the reason is the same of one and th'other. Again, that the Church shall fail in the time of Antichrist is rertain, 2 Thes. 2. for so the Apostle foretells thus, Let no man deceive you by any means, for that day shall not come except there come a falling away first, and that man of sins be revealed, the Son of Pertution, etc. that is agreed on all sides to be Antichrist, Dan. 9.27. but now Antichrist is revealed long time to the Bishop of Rome, therefore your which you pretend to be universal, has failed in faith long since. We find it says again in Daniel, that he shall cause the sacrifice, and the Oblation to sense, and for the overspreading of abominations, he shall make it desolate, etc. Here is a plain Prophets of the failing of the Church. 4. The Church is frequently compared to the Moon in the Scripture, Cant. 10. Revel. 12.1. now the Moon we know is often failing, therefore the Church is not amiss compared to it and its failings we have manifestly seen by the oppositions, that some one or two honest and godly men have ever made to it, as of Late, John Wickliff, John Huss, Luther Calvin, and others, to this very day. 3. Lastly that your Church may and must err, I shall add but this one Argument to prove out of Scripture that your Pope is Antichrist therefore your whole Church must be Antichristian: and by consequence the most failing Church in the World. The first not of Antichrist is that he must fall away from the faith, 2 Thes. 3. and that he has done we in defending of Purgatory, invocation of saul's sacrifice of the Mass, etc. vers. 3. The second Note is that he shall sit in the Temple of God, so the Pope sits in Rome as the Head Church of Christ. vers. 4. The third mark is that he shall show himself as God, and this the Pope plainly does, when he makes himself the visible head of Christ's Church. The fourth mark is to exalt and oppose himself to, and above all that is called God. This the Pope does whilst he exalts himself above all Ecclesiastical and civil power. All these marks we have of him in that Chapter of the Epistle of Paul to the Thessalonians. 1 John 2.23. Then a fifth mark we have of him out of St. john, that he must deny Jesus Christ. This we know by the corruption of the Doctrine that concerns the mediation of Christ, and introducing of new Mediators. The sixth mark we have again that he is a Liar and a worker of false miracles, and that we see your Pope to do still at Lorettoy and other places. The seventh and last is plainly set down by the same St. John in his revelation, that he causeth all both small and great, Rich and poor, free and bound to receive a mark in their Right-hands or in their Fore heads; and the Pope plainly does when he imposeth his Character upon some, and marks upon all, when by the unction of his Chrism, he signs the Fore heads of Christians when they take your Sacrament of Confirmation, Revel. 13.16. etc. If this be not enough to prove your Pope to be the great Beast that leads you all into perdition, I must profess I know not what is; so I shall forbear to offer any further Arguments. My Lady had no sooner read this Paper, but she fell to work upon it as formerly, and she was the rather encouraged, being promised to be the last of her troubles upon this occasion. So she proceeds. To what you allege against our Pope or Bishop of Rome, that he neither is, nor can be head of the Church of Christ, or St. Peter's Successor, or have any power over other Bishops. I answer thus. To the first. I answer, that the Apostle there in that Chapter to the Romans speaks of Christ only, as he is head of the Church, by the internal influences of his gifts of grace; and so it is true, that all the faithful are fellow members, as well Saint Peter himself, and the Pope too, as any other Christians; nor in this sense can the Pope be thought to be head at all, for all are to receive grace from Christ the head, not from Saint Peter or the Pope. But if you speak of Christ, as he is head of the Churrh, by his eternal Government of it, than not only he himself, but Peter also is the head; for though to him Primarily and in his proper power, the Government belongeth, so secondarily it belongs to the other, and by a power derived from him. And whereas I know here you will be ready to reply, that the Church has two heads, which is monstrous, I answer, that a Kingdom is not to be said to have two heads, when the King is absent, and a Vice-king present with it; for one is subordinate to another: so the Church may have two heads, one primary, and the other secondary as aforesaid. I'll give you another example out of the Apostle, who tells us, that the man is the head of the woman, yet the woman has another head, that is her natural one, besides her husband; shall we therefore say, that every married woman is a Monster with two heads. To the second. I answer as before, that a head is taken two ways in relation to the Members, first according to the internal influence which proceeds from the head, into the other members, and so there can be but one head of one body. Secondly, as to the external Government, so there may be two heads of one body; so the body of a woman as aforesaid, has but one head, from which it receives the influence of sensitive spirits, but has two as to the Government of her external actions: for in the one she is governed by her own natural head, and in the other by her husband, who is her moral head. It is just so in the Church, which has but one head as to the influx of grac, but two as to its Government, whereof one supplies the place of the other the first was only Christ is head, and all others are members; the last way not only Christ, but Peter is head, who the former way is so far from being a head, that he is but a common member. When therefore the Apostle tells the Corinthiaus that Christ and his Church make but up one entire mystical body, which consist of head, and members, this must be understood in the former sense; for the Apostle speaks plainly there of Christ, as he is head of the Church by the internal division of his gifts, of grace, as is plain by the context, and so in that case it cannot be denied, but all besides Christ are Members of the Church, and none besides him can be head of it. But if you speak as to the external Government, than Christ's Vicar may be head, and all others Members, as in Kingdoms Governed by a Deputy or Vice-king, as aforesaid. To the third. I freely grant what you urge out of the Gospels, that Jesus Christ did commend the care of his Church to all his Apostles, but I deny that he commanded it equally to all; for only to Pater he said, Feed my sheep, therefore the Supreme Pastorship was only committed to Peter, and to none of the rest. Nor do I understand any force in that argument of yours, which follows thus: All of them were equally taught and instructed by Christ, and all of them received the holy Ghost equally; therefore one had no more jurisdiction than another. For it is one thing to speak of the Learning and Sanctity of the Apostles, and another to speak of their power or jurisdiction. It is not necessary that all which have equality of one, should have equility of the other. Otherwise a King in his Kingdom, if he had not more learning and holiness than his Subjects, should not have a greater power and authority, which you know, how absurd it is to say: and the reason is plain, for power and jurisdiction do not necessarily, and of themselves depend upon Learning and Sanctity; and suppose we grant that all the Apostles were equal, before Christ said to Peter, Feed my sheep, it does not follow that they were all equal afterwards but that Peter had ever after that his just pre-eminence. To the fourth. I grant that Paul did resist Peter, and justly, for Peter was in an error, and yet not in any Article of faith neither, for in that he could not err; for Christ assured him that he had asked his Father, that his Faith should not fail; but his error was in matter of Fact only, because he did unadvisedly dissemble Judaisme to the scandal and offence of the Gentiles; but from hence it follows not that Peter was not the head of the Church, no more than this is a consequence, David was rebuked by Joah; therefore David was not the Head of his Kingdom. Nay all good men will collect rather this from the reprehension that Paul gave to Peter, that Superiors when they are in fault, may be reproved by Inferiors, when they shall do it with due humility and charity. Now can this be called perverseness or arrogance in St. Paul, because he bid it with a good zeal, to take away a scandal that was like to rise, by the unwary dissimulation of St. Peter. Beside this was no more than what belonged to the Apostleship of St. Paul, to look to the edification of Faith; and as to the duty of Apostleship, and the honour of it, they were all equal, though not in point of power and Government; for therein Peter had the Primacy. To the fifth. Your Inference does not hold that Peter having offended in his person, therefore the gares of Hell prevailed against his power; so the succession of the just jurisdiction will hold as due to the successors of St. Peter, though their persons be never so sinful. For Christ gave the power of the Keys to his Church in the person of St. Peter; so St. Peter had the power of the keys, as he bore the person of the Church only. Besides all this, it is plain, that when Peter denied Christ, the Church was not then founded upon him, but to be founded; for Christ said, upon this Rock I will build my Church, that was to be understood, after his Resurrection. To the Sixth. It is most true that Christ himself is the principal Rock and primary foundation of his Church yet he may have Vicars and Substitutes for secundary Rocks, for though saint Paul's saying be true, that Christ is the only Foundation, the saying of saint John must be as true, that the Wall of that City had twelve Foundations, and in them thennees of the twelve Apostles. To the Seventh. It would be too long abusinesse, and out of the Road that we have proposed to ourselves, to prove out of antiquity, that St. Peter was at Rome which no question is more sure than that you and I were once in London, and never was denied till some upstart Doctors of yours were pleased to make a Question of it. I am informed that all the Ancient Doctors of the Church, do understand the Epistle of St. Paul to the Romans, as sent on purpose to confirm them in that Faith which they had received by the Preaching of St. Peter there, and was so famous as to be spoken of throughout the whole World, for so he himself implies, when he said he writ to them some spiritual gift, to the end, that that they might be established, etc. Paul would confirm what Peter had preached that by the Testimony of two Apostles their faith might be strengthened. And as for his so late coming to Rome, it is as great an error. It is true he was five years in Pontus and Asia, and seven years in Antioch, before he went to Rome; but then he did go, and in Eighteen years after Christ's Passion, he returned again to Jerusalem to preside in a Council there, which is the groaned of your error, in saying, that he was eighteen years in and about Jerusalem, before he went to Rome. But howsoever all that would make little to the matter; for wheresoever he was he was still a supreme Bishop, and though by the revelations of the spirit, he chose out Rome for his Seat, yet he was chief Bishop of the World, long before he was Bishop of Rome. To the Third. I answer thus, that it was no wonder, that our Saviour rebuked Peter, for resisting the sense that he proposed to him, concerning his being put to death, because he had not yet received the Keys, he was not yet confirmed, nor was yet the fullness of the spirit yet come upon him. Therefore he was not yet the Rock, but Christ after his Resurrection, fulfilled that promise to him and founded his Church upon him. Then very learned men are of opinion are of opinion that Jesus Christ said to those words to Peter, but to the Devil himself, who was the Suggestor of that mistake to him. Again, the fall of a person, in point of opinion, does not necessity take away his power. Then again Peter not being yet fully confirmed, it is possible that he might have a revelation from God the Father, by which he might profess Christ to be the Son of the living God, and yet that great mystery might be concealed from him, as yet that Christ would be crucified for the salvation of mankind, and rise again the third day: and because you are pleased to put the Devil upon us for our Head, I would ask you, what was the Rock our Saviour meant? if faith, as you pretend, than I say Faith is so soon lost in a man as grace, and the faith of one man must be as considerable to that foundation, as the faith of any other man; and so upon the faith of all the faithful, the Church is to be built, and if all the faithful are to be the foundation; what kind of Church, will you leave to Christianity? To the Ninth. I answer, that your argument is not good at all, Peter was sent by the Apostles into Samaria, therefore he was less than the other Apostles: Joh. 6.20. Gallat. 4. just so the Arrians, as I have heard, form their Argument, because the Father sent the Son, as is plain in Scripture, therefore he is greater than the Son, for the Sender, say they and you, is greater than he that is sent. Because Herod did did not send the three Wise men to worship the Child, He was therefore not greater than they. When it is frequent that the most principal persons are likely sent, especially if it be from the body of an Assembly, and that for their honour, out of love and good council, not out of any Right of Authority in their Inferiors. So we find in Josuah, Jos. 22.12.13.14. that when the Children of Israel heard what the two Tribes and the half had done, the Children of Israel gathered themselves together, etc. and sent unto the children of Reuben, and to the children of Gad, 91. and to the half Tribe of Manasseth, into the Land of Gillead Phineas the Son of Eleazar the Priest, and with him ten Princes, 1 Chron. 9.20. of each chief house a Prince, etc. Here you see how the children of Israel, the inferior sort of the people, sent Phineas that was their Captain and Ruler over them, as we find in the Chronicles, and divers other of their Princes, it is plain therefore by your consequencies out of Scripture, that your Argument has none. He is sent, therefore he is inferior to him, or them, that send him. To the tenth. It is plain that Christ did only prohibit ambition and Tyranny amongst his Apostles, not power and order, because they are of God, as the Apostle Paul tells us, Rom. 15. and he that resisteth the power, resisteth the Ordinance of God. Our Saviour therefore intended only to teach humility to him that was the chiefest, or presided over the rest, not to take away his power. You would take it I presume, for a very ill Argument, if any one should say, Jesus Christ himself was a Minister, or did serve upon earth, and taught others to serve or minister likewise; therefore Christ had no power when he was here. Besides when Christ said, He that is greatest amongst you; Is it not plain, that he does imply, that there should be one greater in power than another, though he does enjoin that greater, to be as the lesser, by way of humility, and ministration, or service? To the eleventh and last. I answer in like manner, that all which can be collected out of those Scriptures, is to show, that he could have all those that were his, to rise to greatness, not by power, and ambition, but by humility, and innocency; that when they were in power, they should be as if they were not so, and as little ones in humility and innocency; that when they were in power, they should be as if they were not so, and as little ones in humility and innocency, not as so in age, and understanding. Now you must give me leave, according to my usual method to reply something upon you, out of the clear and unforced Letter of Scripture; and that the Pope, or Bishop if Rome, is and aught to be the he●● of the Church of Christ, as St. Peter's Successor, and has just power and superiority ever all other Bishops, I prove thus. First out of the Letter of St. Matthews Gospel, after Peter had made his confession, Jesus answered and said unto him, Blessed art thou Simon Barjona, Matth. 16.16, 17, 18.19. for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto thee; but my Father which is in heaven, and I say, also unto thee, that thou art Peter, and upon this Rock I will build my Church, and the gates of Hell shall not prevail against it. And I will give unto thee the keys of the ●●osed in Heaven, etc. It is worth your observation how signally our Saviour insists upon St. Peter's person; for that he might be sure that none but those that were wilfully disposed, should be able to mistake, he calls him by his old name Simon, then by his Father's name Barjona, then by his new name Peter, which he gave him then, and signifies a Rock, and presently says, that upon that Rock will he build his Church, etc. And that must plainly be said and meant of himself in his own person, for presently after follows, And I will give unto thee the Keys of Heaven, etc. And whatsoever thou shalt bind, etc. And whatsoever thou shalt lose, etc. Again we find how clearly the Primacy of St. Peter may be proved out of St. Luke's Gospel; When our Saviour twice repeats his name. Luk. 22.31, 32. And the Lord said, Simon, Simon, behold Satan hath desired to have you, that he may sift you as Wheat, but I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and when thou art converted strengthen thy brethren. Observe I pray you how our Saviour prays for him most particularly and above the rest, and he asked two things for him, First, an indefectibility of his faith, and then a power to confirm the rest of the Apostles and all the faithfall. Again, we find in St. Matthews Gospel, how Christ before all his Apostles saith to Peter, Go thou to the red Sea, Math. 17.27. and cast an book and take up the Fish that first cometh up, and when thou hast opened his mouth, thou shalt find a piece of money that take, and give unto them for me and thee. here it is plain that though the rest of his Disciples were present, he paid only for him, and made him equal to himself in the payment. We find in all the Gospels, where there is any description of the constitution of the Apostles or any mention made of them; Math. 10. Peter is still nominated first, Mark. 3. as the head of all the rest, which would not have been done but in regard of his Primacy, Luke 6 and so it has been ever understood by the Church. Then we find that though all the Apostles were present at our Saviour's apparition by the Sea Coast, Joh. 21.7. only Peter did come upon the water of the Sea to him, Luke 5.4. which was no doubt a sign of his singular power and prerogative above the rest. In like manner though all the Disciples were commanded to lose their Nets, only Peter was commanded to Launch into the deep. But above all, we find the performance of that long promised Primacy, made to St. Peter most expressly in St. John's Gospel. Jesus saith to Simon Peter, John 21 Simon son of Ionas lovest thou me more than these, he saith unto him yea Lord thou knowest that I love thee, he saith unto him feed my Lambs He saith unto him again the second Simon, Simon, son of Ionas lovest thou me? He saith unto him, 15, 16, 17. yea Lord thou knowest that I love th●e, He saith unto him feed my sheep. He saith unto him again the third time, Simon, Simon, Son of Ionas lovest thou me? and he said unto him, Lord thou knowest all things, thou knowest that I love thee, Jesus saith unto him, feed my sheep. Here it was that Peter received his pastoral charge, which was but promised him before: and in the presence of all the Apostles the care of Christ's sheep was committed to him as to the Prince of the Apostles. Now to Feed, Ezek. 34. Isai. 44.56. Jerem 26.22. Psalm 32. in Scripture is very frequently taken in Scripture, for to govern, & Rule, & Pastors likewise for Kings, as may be seen throughout the Prophets. But that I may contract myself in this Copious Theme: I shall endeavour to sum up all the Prerogatives of St. Peter, that are given him in Scripture, and then leave yourself to judge whether he was not intended by our Saviour to be Primate and Superior. First, it is manifest that he alone of all the Apostles had the honour to have his Proper-name changed, and a new one given him by Christ. Secondly in the Repetition of all their Names, Peter is always put first. Thirdly, the Scripture always speaks of Peter as a Prince, and of the others as Subjects. Fourthly, Peter speaks in the Name of all the rest, as the chief amongst them. Fifthly, only to Peter was the first revelation made of the Divinity of Christ. Sixthly, only to Peter was made a promise of the infallibility of his faith, and stability of his chair. Seventhly, Christ paid Tribute only for himself and Peter, and for none of the rest, and as much for Peter as himself. Eightly, Jesus Christ after his Resurrection, made his first Apparition to Peter alone of all the Apostles; and all this you cannot deny to be perfect Gospel Now you may please to take notice of these Eight Privileges or Prerogatives spoken of in the Gospel, were before he was actually instated in his Primacy, for that was not till after our Saviour's Resurrection, so these that I have already mentioned, were but as signs or previous dispositions to his future Primacy and power, which how he afterwards executed, you shall see in these particular prerogatives more. First to Peter alone it was absolutely said, Feed my sheep, there was his power conferred and confirmed upon him. Secondly Peter by his own Authority called all the rest of the Apostles to the election of a new Apostle in the place of the Traitor Judas, and directed the Ordination of Mathias into that Apostleship; Act. 1.15, 16. as we find in the Acts. And Peter stood up in the midst of the Disciples, and said men and buethrens, etc. Thirdly, Peter only in the day of Penticost, defended all the rest of the Apostles when they were said to be full of Wine: for the Text tells us, that Peter standing up with the Eleven did lift up his voice and said unto them, etc. (Which was the first miracle wrought in Christ's Name & conformable to the gospel) 4ly. Peter, when Jobn was present, cured he lame man; so the Gospel justified and defended that action and Christianity together, against the Jews in a set Sermon. Act. 3.4. 13, etc. Act. 4.8. 5ly. St. Peter argues the case in the Counsel and defends himself and John. Sixthly Peter does the first act of justice and first first instance of a coercive power in the Church, Act. 5.3.4, 5. Act. 8, 20. Acts 2. when he pronouncedsentence of death upon Ananias and Saphira. Seventhly, Peter was the only person that proceeded to justice against Simon Magus for his wicked marketting of the Holy-Ghost. 8ly, he was the first that did publicly did preach the Gospel to the Jews, after thedescent of the Holy ghost. 9ly, He was the first that did likewise preach the Gospel to the Gentiles, & to whom only the heavenly Visions offered for the calling of the Gentiles, Act. 10.12, 13. and by which he was commanded to take a particular care of them as his own cure, and as their proper Prelate: When he saw the great Sheet let down to the Earth, wherein were allmanner of fore-footed beasts, and creeping things of the Earth, etc. And there came down a Voice from Heaven to him, Acts 15.7. Rise Peter, kill and eat, by which he as head was commanded to incorporate the Gentiles into the Church of Christ etc. Tenthly and lastly he was the first that gave his Vote, and spoke in that great Council at Jerusalem, and was chief Author of that decree, against the Legal Rites and Ceremonies. Here are plainly Ten parts or pieces of his pastoral prerogative that he exercised after the Resurrection of our Saviour, when he was established in his pastoral charge by those Words, Feed my Sheep. And if all the ma●ks and promises of this prerogative given in the Gospel, nor all these confirmations and matters of fact since, will not prevail to satisfy you in St. Peter's Primacy, I shall despair ever to be able to satisfy you in any thing. And yet truly if that Scripture had not been so punctually plain in this particular, as we see it is for St. Peter and his Successors, the very Analogy of reason would induce, that Jesus Christ should appoint somebody for that great charge to govern his whole Church. First let us look upon the Anology of the Christian Church, and that of the Jews. The Mosaical synagogue was but a Type or shadow of the Church of Christ but the Synagogue was always governed by one visible head, Namely the High Priest, to whom all others were subject, as is apparent out of the Books of Exod. Levit. Deut. Therefore the Church of Christ ought to be so governed. For it is not fit that the more perfect government, which by all is acknowledged to be Monarchy, should be over the shadow (that we know is more imperfect than the substance) and and not over the substance itself which is the Church of Christ. And as the Jewish Synagogue was the Type of our Church, so undoubtedly their High Priests were the Types of our Popes: and as they presided over the whole Jewish Nation as to the external government, so our Popes in like manner, do over all Christian people. Now I ask you how it can st●● with reason That Moses, Peut. 17.8, 9 who was a Type of Christ too should provide for the Synagogue, that if there should arise a matter of difficulty, that they should come unto the Priests and Levites, and to the Judge that shall be in those days, and inquire and they shall show thee the sentence of Judgement, which are his own words, and that Jesus Christ should neglect to provide in the same manner, for his own beloved Spouse, his Church? Since than Monarchical Government, both in Church and state, is the best of Governments and was the practised government of the Synaogue, and amongst the jews and is the only government in the triumphant Church in heaven, why should not the same provision, be made by jesus Christ for his poor Militant Church upon Earth? Or why should you or any body else oppose that happiness of ours, which Christ has appointed for us? unless it be out of a design to bring yourselves and the whole Church to confusion, and to do as was done in those days, when there was no King in Israel, when every one did what seemed good in his own eyes, which unhappy licence, that you call liberty shall be ever part of my Litany, Judg. 17.6 Judg. 21.25. that God would please to deliver me and all his faithful servants from. To what you allege against the power of the Pope, that he can neither by himself nor with all his Cardinals, and councils about him, he able to determine any matter of Fath. I answer thus. To the First. I say that you are clearly in a great error to think thi● the Law and the Testimony, or any written thing, was or could be judge of any controversy or difficulty whatsoever, but the High Priest, as appears by the Text aforecited out of Deuteronomy. Then those words, to the Law and to the Testimony, are to be understood far otherwise, than you imagine, as is plain by the precedent words. which are these, and when they shall say unto you, seek unto them that have familiar spirits, and to wizards that peep, and that mutter: should not a people seek unto their God? for the living to the dead? then immediately follows to the Law, and to the Testimony; if they speak not according to this word, it is because there is no light in them, etc. Now it is plain that the Prophet speaks here only against those, who were wont to consult witches, wizards, and Sorcerers about future events; and therefore they were remitted partly to the Law, Deut. 18.9. 1 Kings 22 7. which did expressly prohibit all that, and partly to the Testimony of the Prophets, who were appointed by God to foretell futurities to them. The sense therefore of those words, to the Law and to the Testimony, 1 Sam. 28.7. is this: if you will be informed of future events, you ought not to consult witches, wizards, or sorcerers, as Saul did, because God had forbidden that by his Law, to which I therefore remitted you, but consult ye the Prophets of God, whose office it is, to foretell all future things that ye ought to know. What does this make to the derision of difficult controversies, or determination of matters of Faith? Nothing at all sure, unless you can think this Argument to be good. It is not Lawful to consult Witches, Wizards and Sorecters, therefore only Scripture is to be the Judge of controversies. This sure is a very pitiful Argument, and yet such as that, do your great Rabbins, and principal Doctors make use of, to abuse you and themselves. To the second. I grant, that Jesus Christ disputing with the Jews, who denied him to be the Son of God does remit them to the Scriptures, but not to them only neither, for he proves himself to be so by other Testimonies. First, he appeals to the Testimony of John the Baptist, saying, you sent to John and he gave witness to the truth, Joh. 1.34. now his Testimony was this, Behold the Lamb of God which taketh away the sins of the World; and again, I have given witness to the truth, Joh. 5.36. because this is the Son of God. Secondly, he refers them to the Testimony of the miracles that he wrought amongst them But I saith he, have greater witness than that of John, for the Works which the Father hath given me to finish, the same works that I do, Mat. 3.27. Luk. 9.35. Joh. 5.39.40. bear witness of me, that the Father hath sent me. Thirdly, he refers them to the Testimony of God the Father, saying, And the Father that sent me he hath given Testimony of me, that was when he said from Heaven, This is my beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased, hear him: Fourthly and Lastly he refers them, as you urge, to the Testimony of the Scriptures, saying, Search the Scriptures, for in them ye think ye have eternal life. So much as to say, if you will not accept of the three first Testimonies of me (which sure are most efficatious ones (otherwise I had never produced them) yet at least ye cannot reject the Testimony of the Scriptures, in which you glory so much, they themselves, if you search and examine them, as you should, do give Testimony of me, that James the Messiah, promised by God, Why therefore, will ye not believe, etc. Thus in my Opinion your Argument retorts itself upon you more than oppugneth us. For you contend that only Scripture is necessary for the decision of controversies, and difficulties in faith, and yet you see, that Christ himself does not so, but remits us to those other Testimonies, as well as Scripture, now the Catholic Church does in this, as in all things else, imitate our blessed Lord and Saviour, for in those controversies which she hath with all Adversaries she does not use the testimony of Scriptures only but likewise the testimony of the most ancient and holy Fathers, the invincible evidence of the true Mother-Church, and the testimony of divine miracles, which are frequently one for the confirmation of our faith. But you forsooth as if you were wiser than Christ himself, will neither admit or hear of any thing but out of Scripture alone, in which you show yourselves like those Jews against whom our Saviour so disputes; for the Jews casting off all other testimony, would admit only of Scripture, 2 Cor. 3.14.15. ● and yet they neither understood it then nor yet do or ever will, as the Apostle tells us when he says, but their minds were blinded, for until this day remaineth the same Veil untaken away, in the reading of the Old Testament, etc. and again when Moses is read, the Veil is upon their hearts, etc. To the third. For what you urge so hard out of the Acts, you shall find to be to as little purpose as the other, if if you but please to examine the Context, which tells you, That there being a Synagogue of Jews at Thessalonica, St. Paul as his manner was, went in unto them, and three Sabbath days reasoned with them out of the Scriptures, opening and alleging that Christ must needs have suffered and risen again from the dead, Act. 17.2, 3. and that Jesus whom he preached unto them was Christ, etc. But the Word so preached did but little profit those of Thessalonica, then follows that they of Berea were more Neble than those of Thessalonica, in that they received the Word with all readiness of mind and searched the Scriptures daily whether those things were so? etc. Now I would fain know what you will conclude out of this, as to your purpose, unless thus. Those of Berea searched the Testimonies of Scripture concerning Christ, that were quoted by St. Paul, therefore Scripture alone must determine faith, and be the only Rule and Judge between us. That is just as if you would say, that one of your Doctors, searcheth all the testimonies of St. Austin, that are quoted by Bellarmin, therefore St. Austin is the only Judge of Controversies. Or thus, one of your Congregation searcheth all the testimonies which are produced against a great Doctor of yours, as they are quoted by a greater of your own, therefore that great Doctor is the only judge of Controversies. Or thus, one of your Doctors, searcheth all the Traditions that are alleged in the Council of Rent thefefore only Tradition is to be received for a Judge of Controversies. I pray you forbear these pitiful consequences, and yet your great Doctor's seldommake be tter & are not ashamed of them, so I may well excuse you andothers seduced by them. To the Fourth. I say that your Argument, if it had any weight at all, would serve altogether as well agianst yourself as us, for if as you understand it every man be a Liar add may err, it will follow necessarily, that Moses with the Prophets, Apostles and Evangelists, nay that your Friends, Luther and Calvin, nay all your Preachers to be Liars and may err, because they are men, therefore there is no credit to be given to any of them, no confidence to be put in them, but all things that are said by them must be taken for suspected and uncertain: where then is faith? Nor matters it though they say, that the Word which they tell us, is not their own but God's Word, for if they be Liars, they may as well lie in the delivery of God's message, as in any thing else of their own, nothing therefore can be certain. But God forbidden that any Christian should think so, for it is far otherwise. First, we confess the Scripture to be certain and infallible, because it is the Word of God, but we add that it is so obscure, that the true sense and meaning cannot easily appear to every man: Therefore of necessity there must be some other Judge that must infallibly determine what is the clear and genuine sense of the Scripture itself. Now this infallible Judge cannot possibly be every private man, for then there would be so many Judges as there be men, and diversities of Opinions: and so there would be an utter impossibility to agree to any thing, or compose any difference in Religion, every one being apt to favour his own opinion. It is necessary therefore that there should be a public Judge agreed upon who should have a power of decreeing, defining, and determining all things between differet parties. Gen. 8.21. Psal. 38.6. Then again we says that we must consider men in two respects, Num. 11.17. Deut. 17.9 Aug. 2.12. Malac. 2.3 Jerem. 1.7. first as men and the sons of Adam, so obnoxions to many natural corruptious, so without doubt they are all prone to lying, and falsehood. In the next place we must consider them as they are directed and governed by the Holy Ghost for the instruction of others: so they are infallible and without possibility of lying, such as Moses in the Old Testament, with bis Congregation of Elders about him. So were divers other High Priests that succeeded him, such were the Prophets, Isaiah, Jeremiah, Ezechiel, Daniel and all the rest. Such in the New Testament, were the Apostles to whom it was said, I will from the Father send you the spirit of truth and again when the of Spirit of truth shall come, he shall teach you all truth. john 16.6.13. now where there is all truth there can be no lie. Such ever was, now is, and still must be the Church of Christ, which having the perpetual assistance and government of the same Holy Spirit, has as it were the heart of it, so long therefore as the faithful Christian shall continue in the unity of the Church and keep close to the Doctrine of the supreme Bishop and Counsels, he shall participate of the assistance and government of the holy Ghost, nor can err in faith: but if through any pride or perversity of spirit, he shall disagree and departed from that head and heart, than he shuts all those passages and Channels, by which that divine assistency and direction is to be derived, and so must of necessity be seduced from truth, and led into a Labyrinth of errors, as we have sadly seen in all the ancient and modern Heretics. The next similitude may be drawn from a flock of sheep which indeed is the best representation of the Church, joh. 10.14 math. 28.20. as our Saviour himself is pleased to attest in the Gospel: for as the whole flock being in one Fold or place collected together, has the perpetual assistance and guard of the Shepherd, and so are defended from the malice & fierceness of wolves so the Universal Church of the faithful, being collected in one faith and spirit. has the perpetual care and assistance of that divine Shepherd, who said, I an the good Shepherd, and know my Sheep, and again, and I am always with you to the end of the World. And just as each single Sheep so long as it remains in the society and Communion with the Flock, and under the altar and custody of the Shepherd, is safe and secure from the mouths of wolves, so is each single Christian, so long as he remains joined and tied up in the unity of the Church, that is, submits to the sense and doctrine of the whole Church, is never erred yet in matter of faith, nor ever can, now I presume you may require to know of me whether all and every one of this Church hath this great assistance and direction of the Holy Spirit; that he cannot err in matter of Faith? I do readily answer, that every one of the faithful has it, but by way of dependence upon the Church, and from it. So long therefore as any man remains in conjunction with the Church he cannot err; if he separates or dissents from it, he must needs of necessity fall into an error, which I'll thus explain to you, by two Examples or similitudes. The one may be taken from the proportion of a humane body, in which we see that all the members do jointly and severally paticipate of the vital and sensitive spirits, by which life is preserved in them all, but yet they have these spirits derivatively from, and by way of dependency upon the head and heart: for it is from them as from a double Fountain, those spirits are derived into the other members: so that when the Channels and passages, by which that derivation and distribution is made, are stopped or intercepted, it must follow necessarily, that the other Members must be left destitute of spirits, and be rendered incapable of performing their Office, but being open all will be well. So likewise in the Church, all the faithful, which are as it were Members of it, have a certain assistancy and direction from the holy Ghost, but by way of dependency upon the Pope, who is as the head of the Church and from Councils, which are safe and secure from all danger of error and infidelity. In the last place, as sheep that go astray from the flock, are out of the protection of the Shepherd, and by consequence must fall into the danger of Wolves: so Christians which depart from the common sense and doctrine of the Church must of necessity fall into millions of errors, for want of the assistance of the holy spirit, which is the Judge and Guardian of that. I pray you good Mistress N. have a care how you expose yourself to this terrible danger. To the Fifth. I utterly deny that general Counsels have erred in matters of faith, it is possible that some particular Counsels might or some false Counsels, more truly called conventicles. Then that some councils have determined variously, as to discipline and Ecclesiastical government, I grant for variety of times requires diversity of Laws, and God himself gives the precedent of that, who changed many things in the new Testament, that were commanded in the Old. And as for Laymen to be present in Counsels, we do not at all deny, so they be as witnesses, defenders, Counsellors, Suggestors or Executioners of their decrees, but never as to have a Voyc in any Council or Church business, and this is plain by those Gouncils, that we find in the Acts celebrated by the Apostles, and so clearly in every Age since, and why should Laymen have to do more now? Now give me leave to reply something to you, and I'll be short in my proof, having been so long in my answers. That the Pope with a general Council, may detrmine what is of Fath and what is not, I pove by express Scripture thus. We find in Scripture some Councils celebrated by the Apostles that have actually made such determinations. As first for the taking off the burden of Circumcision and other Indaicall obligations, we find the result thus. For it seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us, Act. 15.28 29. to lay upon you no greater burden than these necessary things that they abstain from meats offered to Idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from Fornication; from which if ye keep yourselves ye shalde well. See here the form of an Apostolical Council: First the Text tells us, that the Apostles and Elders came together, and that St. Peter was Precedent and Prolocutor; then they issued out their decrees, with this authoritative preface; It seemed good to the Holy Ghost, and to us: Now do you find that any faithful Christians then did question their authority, ver. 6.7. as you do now that of other Conncells assembled in like manner, and assisted by the same spirit? Thus you see that Council did decree somethings to be necessary for a time, which were not simply and of themselves matters of faith, and to take off from the Jews many things that were to them before matters Faith: as circumcision and other mosaical Statutes. Why should not I say the Church now have the same power when the same necessity shall require? we have I'm sure, the same Christ the fame holy spirit, the same faith, the same Church why not the fame power in Councils. We read again of another Council celebrated by the Apostles when they were to part one from another, Apostles Creed. and to go preach the Gospel, as the Lord had commanded them over the whole World: when they met together, and upon a large debate delivered to us the Creed, which you yourselves and I'm sure the whole Church of Christ submits to as as points of faith, and is to this day called the Apostles Creed; and for some of those Articles, we have no Scripture at all nor any other authority but this, that they were so delivered by the Apostles: and I conceive it a duty incumbent upon all good Christians, what the wise Man adviseth, Prov. 22.28. not to remove the ancient Landmarks which our Fathers have set. In what respect a Council or Convocation of Elders was with God, and ever taken for the representative body of the Church, is plain in many places of Exodus, Exod: 19.3 7, 8. especially, that where God commands Moses to say to the House of Jacob and tell the Children of Israel etc. And yet afterwards it is said of Moses, that he came and called for the Flders only of the people, and laid before their faces all these Words which the Lord commanded him, etc. And though it is plain, that the Elders of the people only answered, with whom Moses was talking, Deut. 32.7. yet the Text tell us, That all the people answered together and said, etc. Which could dot be, ●nless only so representatively by their convocation of Elders. How well therefore does the same Moses express this in his fong, when he saith, Remember the days of old confider the years of many generations. Ask thy Father and he will show thee, thy Elders and they will tell thee, etc. I should be infinite to run through all the Old Scripture to show what a stamp of Majesty and Authority God Almighty fixed upon such assemblies, and what respect the people always rendered them. So it shall suffice to give you our Saviour's own words and so conclude this point. We find in St. Matthew thus, Again, I say unto you, that if two of you shall agree on earth as touching any thing that they shall ask, it shall be done for them of my Father which is in Heaven, Matth. 18. v. 18, 20. for where two or three are gathered together in my name, there am I in the midst of them. Now I would fain know, who can be convinced more evidently not to hear the Church, than he that will not hear a Council there can be no where a greater and more conspicuous consent than in a Council, nor can there be any Congregations assembled more in the name of God then general Counsels are, and yet you are pleased to cast contempt upon them. But give me leave to tell you, let the Authority of Counsels be once taken away and all things in the Church will be ambiguous and uncertain. First all the ancient Heresies that have been condemned by the authority of Counsels, and cast out of the Church may be revived and reinforced upon Christians with as much reason, as any primitive and Catholic Doctrine. Then set up the Authority of Scripture alone against that of the Church and Councils, and then Scripture itself will be uncertain, for thrusting out that authority which has commended sacred Scripture to us, and commanded us to receive it, what Scripture is it that opinionated men will not reject, and condemn for Apocrypha which will not save their own turns? as some of your Doctros have notoriously done, and so in fine we can never agree upon the point what is Scripture and what is not. Thus must the Church of Christ fall into a most miserable condition, for upon the arising of any doubt in matter of faith, there can be no way found out to decide it, but every particular person according to the proportion of wit in his own pate, shall frame to himself faith of what form or fashion he pleaseth. How then hath Christ provided for his Church a sufficientrule to go by? and why should his Evangelioall Law be called the most perfect, if he has not otherwise ordered a determination of all emergent coutroversies? But thanks be to our most gracious God and Saviour, he has abundantly done it for us, as I shall more amply show in my answers and replies to the following heads of this your Paper, which God give you grace with prudence and impartiality to petuse. To what you allege for Scripture to be the only Rule of our faith, and against the Authority of the universal Church and its Traditions, I answer thus. To the first. I say that you are very much mistaken in matter of Scripture, so I shall be bold to enlarge a little upon it, for your better understanding. And first it is to be observed that our Saviour himself writ no book at all, neither commanded his disciples or Apostles to write any, inso much as being to send them to plant his Church, Matth. 28. he said not to them go and write, but go and preach to the whole World. Therefore we find the Old Law written in Tables of Stone: but the Gospel had no other writing then, but in the hearts of Christians. So St. Paul plainly expresseth it, Ye are our Epistle etc. & again, 2 Cor. 3.2, 3. Forasmuch as ye are manifestly declared to be the Epistle of Christ, ministered by us, not with ink, but with the spirit of the living God, not in Tables of stone, but in fleshly tables of the heart, etc. This was before prophesied by the Prophet Jerem. Behold the days come, Jer. 31.31.302 3, saith the Lord, that I will make a new Cavenant with the House Israel and with the House of Judah, not according to the Covenant that I made with their Fathers. But this shall be the Covenant that I will make with the House of Israel, after those days, saith the Lord, I will put my Law in their inward parts, and write it in their hearts, and I will be their God and they shall be my people, etc. Again we find, that the Church is much ancienter than Scripture; for when the Apostles began to preach, there was no Evangelical Scripture, no Epistle of St. Paul extant, and yet the Church was then purchased and sprinkled with the blood of Christ, Acts 1. and governed by his unerring Spirit. So the Apostles without any authority of the Scripture of the New-Testament, proceeded to the election of Mathias, and to the ordination or seven Deacons, Acts 5.6. etc. So Peter proceeded to the sentence against Ananias and Saphira, which struck the breath out of their bodies, etc. Now we know that the Apostles were very diligent in preaching, and sowing the word of God; and yet we find but very little that they left us in writing; so it must follow, that they taught a great deal more than they wrote, which must have equal authority with their writings. Yet further, it is plain that the Scripture itself cannot be authentical, without the authority of the Church; for the Canonical Writers themselves, were but members of the Church; and how shall any private man know what Scripture is Canonical and what not, but by the Church? John 3. Why should any man believe the Gospel of St. Mark to be Canonical, who never saw Christ, and the Gospel of Nicodemus not to be so, who both saw and heard Christ, as St. John testifies of him? and why should the Gospel of St. Luke the Disciple be received, and the Gospel of St. Bartholomew the Apostle be rejected, unless we humbly comply with the power and authority of the Church, which hath so ordered it, and clearly confess that the Church can judge of Scriptures? Thus since it is plain, that the Church is ancienter than Scripture, and that no Scripture can be thought authentical, without the authority of the Church, Exod. 20. can any Christian be blamed, for saying that he would never believe the Scripture, but that the Authority of the Church commanded? it over over and above all this the Authority of the Church over Scripture is hugely evident in many particulars of Scripture: As first, Matth. 28. Act. 15. the Scripture commands thus, Remember that thou keep holy the Sabbath day, six days shalt thou labour, and do all that thou hast to do, but the seventh day is the Sabbath of the Lord thy God, etc. And yet the Church changed the Sabbath into the Lord's day by its own authority, Matth. 28.19, 20. and not only without, but against known Scripture. Again, Christ said to his Disciples in the Mount, that he came not to dissolve the Law, but fulfil it; and yet the Church in the Apostles Council, decreed and pronounced boldly for the Cessation of those Legalities. We find again in the last of St. Matthew, Christ saying to his Disciples, Go ye therefore, and teach all Nations, baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you. Here Christ laid down an express form of Baptism in the name of the holy Trinity, and yet the primitive Church did think fit to change that form into a Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ only, for so St. Peter enjoined them, Repent and be baptised every one of you, in the name of Jesus Christ, for the remission of sins, etc. And again we find that the Samaritars were baptised by St. Philip in the name of Jesus: Act. 2.38. Acts 8. Act. 19.5. Act. 15.28 29. So again, upon St. Paul's preaching at Ephesus, when they heard this, they were baptised in the name of the Lord Jesus. Above all this, we find the Scripture telling us, that it was defined in the Apostles Council thus: It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost, and to us, etc. that ye abstam from meats offered unto Idols, and from blood, and frous things strangled, etc. This we see is most plainly and expressly defined by the Apostles, and as clearly attested by Scripture, and yet the Church in after Ages hath thought fit to change that decree, and permit Christians to eat strangled things and blood; nay, you that dispute against the Authority of the Church in matters of Faith, are contented to submit to it in point of eating, you could not otherwise deny the eating of a black pudding or strangled Hen, to be a most notorions transgression, nor could any thing excuse us from sin in so doing, if the Church h●d not a power over the Scriptures. And to conclude, if the authority of the Church were not over the Scriptore, than all Jews that should be converted now to the Faith of Christ and come to Baptism, should be tied still to the observation of Mases his Law; for so we find in Scripture, that the Apostles themselves, and others of th● Nation, which became Converts, did always do. St. James, and all the Elders said to St. Paul upon his return from the Gentiles; Thou seest brother, how many thousands of Jews there are which believe, and they are all zealous for the Law, and they are informed of thee, that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles, to forsake Moses, Saying, Act. 21.18 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25. that they ought not to circumcise their children, neither to walk after the custums: What is it therefore? the multitude must needs come together; for they will hear that thou art come. Do therefore this that we say unto thee, we have four men which have a vow on them. Them take and purify thyself with them, and be at chrrges with them, that they may shave their heads, and all may know, that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing, but that thyself also walkest orderly, and keepest the Law. As touching the Geutiles which believe, we have written, and concluded, that they observe no such thing, save only that they keep themselves from things offered unto Idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from fornica●on. Here it is plain that St. Paul with many thousands more, did observe the Law of Moses, and that by the immediate order of St. James, the Prelate of the place, and the Council of all the Elders. This we know clearly altered since by the authority of the Church, and what a fine confusion it would produce, if otherwise practised now, I will leave yourself to judge. To the second. I say, that what you urge out of Deuteronomy, makes no more against us, than it does against the Apostles themselves, from whence we received our Traditions: but most especially St. Paul, who expressly bids us to hold fast the Traditions which we have received: Nay, and all the holy Fathers of the Primitive Church, who have always embraced, and held them. Nay yet further, you do most manifestly oppose and oppugn your own selves, who receive the Tradition of Scripture, the Lords day, and many holy days, with divers other things which you hold in great reverence, by no other Authority. If therefore we Catholics offend in so doing, than the Apostles themselves, and all the Primitive Fathers and Christians, and you yourselves are as guilty of a fault; if they be innocent, and you too, why should we be condemned? Again, give me leave to tell you, that you have wholly mistaken the sense of that Text, and that I will demonstrate to you out of the context; which runs thus. Deu 4.1.2. Now therefore hearken, O Israel, un-the Statutes, and unto the Judgements, which I teach you for to do them, that ye may live, and go in, and possess the Land, which the Lord God of your Fathers giveth you. Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you; neither shall you diminish aught from it, that ye may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God which I command you. As if he should say, I give unto you precepts both Ceremonial and Judicial, which ye ought perfectly and entirely to keep; for so much is signified in those words ye shall not add nor diminish; and this precept to that people, is delivered though in other words, yet to the very same sense in divers other places, that they should be punctual in the observation of what was commanded them, and not to swerve or turn to the right hand or the left. So that these three things are upon the matter all one, that is perfectly and entirely to keep Moses his precepts, Deut. 17.20. Deut. 28.14. Deut. 31.29. Josu. 1.7. not to turn from them neither to the right hand, nor to the jest, and last of all, neither to add to, nor diminish from their observation. Which now is plain cannot be so understood, as if it were unlawful to add any new precept; for than it had been utterly unlawful to add those new Evangelical precepts, as Faith in the blessed Trinity, the whole business of Holy Baptism, and the Eucharist; which you receive as well as we: but the sense of those Texts must be plainly this, that they ought to be very exact in the observation of Moses his Laws, not to corrupt them with any addition or dimunition, but to keep them entirely; as for example, this was a Mosaical precept. Levit. 12.2, 3. If a woman have conceived seed, ann born a man child, than she shall be unclean seven days, etc. And in the eighth day, the flesh of his soreskin shall be circumcised, etc. To this precept now, it was not lawful to add or diminish from that, it was not lawful, neither before nor after the vl day to circumcise the child, nor was the uncleanness of the mother to last more or less than seven days. Now the same reason holds throughout all other precepts, as I shall show you in my answer to your next Argument. But from what has been said already, it is very evident, that this Text out of Deuteronomy, which you press so hard, makes nothing at all to the purpose, unless you can think this a good Argument. The Jews were bound perfectly and entirely to keep the commands of Moses; therefore Christians must not admit of Apostolical Traditions, but be content with only Scripture: which I think no reasonable man will take for other than an absutd and ridiculous consequence. But that the business may be more clear, give me leave to ask of you, whether those commands did belong to the Jews only, or to us Christians, as well as they? If to the Jews only, why do you allege that Text against us, or why should we be obliged to the observation of those precepts? If they belong to us Christians likewise, why do not you keep all the Mosaical Law? Why do not all the Mankind amongst you Circumcise themselves? And why do you forbear the observation of all the lethe legal Ceremonies? In the last place answer me, why do you urge the first particle of the text against us, you shall not add, and do not in like manner, urge against yourselves, ye shall not diminish? but I fear I have been too long in this. To the third. I wonder truly how you can infer from that Text, that nothing is to be done, but what God commands, and all humane precepts to be cast away. If so, what will you say of the Jews themselves, Jer. 35.6 Acts 15.29. that did with all exactness observe the Feast of Dedication that was no more than a humane precept? What will you say of the Rechabites, who did most religiously observe the Command of their Father Jonadab, in a perpetual abstinence from wine? What will you think of the Apostles, who in their Council at Jerusalem commanded abstinence from blood and things strangled? 1 Cor. 7.12. what will you think of St. Paul, who distinguisheth between his own commands and those of Jesus Christ, what will you think of all sorts of Magistrates, who are forced to fasten humane Laws and precepts upon us, for the preservation of peace and justice in a Commonwealth? What must ye think of yourselves, who in your Synods & Conventicles make Laws and Ecclesiastical decrees, to bind up your own Congregations to obedience and will have observed by all? In the next place give me leave to tell you, that the sense of this place is clean otherwise then what you would impose upon it. For as in your last Argument, you pressed a Text that was to be understood in general, of all the precepts that were delivered by Moses, Deut. 12.30, 31, 32. which were to be exactly and entirely observed, so here you urge another that enjoins the entire Observation of one sort of sacrifice, and the Text runs thus. When the Lord thy God shall out of the Nations from before thee, whither thou goest to possess them and then succeedest them and dwellest in their land, Simila. take heed to thyself that thou be not snared by following them, and that thou inquire not after their gods, saying, how did these Nations serve their gods, even so will I do likewise. Thou shalt not do so unto the Lord thy God: for every abomination to the Lord which he hateth, have they done unto their gods for even their Sons and daughters have they burnt in the fire to their gods, then follows, whatsoever thing I command you to do it, thou shalt not add nor diminish from it. All which as I humbly conceive amounts to this, When thou shalt come into Palestin, the Land of Promise, whither thou art going, and shalt offer to the Lord thy God a Sacrifice, thou shalt not imitate the Gentiles that offer their sons and daughters by fire to their false gods, but this thou shalt only offer what I command thee. To wit, of the Beasts Sheep, Goats, Kids, Oxen, Calves, Pigeons, Sparrows, Turtles. Of the fruits of the earth, fine flower, Bread, Salt, Fiankensence, handfuls of Ears of Corn and Wheat; and of Liquors, Blood, Wine, Oil, Water. This only do, that is offer to the Lord, thou shalt not add any thing of the Sacrinces of the Gentiles, nor diminish any thing of mine, that I have commanded thee. What you will conclude from hence, I know not unless you infer thus; The Jews were obliged to offer nothing in Sacrifice to God, but what the Lord had commanded, therefore Christians-ought not to observe any humane precepts, whether civil or Ecclesiastical: a most excellent consequence, so far it well. To the Fourth. I answer, that your Argument would be much better employed upon yourselves then against us, and in this manner I retort it. If any man shall preach another Gospel than that which the Apostle himself preached, let him be Anathema, but you preach another Gospel besides, nay against that which the Apostle taught & preached, because do manifestly oppose Traditions, which he commanded us to keep, when he said hold fast traditions; therefore you are to be Anathema. But to answer yet more closely to what you urge out of the Apostle; I would desire you to gather out of the scope of the Apostle, whether his intention was there ro condemn all traditions, or only this, G●l. 2.16. c. 1.6. c. 3.1. c. 4.9 etc. 5.1. that the Galations being taught by St. Paul, that the ceremonies of the Mosaical Law were abrogated, and that not any man could be justified by those Cnremonies, but by faith in Christ, and they were from this Doctrine seduced by some false Apostles, who taught that they could not be saved by faith in Christ, unless they were also circumcised and observed other moisaic●l Ceremonies: St Paul here addresseth himself against those false Apostles, when he saith, and if any man preach any other Gospel then that ye have received, let him be occursed: so much as to say, you have received from me that a man is justified by faith in Christ and not at all for the observances of Moses his Laws, if any man instruct you otherwise, let him be accursed. But how can it follow frow hence that Apostalicall Traditions are to be rejected, but rather received, conserved, and Religiously to be honoured, because they are not against that which St. Paul preached to the Galatians concerning Justification, but rather they are that very thing which he preached to the Thessalonians, when he bid them hold fast the traditions that they learned, and that the Word received in the Text, does sufficiently clear, for he speaks not only of the Gospel that he had preached, but o● the Gospel that they had received. To the Fifth. I say your Argument is ve●y weak, which you draw out of Sr. John, which you frame thus as I understand it. It is not lawful to add to the Words of that revelation, therefore it is not lawful to add our tradition; to Scripture, let any one judge now whether that be a natural consequence? the truth on't is, that that Text out of the Revelation may be most clearly brought against most of you, who do not only diminish the Words of that Prophecy, but take the whole to be suspected, thrust it out of your Canon, and account it for Apocrypha. Then others of you again are pleased to add to it most notoriously, as when some of your Doctors go about to intepret that part of the Revelation, which tells us, that there shall come two witnesses, that shall prophesy a 1260. Rev. 11.3.6. days clothed in Sackclooth, who shall have power to shut heaven in the days of their prophecy, and have power over Waters to turn them inblood, etc. they will persuade us that these two witnesses are your two great Prophets, Luther and Calvin; now it is plain, that they were not clothed in Sackcloth, nor had power to shut heaven, &c, Now it is evident that the Text you Quote, makes nothing towards the condemnation of our traditions, but forbids that nothing be added to that book, but that which is a true part of that Apocalyptical Prophecy: Otherwise it must be unlawful to receive the Prophecies of Jeremy, Isay and other Prophets of the Old Testament, as also the Gospels and Epistles of the new, and our whole Symbol of faith. So that it is plain we are only by the Text forbidden to deprave any part of that Apocalyptical Prophecy, which the Apostle in in●●tes maybe done 2. ways, either by addition by putting any thing into that Prophecy, which truly is no part of it: Or by dimination, as if any man should detract from it, any part as not belonging to it, which really was so. Now when you have showed that we Catholics do either of that, I shall grant your Argument to conclude something. To the Sixth. I say you still strangely conclude out of the Apostle, and I pray you mark your Argument. All Scripture is profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, for instruction, etc. Therefore all Traditions are unnecessary. I will give you such another consequence. All meat is profitable for nourishment, therefore drink is unnecessary. Or thus, all Alms giving is profitable for Salvation, Luk. 11.43. Dan. 1.34. as St. Luke and the Prophet Daniel assures us, therefore prayer is to no purpose, and the Sacraments themselves are unnecessary. Or it may be you intent your Argument thus, all Scripture is profitable, that is sufficient, therefore Traditions are altogether useless. What strange interpretation of Scripture is this? Is to be profitable and sufficient alone? then mark this consequence, St. Paul tells Timothy, that godliness is profitable to all things, 1 Tim. 4.8. 2 Tim. 4.11. therefore all other things are unnecessary. Again the same Apostle bids Timothy, take Mark and bring him with him, adding, that he was profitable unto him for the Ministry: therefore Timothy, Titus, Onesimus and Luke that was then with him, were all unnecessary. Who sees not now, that if his Licence may be admitted of interpreting Scripture after this manner, that the whole must of necessity be corrupted quickly & adulterated. But now that you may more clearly see your error, I will show you the whole scope of the Apostle in these words. First in the precedent Words, he exhorts Timothr as a Bishop, to instruct those that are committed to his charge in faith and good works, and to reprove and convince adversaries who rejected the truth and were men of corrupt minds, reprobate concerning the faith, and so he adds to show him how he was to do it, 2 Tim. 3.8. ver. 14, 15, 16. these words. But continue thou in the things that thou hast learned, and hast been assured of, knowing of whom thou hast learned them, and that from a Child thou hast known the holy Scriptures which are able to make thee wise unto salvation, through faith which is in Christ Jesus, for all Scripture is given by inspiration of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reproof, for correction, etc. Now here by the Scripture, which he says, Timothy had known from his Infancy, he must needs understand the Scripture of the Old Testament, for at that time when Timothy was a child, there could be no Scripture of the new Testament extant. The Apostle the refore in the Text so argues, all Scripture divinely inspired, is profitable to teach friends to convince adversaries, but the Scripture of the Old Testament, which thou hast learned from thy Infancy, is divinely inspired, there it is so, and so profitable. In the same manner we under the Gospel, may agree thus. All Scripture divinely inspired, is profitable to teach, to reproves etc. But the Scripture of the New Testament is divinely inspired, therefore it is profitable to teach, reprove, etc. That is, whosoever is instructed in knowledge of that, shall find great helps to perform all that now out of these Arguments, grounded upon that Text which you urg, we may collect these 3 propositions to be true. First, that all Scripture diuniely inspired is profitable to teach, reprove, etc. 2ly. That the Scripture of the Old Testament is profitable to teach Thirdly, that the Scripture of the Old Testament is so; and so profitable likewise. So as therefore this does not follow the Scripture of the Old Testament is altogether useless and unnecessary, so neither does this follow. The Scripture of the New Testament is profitable, Therefore the Scripture of the Old is altogether useless and unnecessary. Nor can this with more reason follow, the Scripture of both Testaments New and Old, is so and so profitable, therefore Tradition is altogether useless and unnecessary. Then that which the same Apostle tells us in another place, I am sure were altogether impertinent, if not impions; When he says, hold fast Traditions. To the Seventh. I answer in short, that there can be none so blind but must see, that which you urge out of the Gospel and Epistles, was only spoken, either of Traditions of the Jews, which the Pharisees made ill use of, as I have showed you before: or of the traditions of the Gentiles, which were quite and clean repugnant to Christianity, but such as those we speak not of, much less defend, but only those divine and Apostolical traditions, which we have received, and must for ever continue in the Christian Church. to the Eight. I confess the Church to be a Congregation of all the faithful, which are of the body of Christ; but yet we know what is done by our Princes, Peers and Commons assembled in Parliament, is said to be done by the whole Nation: so what the Prelates of the Church with those others, that are chosen to sit with them in Counsels shall determine, is said to be done by the whole Church. For otherwise the Church could never be Congregated, & then to what purpose did our Saviour say that, in St. Matthew, But if he will not hear thee tell the Church, but if he shall not hear the Church let him be to thee as a Heathen and a Publican. Matth. 18. Now he that would tell the Church any thing in your sense, must ramble all the World over to do it. But it is plain that our Saviour by the Church there, meant the Prelates and Precedents of it, for presently after he speaks to his Apostles as to Prelates, and give them the power of binding, etc. That you may the better understand this, take along with you the whole context of that place of Denteronemy, which I have before quoted to you, and that you shell find to be this. Deut. 17. If there arise a matter too hard for thee in judgement, between blood and blood, between Plea and Plea, & between stroke and stooak, being matters of controversy within thy Gaces, then shalt thou arise and get thee up into the place which the Lord thy God shalt choose and thou shalt come unto the Priests and Levites, 8, 10, 11, and unto the Judge that shall be in those days, and inquire: and they shall show thee the sentence of judgement. And thou shalt do according to the sentence which they of that place (which the Lord shall choose) shall show thee, 12, 13, 14. and thou shalt observe to do according to all, that they inform thee. Accorto the Sentence of the Law which they shall teach thee, & according to the judgement which they shall tell thee, thou shalt do, thou shalt not decline from the sentence which they shall show thee, to the right hand nor to the left. And the man that will do presumptuosly, and will not hark in unto the Priest (that standeth to Minister there before the Lord thy God) or unto the Judge, even that man shall die, and thou shalt put away the evil from Israel. I pray you observe there the power and great authority of the old Legal Priests, and consider then the just power that the Evangelicall ones aught to have, and do not forget to observe the dismal punishment of presumption, and disobedience. Then I pray you be pleased to observe how the Primitive Christians did follow the orders that were given by Moses in Denteronemy, for we find in the Acts, that when a great dissension arose about the business of circumcision, the Apostles and Elders came together for to consider the matter, and upon the issue of the dissension and disputation, they determined to send Paul and Barnabas up to Jerusalem unto the Apostles and Elders there about this question, and they did so, and it follows it so pleased the Apostles and Elders with the whole Church, now what was the whole Church there, not the whole Congregation of Christians, but they went up to the Apostles and Elders about this question, here it is plain that the Apostles and Elders were the representative body of the Church. To the Ninth and last. I utterly deny the whole Church to be such an invisible thing, as you world have much less not to be understood; for first if it were so hidden from the eyes and understanding of men, why or how should our Saviour command▪ us to tel, the Church; and if he hears not the Church, Math. 18. Rom. 12. 1 Cor. 1.12 Ephes. 1.5. Col. 1. etc. Now if the Church were hidden, how could any man tell it any thing? and if it were not to be understood how could any men hear it? Do we not find that the Church is the body of Christ and all Christians the members? and this is plain in several places of Scripture? Now how can you say that body and those members are hidden and the Church to be only in clouds, when St. Paul tells us plainly, you are the body of Christ, and members one of another, etc. Luke 11. It has been of Heretics always to run into Dens and Caves and hiding holes, the Church h●'s always put the Candle in the candlestick, as the Gospel teacheth us. The Church has been always visible to us in Councils in the Apostolical Seat, in Bishops, Precedents and Pastor; of several Churches. 2 Cor. 8.18. For if the Church were in the clouds, and a mere Mathematical Phancasme, as you would have it, how could the Brother that St. Paul speaks of, have his praise throughout all the Churches? And the Prophet David repeats so often, with thee is my praise and glory in the Congregation of thy people, and in the Chair of the Elders, Psalm 21. Psal. 106. let thy name be praised, and desires that he may see the good of his chosen that he may rejoice in the gladness of his people and that he may glory with his inheritance etc. Now I have been informed indeed that it has ever been the fashion of all old Heretics to strengthen the Church with a narrow compass, and draw it within the compass of one of their convanticles, I hope you will not be guilty of that fault; and whereas you urge it for a matter of faith, therefore not to be seen; I ask you whether God the Creator be not to be seen in every thing that moves and has a being, and yet the Creation is an Article of faith. I ask whether Jesus Christ God the son was not seen in the flesh, and to ascend visibly into heaven, and yet matters of faith. I ask again whether God the holy Ghost was not seen visibly to descend upon the Apostles, and yet an Article of faith proposed by the same Apostles: and so the same I say of the Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church. Now because I have been so large in my answers, I shall not need to be otherwise then short in my replies, but something I shall urge to you out of Scripture; according to my former method, and that Scripture alone cannot be the Rule of our faith, I prove thus. I shall begin with the Articles of your faith, and ours, contained in the Apostles Creed, and a●k you whether all those are to be proved out of express Scripture. As first: that Article of Christ's descent into Hell, the Church has ever believed it, recles. 24. as it is proposed locally, but how shall we prone it I say out of Scripture? if out of Ecclesiasticus where it is said, I will pierce into the lower mo●● parts of the Earth; you will say it is Apocryphas, If out of St. Paul to the Ephesians, Eph. s. 4.9, 10. where is it said now that he ascended, what is it but that he also descended first into the lower parts of the earth he that descended is the same also that ascended up fare above all things, etc. Some of your Doctors have found a shift for that too: First they will say that he descended by his power not by his person. Then they will tell you of his descent into the wombs of the Virgin, etc. Now as you are pleased to distinguish upon it, what are we the better in that point for the Scripture? Then in the Athanasian Creed, how will you prove the one substance of the blessed Trinity? if from that text in the Gospel (I and my Father are one) some of you will venture a distinction upon it too, as that they are one in will, not in substance. Then again, as to the perpetual Virginity of our blessed Lady, which some of you will please to deny, but most prudent Christians believe: what Scripture have we for it, or for your and our observation of the Lords Day; I know no Scripture that (and so for a hundred things more) can be produced. I say sure according to your judgement, that nothing is to be received but clear and express Scripture. Out Saviour himself not clearly proved the Resurrection of our bodies against the Saducees, for he brought no certain clear and express text, but only this because it is said in the Old Testament, the God of Abraham, the God of Isass', and the God of Jacob; our Saviour therefore infers, that God is not the God of the dead, but of the living, and then we know that those Patriarches were only living in their souls, not in their bodies: So I say upon your grounds, that was no conviction to the Sadduces; By all this it is plain, that not only those things are to be blessed, and observed, which are expressly to be found in holy writ, or clearly proved out of it, as those of your Church will have it; but also we are to believe and observe, what our holy Mother the Church believes and observes. For we see all things of Faith are not clearly delivered in sacred Scripture, but very many things are left to the determination of the Church, which because it is enlightened & governed by the holy Ghost, cannot possibly wander or go astray out of the tract of truth. John 76.13, 13. Our Saviour, therefore in St. John's Gospel said to his Disciples, I● have yet many things to say unto you, but ye cannot bear them now; Howbeit, when he the Spirit of truth is come, b● will guide you into all truth, etc. The holy Church therefore observeth many things in its Rites, and Ceremonies, besides matters of faith, from the familiar instinct of the holy Spirit, and by the tradition of the Apostles and Primitive Fathers, which though they are not expressly to be found in holy Scriptures, yet they are no ways against them, or differ from them. Nay they are in all things most conformable to them, and therefore to be embraced and observed by all good Christians; for so St. Paul most expressly tells us: 2 Thes, ●. 15. Therefore Brethren stand fast, and hold the Traditions, which ye have been taught whereby word, or our Epistles. Again, St. Paul speaking to the Corinthians, 1 Cor. 11.34. concerning the blessed Eucharist a thing in Christianity, as I take it, of greatest concernment, tells them that the rest he nill set in order, when he comes; so all was not to be ordered by his Epistle, or written words, but something it is plain he was afterwards to dispose of concerning that important affair, by word of mouth. In like manner, St. 2 John 12 John tells the honourable Matron that he writ unto, That hebad many things to write unto her, but be would not writer with paper and ●nk, but he trusted to come unto her, and speak face to face, etc. And so he likewise tells his friend, Gaius, sohn 3. vers. 13, 14 That he trusted shortly to see him, and that they should speak face to face, and yet he said before, that he had many things to write unto him, but he would not with ink and pen write unto him, etc. By all which it is plain, that Christians are not in all things to be ruled and determined by the word written. Nay do we not plainly find many things both of the words and deeds of our blessed Saviour, that none of the Evangelists make mention of, Act. 20.26 1 Cor. 15.6. which the Apostles have supplied and expressed in word or deed. As first, St. Paul in the Acts of the Apostles, citys some words of our Saviour's, that are not to be found in any of the Evangelists, and he bids them to remember the words of the Lord Josus, how he said, that it is more blessed to give, than to receive; and no such thing, or to that purpose, I could find yet, in any of the Gospels. In like manner, some of his most considerable deeds, were not fully described, or at all signified to us, by any of the Evangelists, As that he was seen by above five bundred brethren at once, which St. Paul most expressly affirms to the Corinthians, which apparition of his I could never read any thing of, Luke 10.35. as I said before, in any of the Gospels. Then there are some Ecclesiastical observancies, which you retain still in your Church, that neither are to be found in Scripture, nor is the reason apparent to every one, why they were ever invented or used; As first, that we kneel at our prayers, is not from any command in Scripture, and yet you yourselves hold it highly necessary. Then that we choose out of all the corners of heaven, that side where the Sun riseth, towards which to turn ourselves praying, it is neither in Scripture, nor apparently in reason to ordinary capacities, but only that it has been the practice of the universal Church. Again we know, as I have showed formerly, in the Old Testament, Dent. 17. Ezeth. 44. the Law was not the judge of difficulties, but the Priest, so at large in Deuteron●●y, and the Prophet Ezekiel tells us plainly, that the Priest; shall stand in judgement, and they only shall judge. Now it is clear, that we admit of Scripture as well as you, but we differ in the understanding of it, because you will have your own single judgements upon it to be your Rule, and we admit no other judge, but that authority which gives it, that is the Church. And this is apparently the reason, why all you that are out of the Church do so differ amongst yourselves upon all points, and principally in that great point, concerning the blessed Sacrament, whether it be truly, and spiritually the very body and blood of Christ, by the figure and signs, and the bare letter of Scripture will never be able to determine betwixt you, and so there must be an impossibility of Accord in that, and a hundred things more. Thus we see that the Devil himself could allege Scriptue against our blessed Saviour, which was, that God had given his Angels charge over him, to keep him, etc. But he maliciously mistake, Metth. 4. or through ignorance misunderstood, which is not altogether so likely the sense of that place. Now whereas you do all pretend that the holy Scriptures are clear, and easy to be understood of all ordinary Readers, and so that lay people, and doting old women may be bold to venture their interpretations, and comments upon it: that is clean contrary to what St. Peter tells you, speaking of all the Epistles of St. Paul, in which are something hard to be understood, which they that are unlearned and unstable wrest as they do also the other Scriptures, unto their own destruction. Thus do you see what unhappy mistakes there were upon St. Paul's writings while St. Paul himself was yet alive, how much more than must there needs be now upon those grounds that you receive them. Niy St. Paul himself tells you, that if his Gospel be hid, it is hid to them, that are lost: Now it is plain it cannot be hidden to us, who take the sense and interpretation of the whole Church, you had best therefore look to yourselves, that you be not lost by hiding of it from yourselves. And if the blessed Fathers of the Church, that were so conversant in Scripture, yet understood it not in those times, so near to the time of Christ himself, as some of you say that they did not, how can you presume upon yourselves, and some late Doctors, that have dared to give you a contrary Doctrine, to what they have delivered to us? I have often meditared upon that place in St. Luke's Cospel, where it is said of the good Samaritan, that when he departed, he took out two pence, and gave them to the Host, and said unto him, take care of him, and what ever thou spendest more, when I come again I will repay thee. Just so me thinks our Saviour hast left us two Testaments, and whatsoever the Apostles, Doctors, and Fathers of the Church have added more, and we shall humbly observe, he when he comes again, of his great goodness will repay us. Now to sum up all, it is plain, by this that has been said, that some Traditions of the Church must have equal authority with Scripture, as the commands of a Prince have equal force and power upon Subjects, whether by word of mouth delivered, or by writing. So the word of God, written or delivered, is still the word of God, and of equal power. And if you say that the Apostolical Tradition cannot be the word of God, I ask you whether the other part of the Apostles, that have left us nothing in writing, were not as well inspired of the Holy Ghost as they that did: you cannot sure deny it, and they were too the greater part of the Twelve. Now the Church of Christ still retains many things of their Doctrine, thorgh we have none of their writing, and sure we are to give as much credit to those that writ not, as those that did. I ask you again, whether it be not a point of faith, that the whole Scripture taken together, of the Old and New Testament is the word of God? and again whether all that Scripture, especially in those things which concern Faith, and Salvation be not most clear from corruption? and again, that we have the true genuine, and legitimate sense of that Scripture, is a point of faith too. I believe you will not deny any one of these to be a point of your Faith: I am sure they are all of mine, so you must first acknowledge that I give as great an honour to Scripture as yourself; and than if we both admit those three positions, as principles of Faith, we must necessarily admit of Traditions; for we have no Authority but that to justify them, and if we do not admit those for principles, our Faith itself is wholly vain. Then besides these three principles of Faith, there are others also, which we have only by Tradition, as that the Symbol of our Faith, is Canonical and Apostolical. Then that Infants are to be baptised. Then that those who are baptised by Heretics, are not to be rebaptized. Then as is aforesaid, that the blessed Mother of God, always remained a Virgin. Then that in Baptism those words ought to be pronounced, I baptise thee in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, and that without them, there can be no valid Baptism. Then that there is a certain, and determinate number of Sacraments and what that number is. All these things, I say, are not clearly to be found in Scripture but we must be beholding to the Authority of Tradition, But last of all for Ecclesiastical Rites and Ceremonies, it is manifest that we can have no other authority but Tradition, and not Apostolical; for all those neither, but some of them only from the Primitive Fathers that succeeded the Apostles in the Government of Christ's Church, and that sure it security enough for the practice and persuasion of any Christian: for I have heard that a very ancient and most learned Father said, that it was a piece of most insolent madness, to dispute the doing of that, which the Church of Christ throughout the whole world has always frequented, and practised; so 〈◊〉 you to it. There were other wicked and idolatrous Kings, as Abaz, Manasses, Amon, and some others wicked, though not idolaters, but yet the use of the Divine Sacrifice and worship according to the Mosaical Law, does appear still to have remained in the Temple of Solomon, till the Babylonish captivity, as is evident by several places of Scripture. Then for the failing of the Synagogue in the time of Christ, which you allege, it is not to be supposed that they failed from the true faith, which was before professed, but she with her ceremonies and Sacrifices was turned out of doors, as was before typified in Abraham's bondwoman, it does not therefore follow that the Church, the true wife should be so too. Then the Synagogue was therefore turned away because it was neither perfect, nor sufficient to salvation, Heb. 7.19. for so St. Paul tells us that the Law brought nothing to perfection, and in that sense the ceremonies and Sacraments of the Synagogue, are called by the same Apostle, Gal. 4.9. weak and beggarly elements, but now the Church of Christ is perfect and sufficient to salvation, because its Sacraments which are instituted by Christ, carry with them a virtue of justification, and taking away of sins: the Sacrrments of the old Law, only promised a Saviour, but the Sacraments of the new give salvation. Again, the Synagogue contained only the shadow of future things as St. Paul speaks; Heb. 10.1. joh. 1.9. but the Church contains the light itself, which is Christ, as St. john assures us: now the shadow must necessarily fly before the light; the Synagogue therefore, with the Mosaical Sacrifices, aught to cease when the Church comes with Christ. Last of all, the Synagogue was instituted for servants, the Church for sons, now servants take wages of their masters for a time, and so are dismissed by their masters; but sons succeed in the perpetual inheritance, which the Apostles thus insinstates to the Galatians, Gast out the bondwoman and her son, Gal. 4.30. for the son of the bondwoman shall not be heir with the son of the free woman, and so enough of difference I conceive is showed, between the Synagogue, and the Church, to show you that the reason is not the same. To the second. I deny that there shall be an universal falling away of the faithful in the time of Antichrist, but of some only. And in that methinks you contradict yourself, for you say that Antichrist is already come, and yet you affirm that there are some faithful jest. Then it is a great dispute, as I have understood amongst the learned, whether the Apostle out of whom you take your proof, speaks there of a falling away from the faith; for many of the most learned are of opinion, that he only speaks of a falling away from the Roman Empire. But that euriosity I shall not further meddle withal, it being out of our road, and above our pitch. To the Third. In truth methinks it is a very sad course of arguing, that most of your Church are pleased to use, that is, if you can find any one Text that is never so obscure, if it can be fashioned at all for your turn, you will entirely insist upon it, though there be hundreds of clear Texts to the contrary. As for example, This Text you urge out of Daniel, is very dark, That he shall cause the Sacrifice and oblation to cease. I am sure these Texts are very clear, That the gates of hell shall not prevail against it; again, I am always with you to the end of the world; and again, I have prayed for thee, that thy faith fail not; and again, The Church is the pillar and foundation of truth: These Texts I say are clear and need no Interpreter, the other that you quote is so obscure, that the greatest learning in the world may be at a stand, to understand it. For most understand that place of the failing of the Synagogue, and the cessation of the Jewish Sacrifices, not at all of the Christian Church: And those that do interpret it of the Christian Church, make it to be the cessation of public worship only, not of the Christian faith. To the Fourth. I grant that the Church is frequently compared to the Moon, but never as to her failings, but in these respects following. First, as the Moon in the beginning of the month is very little, and so by little and little increaseth, till she grow full andperfect; so the Christian Church in the beginning of its rise, took up but very little room, afterward increased and speed itself by degrees that at last it should diffuse itself over the face of the whole world. Secondly, as the Moon receives corporeal light from the Sun, so the Church receives its light of faith and holiness, from the Sun of righteousness, that is Christ. Thirdly, as the Moon is subject to changes, so is the Church in this life, for sometimes she flourisheth in the splendour of peace, sometimes is oppressed with persecutions, but never totally fails, it may be clouded for a while, but never quite extinguished. You see then in what the similitude between the Moon, and the Church consists, and no similitude, as I am informed, is obliged to run upon four feet. The Church cannot at all be like the Moon in her failings, but more resembles the earth, as she is likewise called in Scripture for her firmness, stability & unmoveableness. Then why should you bring that similitude to the prejudices of the Church, when there are so many to the favour and honour of her throughout the sacred Scripture, where you may find that she is as frequently called the Sun as the Moon, an enclosed Garden, a Fountain, a Paradise, a fair Dove, the City of God, the Land of the living, the woman clothed with the Sun, the Queen in a vesture of gold, etc. and many more such honourable titles as those, you cannot but your own reading find out in Scripture, and those methinks, all dutiful children should be more ready to give to their Mother, then to throw dirt in her face, or to asperse her with calumnies: as for the honesty & goodness of Wicklif, Huss, Luther, and Calvin, I will not meddle, but only ask you, who were the one or two honest and godly men, that in the ages before them, did ever so contradict the Church? if you know not any such, why do you so rashly affirm it? if you do, I should desire you to name them, and let us know whereabouts they lived. Howsoever by your argument you make the Church of Christ to be in a worse condition than the Synagogue of the Jews, Gal. 4.11. when we know the Church is our Mistress, and the Synagogue but a servant, but the Synagogue was never so deserted, that but two only were to be found in it. Nay in the time of Elias, Rom. 9.4. when it was thought to be most forsaken, yet there were found in it seven thousand; how can you possibly think the Church of Christ, should be ever left so desolate, as but two honest and godly men should be found in it, when we find it so clear said in the Prophecy of Isay, Isay 54.1. that the Church should be of a far larger extent, and more fruitful in its children, than ever the Synagogue was, so I pass to your last and grand concluding argument, which proves the Pope to be Antichrist, and then I hope I shall make an end with you. To your last argument, and that which you presume will conclude me, as you have laid it, I look upon it to be the weakest, and least signifycant, that you have alleged yet, for truly all those marks of Antichrist, that you produce upon the Pope, are mere trifles, and tricks of some of your Doctor's invention and truly would agree better in the application to themselves, than to his holiness, and how impossible it is, that they should be applicable to him, I'll pass through every particular. The first note that you give of Antichrist is, that he must fall away from the faith, now defending of purgatory, invocation of saints, and sacrifice of the Mass, cannot be called falling from the faith, because the most ancient fathers of the Church, have always been of that opinion: Your Doctors therefore are most manifestly fallen from the faith, that so expressly oppose those received Doctrines. The second mark you give of the Beast is that he shall sit in the Temple of God, and that you say the Pope does, as the head of the Church at Rome. Truly I do humbly conceive the case to be very different, between sitting in the Temple of God at Jerusalem, and sitting in the Church of Christ at Rome. Antichrist shall sit in the Temple of Jerusalem, and be adored of the Jews, the Pope sits in the Church of Christ at Rome, which all you have most unhappyly forsaken. The third mark you say is, that he shall show himself as God, and that the Pope plainly does you say, whilst he makes himself, the visible head of Christ's Church; but sure that is not all one, as to show himself as God. For Peter himself shown himself, as visible head, as we have proved already, but only Antichrist shall show himself as God. The fourth mark you make is, to exalt and oppose himself to and above all that is called God, and that you say the Pope does, when he exalts himself above all ecclesiastical and civil power: here give me leave to tell you that Moses was above all ecclesiastical, and civil power, and yet in that he was not exalted above God. Thus four marks of Antichrist you are pleased to take out of the Epistle of S. Paul to the Thessalonians, your fifth mark follows out of S. John, That he must deny Jesus Christ, which you say the Pope does by the corruption of the doctrine, that concerns the mediation of Christ, and introducing of new mediators, but that I have proved to be a corruption of yours, as you will see in my last paper. The sixth mark again, you make to be that he is a Liar and worker of falls miracles, so you say the Pope does at Loretto and other places. I wonder your understanding is so weak, as to think, that we think that the Pope does the Loretto miracles, but God. If you would prove any thing as to this point you should prove indeed, that the Pope does those very miracles, which the Scripture foretells that Antichrist shall do, Revel. 13.13.15. as that he should make fire come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men. Then that he should make the Image of a beast to speak etc. neither of these miracles, as ever I heard of, hath been attempted yet by any pope. The seventh and last mark you give, is that he causeth all both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive a mark etc. and the pope you say plainly does that, Revel. 16.13. & ch. 14.9. when he imposeth his Character upon some, and marks upon all, as by the Sacrament of confirmation, wherein he useth the unction of his Chrism to sign the foreheads etc. Here are clearly three conditions required by the text to the accomplishment of this mark: first that it should be common to all great and little, rich and poor, bond and free: Secondly, that he should impose his Character either in their foreheads or right hands: Thirdly, that none but he, that has his mark or character, shall be privileged to buy or sell. Now let any man show that those conditions do at all suit with the unction of Chrism and Isle rest fully satisfied, otherwise this argument which you so fond boast of, hath no force at all. So according to my former method, I shall be bold to reply, and to conclude your trouble and mina, upon this occasion. That the whole Church of Christ cannot possibly err, and that the Roman Catholic Church is that Church dispersed over all the world, I prove by most express Scripture thus. How that the Catholic Church is the body of Christ, the spouse of Christ, and the kingdom of heaven, is clear by many Scriptures, what probability then, nay what possibility is there that a thing so nearly related to him, and in so high, dear, and honourable relations, should be forsaken by him? First, That the Church is his body, is plain out of S. Paul, who tells us, Eph. 4. that God laid all things under his feet, and gave him to be head of the whole Church, which is his body, and the fullness of him who filleth all in all; wherefore walk worthy of the vocation, wherewith you are called, with all humility and meekness, with patience and long suffering, supporting one another in charity, Cap. 5. and careful to keep the unity of the spirit, in the bond of peace, there is one body and one spirit, even as ye are called in one hope of your calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of all, who is above all, and through you all, and in you all. Then to the Corinthians again, 1 Cor. 11. Rom: 12. and to the Romans, he says, ye are the body of Christ, and members one of another. Then that the Church is the Spouse of Christ, is plain out of other Texts, as first out of the Canticles, My Dove, Cantic. 6.9. my undefiled is but one, she is the only one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bore her, etc. And in another place, A garden enclosed is my Sister, my Spouse, Cant. 4.11. a spring shut up, a fountain sealed; and therefore S. John says of the new Jerusalem, which is the Church of Christ, Rev. 21.2. that he saw her coming down out of Heaven prepared as a Bride adorned for her Husband. And S. Paul more largely and plainly yet tells the Ephesians thus, Wives submit yourselves unto your Husbands, as unto the Lord, for the Husband is the head of the Wife, even as Christ is the head of the Church, Ephes. 5.22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27. and he is the Saviour of the body, therefore as the Church is subject unto Christ, so let the Wives be to their own Husbands in every thing, Husbands love your Wives, even as Christ also loved the Church, and gave himself for it, that he might sanctify and cleanse it with the washing of water by the word, that he might present it to himself a glorious Church, not having spot or wrinkle, or any such thing, but that it should be holy without blemish. Now examine, I pray you, what a pretty piece of Christianity it is, to impute impurity and error to it? Then that the Church is called the Kingdom of Heaven too, Mat. 20. is as plain by Scripture, first out of S. Mat. 22.2, 3. Matthews Gospel, For the Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a man that is an householder, which went out early in the morning to hire labourers into his vineyard. Then again, The Kingdom of Heaven is like unto a certain King, Mat. 25.1, 2, 3. which made a marriage for his Son, and sent forth his servants to call them that were bid to the medding, etc. Then again, The Kingdom of heaven shall be likened to ten Virgins, which took their lamps and went forth to meet the Bridegroom, and five of them were wise, and five were foolish, etc. Many more such Parables we find in the Gospels, but these three will be enough for our purpose, to draw from thence these three conclusions, first, if the Church be called the Kingdom of Heaven, how should error, falsity, and uncleaness reign in it so many hundred years, as you pretend it has? when the Kingdom of Heaven we know is the Kingdom of truth and purity. Secondly, It is plain that God goes out even until the evening to hire labourers whereas you do, and must maintain, that none were hired in the Church for above a thousand years, but your late upstart Doctors. Thirdly, It is plain that the Church here militant, is a collection of good and bad, for our Saviour says plainly, that of the Virgins, five were wise, and five foolish, and so fishes good and bad come to the net of the Church. I beseech you be pleased to make your own application. Over and above all this, I shall prove that the Church is not only incapable of error, because it is the Spouse of Christ, his body, and called the Kingdom of Heaven, but because she is governed by the perpetual presence, power and authority of the Holy Ghost, who is never to forsake her; Joh. 14. and first our Saviour promiseth that be will ask the Father, and he shall send another comforter, and so accordingly he did not long after in the same Gospel, Holy Father, Joh. 17.11. keep through thine own name those that thou hast given me, etc. and he explains himself in the same cha●ter, that he prays not for them only, meaning his Apostles, but for them who were afterwards to believe in him through their preaching, 1 Tim. 3.15. Does not S Paul tell his Disciple Timothy, how he is to behave himself in the house of God, which is the Church of God, the pillar & ground of truth; how then can it possibly err? Then S. John tells us, that our Saviour said that he had many things to say unto them, but that they could not bear them then, but when the spirit of truth should come, he should teach them all truth. Again the same S. John in his Epistle General tells us, 1 John 2.20. that we have an unction from the holy one, and that we know all things, and that we shall be always capable to distinguish a lie from truth, it must be therefore the unction of the holy Ghost, that always teacheth the Church. In fine, Matth. 28.20. S. Matthew makes them the concluding words of his Gospel, Go yet herefore & teach all Nations, etc. teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you, and lo I am with you always, even to the end of the world. Christ who is the way, the truth and the life, said this to his Disciples, it is plain therefore that this Church, which is the pillar and ground of truth, that has him for its leader, and the Holy Ghost for its teacher, can never err; how probable is it then, that it should be in an error for above a thousand years together, as you fond imagine? Then as the Church is but one, so it is necessary that unity should be in the Church, I prove out of the express words of S. 1 Cor. 1.10. Paul, Now I beseech you brethren, by the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye all speak the same thing. and that there he no divisions amongst you, but that ye be perfectly joined together in the same mind, and in the same judgement: and then in another place in the same Epistle says, 1 Cor. 14.33. that God is not the author of confusion, but of peace, as in all Churches of the Saints. What then will you say for yourselves, that have nothing but confusions amongst you? nay is it not more probable that God will rather inspire his own body, that is the concord and unity of his Church, than any private Doctors whatsoever, that teach a dissent from it? Nay, how much this unity of his Church is desired by God himself, is evident by what the same S. Paul writes to the Romans, Rom. 15.4, 5, 6. for whatsoever things are written aforetime, were written for our learning, that we through patience and comfort of the Scriptures, might have hope; Now the God of patience and consolation, grant you to be like minded one towards another; according to Christ Jesus, That ye may with one mind, and one mouth glorify God; even the father of our Lord Jesus Christ, etc. Again the same Apostle in the same Epistle lays an injunction upon the Romans, Rom. 12.16. whose faith he acknowledged before, was celebrated over the whole world, that they should be of the same mind, one towards another, not to mind high things, but condescend to men of low estate, and not to he wise in their own conceits, which all they are, and must be, that are out of the Church. Observe I pray you, the most pathetical exhortation of S. Paul to this purpose; Phil. 2.1, 2. If there be therefore any consolation in Christ, if any comfort of love, if any fellowship of the spirit, if any bowels of mercy, fulfil ye my joy, that ye be like minded, having the same love, being of one accord, of one wind. Nay, the breach of this peace, unity, and unanimity in God's Church, is most passionately, if it be lawful to say so, Jerem. 2.12, 13. bewailed by God himself, as the Prophet Jeremy expresseth it, nay, proposeth it as a matter of amazement to Heaven itself; be astonished, O ye Heavens, at this, and be horribly afraid, be ye very desolate, saith the Lord; foy my people have committed two evils, they have forsaken me, the fountain of living waters, and hewed them out cisterns, broken cisterns, that can hold no water. I pray you seriously examine with yourself, whether you do less, by leaving off the Church, the true and living fountain, and digging to yourselves broken cisterns, out of Wicklif, Huss, Luther, Calvin, etc. In vain sure hath God sent his Son, in vain the Holy Ghost, and yet more in vain hath he sent Apostles, Martyrs, Confessors, Doctors, in all ages, to perpetuate the truth of his Church to us, when a few of such precious persons as those of yours would have served the turn. Here are only two things now as I conceive, left to be cleared, the one is, that the Prelates, and principal Persons of Christ's Church assembled together, do make the representative body of the whole Church; the other is, that the Roman Catholic Church, is that universal Church, dispersed over the whole world. As to the first, it is sufficiently clear, by many such Scriptures as these, And he stood and blessed all the congregation of Israel, with a loud voice, etc. And the King and all Israel with him, offered Sacrifice before the Lord; now that this must be only meant of the body representative of Israel, is plain to sense, and particularly expressed in the beginning of the Chapter, Then Solomon assembled the Elders of Israel, and all the heads of the Tribes, the chief of the Fathers of the Children of Israel unto King Solomon in Jerusalem, 1 Kings 8.58.62.1. Thus it is plain, that the heads of the Church assembled, represent the body of the whole Church. Then as to the clearing of the next point I must tell you a great mistake amongst you, for you commonly speaking of the Church of Rome, take it only for the particular Church, which formerly was, and still is there, and so it is no more indeed than particular. But if you take it for the collection of all the faithful, who being dispersed over all the world, did in old days always adhere, and still do to the Bishop of Rome, so it is called Catholic or Universal, because diffused over the whole world, and it is called Roman from the most noble part, the head of it: and that she must be that Universal, and for ever visible Church of Christ, is plain, because she ever has been so. Let any man show, that any other Church has continued without error or interruption, and I will grant you all that you have said, and can more require of me. But if it be manifest, that no one Church of Christ in the world has continued without error, or interruption but only she, it must follow, that she is the only true Church of Christ. First the Jewish Church has been long since more then interrupted, quite abrogated. The Turkish or Mahometan has not always been. The Liaheran, Calvinian, and reformed Church of England, are all new; for they began with pretended reformation, which was made by them, and other particular Doctors, so must of necessity imply novelty: The Roman only has persevered in its own place, and ancient profession, so must be for ever the Mother and Mistress of our faith, as taught by the Spirit of God. If any of you will say, that your Church, or any other, their Church, has continued visible, and without error, I beg the favour only to know by what name she was called, and is, what parts of the world she has possessed, & does? what pastors and Bishops she has had, and still has? what Kings and Emperors have adhered to her, and still do? What Heretics have been condemned by her? What Universities she hath confirmed? What Churches and Monasteries built? If none of this can be shown, you must give me leave to persist in my former persuasion. Now though I conceive enough said in my answer before, as to the business of the pope's being Anti-christ, and that no obligation at all lies upon me, to prove a negative, yet because that is so great a gudgeon, and so vulgarly swallowed, I shall undertake the task a little further. That you may better understand this controversy concerning Anti-christ, you must know that the name of Anti-christ signifies, as I am informed, an enemy, or adversary to Christ, and that must be understood in a two fold manner: first generally for any enemy of Christ, as all Heretics are, and in that sense, we are to understand the Apostle who tells us, that even now there are many Antichrists, that is many Heretics, that think evilly, and maliciously of Christ, of whom it follows in the Text They went cut from us, but they are not of us: and again in another chapter of the same Epistle, And every spirit that confesseth not, 1 John 4.3. that Jesus Christ is come in the flesh, is not of God, and this is that spirit of Antichrist, whereof you have heard, that it should come, and even now already it is in the world. Secondly, it is taken specially, for the principal and grandest adversary of Christ, of whom all the rest before spoken of, are but forerunners: and of this grand Antichrist it is that S. Paul speaks, when he says, 2 Thess. 2, 3, 4. unless that man of sin be revealed, the son of perdition, who opposeth and exalteth himself above all that is called God, etc. Now first I shall prove, that this special Antichrist is not yet come at all: for it is agreed upon by all the learned, that the Antichrist shall not come, till after the overthrow, and desolation of the Roman Empire, and they ground themselves upon those express places in Daniel and the Revelations, Dan 2.7. Rev. 17. but now we know that the Roman Empire is not yet over thrown, therefore Antichrist cannot be yet come. Then we find in the Revelation, Rev. 11.3.6. I will give power unto my two witnesses, and they shall prophesy a thousand two hundred and threescore days, clothed in sackcloth, who shall have power to shut up heaven that it rain not in the days of their prophecy, and have power over waters to turn them into blood, etc. but these two witnesses are not yet come, fore Antichrist cannot yet be come himself. In the second place, I am to prove that the Pope is not Antichrist, and first, as before, Antichrist is not to come, but after the ruin of the Roman Empire, but the Pope came and still is, in the flourishing condition of the Roman Empire. Then Antichrist is to kill those two witnesses or Prophets, before spoken of, but this the Pope has not done, therefore. Then again, Antichrist is not to reign above three years and a half, Dan. 7.25. Re. 11.2. Rev. 5.3. as first the Prophet Daniel informs us, for a time, and times, and half a time, and in the Revelation it is said, for forty and two months in one place, and a thousand two hundred and threescore days in another place: but now the Pope has reigned for many ages. Again, the Antichrist is to be received by the Jews for their Messiah, John 7.43. 2 Thess. 10. as both S. John and S. Paul do testify, but the Pope I am sure never yet was, and very improbable it is, that he will ever be received by them for their Mossiah. Lastly, Antichrist is to make fire come down from Heaven, Rev. 13.13. as we see said in the Revelation, but none of this, has the Pope ever done, therefore he can never be thought to be Antichrist. Thus I have been bold to enlarge upon this particular, it being so vulgar an error, and the grand pretext of all the schism and heresy in the whole world, for to justify their defection from the Bishop of Rome: and indeed it was a very artificial trick of the Devil, and some of your Doctors, to fasten that dirt upon him, for who will be so mad to keep in communion with that man of sin, or the Antichrist, as most of your common people do most ignorantly presume him to be. And so I have done with all your Papers, but I hope I have not yet done with you, and presume that you will do me the honour very speedily to see me, that we may sit, and discourse something further upon these particulars, so the Lord give you understanding in all things, and enable me to prove more fully that I am Mistress N. your most faithful friend to serve you, M. Postscript. I pray you dear Mistress N. do me the favour to come and dine with me to morrow, and bring your Husband with you, so you shall more obbige your true friend M. So my Lady immediately closed up the Papers into one Packet, which she sealed, and presently sent it away by her servant. FINIS. THE DIPPER DROWNED, By endeavouring to wade in the unfathomable depths of SCRIPTURE Whilst the FEMALE DUELISTS Swim over him. 1 Cor. 27. God hath chosen the foolish things of the world to confound the wise. London, Printed by Peter Lillicrap, 1661. THE DIPPER DROWNED By endeavouring to wade in the unfathomed depths of Scripture, etc. Mistress N. had no sooner received these papers, but she went immediately with them to her husband the Doctor, imploring his advice, and assistance in the management of her further discourses with my Lady. The Doctor was at this time fallen into some indisposition of body, notwitnstanding he took the pains to look hastily over them, and then called his wife to him, and told her after this manner. Indeed sweetheart you have done very ill, to engage yourself in any business of this nature, without my knowledge and approbation, for what you have said, or done amiss in it, will be all imputed to me, though utterly ignorant, and innocent in the matter. And I must tell you, that you have ventured very boldly upon some main points, in which the most learned Doctors in the world, are yet to seek for satisfaction: and again give me leave to tell you, that you charge the Church of Rome with some things, that the Church of England does not; and so instead of healing up those breaches that are betwixt us, which should be all our endeavours to do, you have made the wounds wider, and differences greater, than indeed they are: and that truly is no small fault amongst us all. Then last of all, I fear you have hazarded much of that good opinion, that my Lady had of us, by entering the list with her upon this occasion, and that interest we had in her, was not a little considerable, being so excellent a neighbour, and especial a friend, as she has always been to us, so for my part I will have nothing to do in the business, but as you begun, you shall e'en make an end without me; but if you must needs be scribbling of controversy, and dabbling in divinity, I'll let you a task, and you may offer it to my Lady, if you please, and you are both, I perceive so good Scripturists, as that I may entrust you with it, it is a Paper that I received from Mr. R. the grand Patriarch of all the Anabaptist: in these parts, I will write a Letter to my Lady, to beg her excuse of me, for not waiting on her Ladyship at dinner. Mr is. N. not a little troubled to find no better acceptation of her zealous and painful endeavours, for my Lady's conversion, yet being unwilling to move her husband further at that time, took the Anabaptists paper from him so left him to his other studies, and she betook herself to her household occasions. The next morning early, she made herself ready to wait on my Lady, that she might have some private discourse with her Ladyship before dinner, so calling for her husband's letter, she took her walk, and coming to my Lady's house, she found her in her Kitchen, giving orders about dinner, and directing her servants, how to employ themselves, in the other affairs of her family. My Lady, begging pardon for her being surprised in that place, and posture, took Mrs. N. along with her to her chamber, where after she had delivered her husband's letter, they fell to read the Anabaptists paper, which when they had done, my Lady willingly undertook the task, to join with her in the answer, but what shall we do with the Latin that is here said my Lady? O for that Madam, replied Mrs. N. my husband will direct us, and has promised us all his assistance in this, though he does not approve our other disputes at all. Nay further he says, that when we have answered in our way, he will answer it too in his. Well then, replied my Lady, we will not trouble him till we have done, for I have a Kinsman in my house, that will be able to give us the English of his Latin: and so they fell to work immediately, and in two or three meetings more, they made an end of the business, in this manner as followeth. That to build or to use Steeple-houses (which you call Churches) in the service of God, is altogether unlawful, much more to beautify or adorn them, and to give privileges, lands or possessiens to them, or to the persons of your Churchmen, but that we are all Priests equally, and that your Canonical hours and prayers in those Churches, are utterly unlawful too; I prove by Scripture thus. 1. FIrst, we find that Stephen in the latter end of his Sermon, and in the words foregoing his death, expressly declares against the vanity of all Temples, or Churches, call them what you please, Acts 7.48, 49, 50. and quotes the Prophet for it. Howbeit the Most High dwelleth not in Temples made with hands, as saith the Prophet, Heaven is my Throne, and earth is my footstool, what house will ye build me, saith the Lord? or what is the place of my rest? hath not my hands made all these things, etc. From hence it is plain, that God delights not in any of your Steeple-houses. Again, we find Paul as plainly declaiming against the Idolatry of all Steeple-houses, assuring the Athenians, Acts 17.24, 25. that God that made the world and all things therein, seeing that he is Lord of Heaven and earth, dwelleth not in Temples made with hands, neither is he worshipped with men's hands, etc. Thus you see how in the beginning of Christianity, there were not only no steeple-houses, but by Scripture expressly forbidden that there should be any. 3. The Apostle Paul bids us again, 1 Tim. 2. to pray always in all places, holding up pure hands, what need have we more of Churches and steeolehouses to pray in, than in any other rooms? 4 Nay find we not our Saviour Jesus Christ himself prophesying the destruction of that Idol of the Jews their Temple to say, Matt 24.2. Verily Verily I say unto you there shall not be left here one stone upon another that shall not be thrown down, You may see then what pleasure he took in that place, which was the gloriousest of the whole world, what then will become of your pitiful Temples and steeple-houses? 5 Our Saviour yet more plainly shows his distaste of that kind of worship, when he tells the woman of Samaria in S. John's Gospel. John. 4.21.23. Women believe me, The hour cometh, when ye shall neither in this mountain nor yet at Jerusalem worship the Father etc. But the hour cometh, and now is when the true worshippers shall worship the Father in spirit and in truth, for the Father seeketh such to worship him. Here it is plain that he will not have his worship confined to places, no not to his holy Temple. 6 Then does not the Prophet Jeremy heat down the fond confidence that the Jews had in their Temple, when he bids them not to trust in lying words, saying, Jer. 4.7. The Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord, the Temple of the Lord; it is plain he says, that to call that the Temple of the Lord, was to give lying words. 7 Is not God in every place, and can there be any one place showed, where he is properly present, but he is always ready to hear sinners every where, as is frequently said in Scripture, what need have we then of your Churches, or steeple houses? Nay did not Jesus Christ live a poor life upon earth, and counsel poverty to all the followers of him, what need have we then of all those splendid sumptuous buildings, and stately ornaments and rich revenues of your Churches; which are but golden snares, for to entrap Christian souls, and our Saviour himself declared as aforesaid how much he abhorred, and did afterwards destroy the riches of Solomon's Temple, and a heathen Poet himself could say, at vos dicite Pontifices, in sacro quid facit aurum nempe quod & veneri donatae a virginie puppe. Yet you will persist in that foolish idolatry. 8 Then that your Churches, nor your Churhmen are to be privileged, or exempted from the jurisdiction of the secular power more than others, I prove by the express precept and precedent of our Saviour, who not only suffered himself to be judged by Pontius Pilate a mere lay man, John 19.11. and a heathen, but approved his power, granting expressly to him, that his power was given him from above, what reason then have any of your Churchmen to refugiate themselves under any pretended privilege, or be exempted from the secular power more than we? 9 Nay that all faithful Christians are Priests, and the Lords Anointed, and that by Baptism itself, 1. Pet. 2.5 9 is plain by many express Scriptures. And therefore Peter twice in one chapter inculcates it thus. first, ye also as lively stones are built up a spiritual house, an holy preisthood to offer up Spiritual Sacrifice, acceptable to God by Jesus Christ, and again, but ye are a chosen generation, a Royal Preisthood an holy nation, a peculiar people, that ye should show forth the praises of him, who hath called you out of darkness into his marvellous light? By which it is plain that all good Christians are as much priests as any of your black coats what soever, and this is likewise affirmed by John, who tells us that he loved us and washed us from our sins in his blood, and made us a Kingdom, and priests to God his Father. 1. Cor. 12.13. 10 Then the Apostle Paul tells us, that by one Spirit we are all baptised into one body, whether we be Jews or Gentiles, whether we be bond or free, and have been all made to drink into one spirit, it must follow therefore, Rem. 12 that we are equally Priests with any of you. Nay does not the same Apostle tell us yet more plainly, that we may do the office of Priests? which is to offer Sacrifice, when he chargeth us: to present our bodies a living Sacrifice, holy acceptable unto God, which is our reasonable service, and cannot we do that as well as you? 11. Last of all for your Canonical hours and formal prayers in your Churches, and by your pretended priests, I can for my part find as little aggreeable to Scripture, for first our Saviour to discountenance that kind of devotion, Matt. 7. tells us plainly, that not every one that says unto him Lord, Lord, shall enter into the Kingdom of heaven. Then if that kind of praying were of any use or force with God at all, than the Lord would be in a manner necessitated and constrained to his actions, by those prayers, but that we know he cannot be? Over and above, if such praying were prevalent with God, what need will there be of living in obedience to his Law, or of any good works at all? 12. Again our saviour Christ tells us, that our Father in heaven knows what is needful for us: Matt- 6. before we ask him, to what purpose therefore should we pray at all to him? only do his will and leave the rest to his own goodness. For so the Prophet Malachy assures us likewise, Malac. 3.13. that they are his own words, I am God and am not to be changed? You gain nothing therefore upon his decrees, by your prayers? 13. Then that our Saviour Christ was clearly against that kind of praying, appears by those words, Matt. 6. but when ye pray, use not vain repetitions, as the Heathens do, for they think that they shall be heard for their much speaking. Methinks you should therefore be ashamed of your many repetitions, and prayers, at your Canonical hours forsooth, when you know that there is no such thing as Canonical hours commanded, and besides that nothing should be read or said in any congregation, but what is for the edification of Christians souls. That it is not lawful to make war with Turks, Jews, Heathens or Heritcks, or to persecute them for any cause of conscience; nay, that Christians cannot justify to make war at all, or to bear any civil Magistracy whatsoever, or give or take any oaths, I prove by express Scripture thus. 1. First it is plain that to wage war against Turks, Jews, Heathen, or Heretics, is to resist the will of God, and his holy Spirit visiting our sins upon us, and punishing us by their hands, and our duty is to fight with prayers and tears, not with the the sword: As the Apostles did. 2. Then we find our Saviour Expressly forbid, all kind of resistance, and returns of injury for injury, when he says in Matthews gospel. Matt. 4.39. But I say unto you that ye resist not evil, but whosoever shall smite thee on the right cheek, turn to him the other also. 3. Nay more expressly yet, we have it in the same Gospel, Mat. 26.52. Then said Jesus unto him put up again thy sword into his place, for all they that take the sword shall perish by the sword and that this was so understood by the Apostles & primitive Christians, is plainly held forth by John in his Apockalyps where it is said, Rev. 13.10 he that leadeth into captivity, shall go into captivity, he that killeth with the sword, must be killed with the sword, here is the patience and the faith of the saints so that all war must be simply and of itself unlawful? 4. Then we find that persecution for cause of conscience, is utterly unlawful, for the Apostles and primitive Christians did never seek to princes, to give them any force to defend them against any persecutors whatsoever, nor do we find the Gospel, or Apostles teach us any thing but submission to our Sufferings, and that all the enemies of Christ are to be over come only with the sword of the spirit, which is the word of God. 5. The Lord in Matthews Gospel commands again expressly, that the Tares which the enemy sowed should not be pulled up, Matt. 13.30. but that both be let to grow together till the Harvest, that is the end of the world and then he will say to the Repers, gather ye together first the tares, and bind them in bundles to burn them, but gather the wheat into my barn. 1. Cor. 11.19. So that Heretics as well as Turks, Jews and Infidels, must be let alone to grow till the end of the world; and Paul plainly asserts the necessity of that too, when he says, for there must be also Heresies amongst you that they which are approved may be made manifest amongst you 6. Then that no civil magistracy is to be born amongst Christians, Luke. 22.25. is plain out of Luke's Gospel, when the Lord said unto them, the Kings of the earth exercise Lordship over them etc. but ye shall not be so. And this it plainly again confirmed by Paul to the Ephesians, Ephes. 4.5. where he tells us that there is but one Lord, one Faith, and one Baptism, if therefore there is to be but one Lord, who? who shall dare to make more? so that Kings, Princes and Magistrates, are all unlawful things. 7. Last of all, that it is absolutely unlawful for Christians to give or take Oaths, is most evident out of our Saviour's own words, recited at large in Matthews Gospel thus, Matt. 5.33, 34, 35, 36, 37. Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time, thou shalt not forswear thyself, but shalt perform unto the Lord thy Oaths. But I say unto you, swear not at all, neither by Heaven, for it God's Throne, nor by the earth, for it is his footstool, neither by Jerusalem, for it is the City of the great King, neither shalt thou swear by thy head, because thou canst not make one hair white or black, but let your communication be ye, ye, nay, nay, for whatsoever is more than these, cometh of evil. And is not all this as plainly repeated, Jam. 5.12. and confirmed by James in his Epistle General? where he says, But above all things, my Brethren, swear not, neither by Heaven, neither by the earth, neither by any other Oath, but let your yea be yea, and your nay, nay, lest you fall into condemnation: can any thing be made more plain by more express Scripture, than that all manner of swearing is utterly unlawful? Let them look to it therefore that make it their common practice to swear vainly, and they too, that under pretence of Law, dare to administer, or receive any Oath, how judicial soever: for it is a thing injurious to God, and Tyrannical over humane souls. That to Baptism Infants, is an injury to the Lord, and a most high abuse of Christian Souls, and that the doctrine of a Character impressed in the Soul by Baptism, is a mear Popish cheat and collusion, I prove by Scripture thus. First, It is plain that our Saviour in the Gospel bids his Disciples Go and teach all Nations, Mat. 28.19, 20. Baptising them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you. So Matthew renders his words, Mar. 16.15, 16. and Mark not much different, Go ye into all the world, and preach the Gospel to every creature, he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved, but he that believeth not shall be damned: by both which Gospels it is evident that they who would be baptised, ought first to be taught, and to believe, but Infants for their want of age, are neither capable of learning, not of faith, therefore they are not capable of Baptism. 2. We find it as plain likewise in the practice of the Apostles: first we see that Philip preached the Gospel a long while to the Ethiopian Eunuch bofore he was baptised, Acts 8.35, 36, 37. and when he was sufficiently instructed he said, here is water what does hinder me to be baptised, and Philip said, if thou believest with all thy heart, thou mayest, and he answered and said, I believe that Jesns Christ is the Son of God, and so he was baptised: thus you see how his express belief, was to go before his baptism: and so you may see how the Gospoll was preached to Cornelius by Peter, Acts 10. before he would baptise him, all which sufficiently argues the madness of your Pedobaptisme, wherein their is an utter incapacity of hearing, learning, or believing. 3. Over and above these express Scriptures, I'll give you one argument or two out of reason. First, you will grant that Reprobates are not to be baptised, but many Infants are Reprobates, therefore they are not to be baptised. 4. Then why did the Ancient Primitive Christians administer Baptism but at certain times, and that but thrice a year, if that Children were to be baptised so soon as they were born? 5. Lastly, The Scripture speaks not one word of baptising of Children, but one pitiful Pope Nicholas, as we find in History, begun that childish Baptism, and you have been all dotards, twice Children, and Pope-ridden ever since. 6. As for the Character that you pretend to in Baptism, it is altogether as sottish and vain a thing. A Character is a mere Popish fiction likewise, of which there is no mention at all made in Scripture, how can we then imagine it to be any thing more than a mere figment? especially since, if it could be true, it would would prove to be of such importance. 7. Then to conclude, I pray you consider a little impartially with yourself, what a horrid ridiculous doctrine it is, that water should be capable to impress such a seal upon a soul, as to stamp an indelible character, upon an immaterial thing, Spectatum admissi risum tene atis Amici. To what you object against our building, or using of of Churches, which you call Steoplehouses, in the service of God; adorning or giving lands and possessions to them, with privileges extraordinary, as also to our Churchmen, and against their Priesthood, Canonical hours, and prayers, we answer thus. To the first. We grant what you urge from S. Stephen, out of the Acts to be great truth, that the most high dweleth not in Temples made with hands etc. so as to be circumscribed by his essence, that is a mere pagan opinion, which it may be some foolish heathens, held of their Gods, for the wiser of them too, did not think it, but we are sure no Christian can, or ever could imagine it; but that he dwells not in his own houses dedicated to his service, by his more abundant grace is as sottish again to deny, and such a presence of God in his Church, we do only believe and maintain. This answer to your Argument we do assure you, we have learned from the wise King Solomon, 2 Chron. 6.18, 19, etc. when he was dedicating his Temple, when he said. But will God in very deed dwell with men on the earth? behold Heaven, and the Heaven of Heavens cannot contain thee how much less the house that I have built? Then follows the end and scope he had in the Building of that house, set out at large by him, but that his divine Majesty should please to have respect Unto the prayers of his Servants, etc. To the second. We answer in like manner, for both those texts are to the same tune perfectly, only you are pleased to name this last pitifully, for had you produced the whole out, the latter end of the Text would have answered the beginning: for we grant as aforesaid, that the Lord of heaven and earth dwelleth not in Temples made with hands, neither is worshipped with men's hands, as though he needed any thing; that you are, pleased I say, to leave out and we deny as well as you that God is so to be worshipped in our Churches, as if he stood in need of any help of ours. To the Third. What you urge again out of S. Paul, we grant, that we are to pray in all places, that is to be understood sure of all places of convenience, and what place can be more convenient than that which is dedicated, consecrated, and devoted to that, only use. Besides, S. Paul said that only to refute a vulgar error, which was, that it was not lawful to pray any where but in the Church. To the Fourth. We do not deny but the Temple of the Jews was so destroyed as our Saviour prophesied, and that so it ought to be, but that signifies nothing to our Churches; for as the Evangelical Law, succeeded the Jewish Law, so the Evangelical Priesthood succeeded the Jewish Priesthood, and our Churches, their Temple, and our unbloody Sacrifice, their bloody ones. To the fifth. We freely grant all that our Saviour says, as you urge, and that the true worshippers of him, shall do it in spirit and in truth, and we pray you, what hinders, but that we may do that in our Churches, and what is in the text more reougnant to our Churches, than to your woods, caves, and nasty conventicles? To the Sixth. The Prophet Jeremy whom you urge, does, most, expressly testify there that, the Temple was his most choice and beloved place, and adds those words, and I will dwell with you in that place. Notwithstanding he tells them in the Text you quote, that they are not to trust in that, for the sanctity of the Temple should not be a privilege to them, if they took wicked courses: This is all the scope of the Text and the context. To the Seventh. We grant it to be true, that God is in every place and hears sinners every where, does it therefore follow that we must have no Churches? This was Jaroboaws argument sure to the Israelites to keep them from their going up to the Temple at Jerusalem, when he told them how impertinent a piece of worship it was to take so long a journey, to so little purpose. You Anahaptists therefore may be very properly in this point called Jerohoites, going about to dissuade Christians from the use of Churches, as he did there the Israelites from their Temple; but because we perceive you are a Latinist we shall refet you to a learned Jew, to teach you a more Christian religion, Joseph. lib. 8. c. 12. and that is Josephus, who will tell you, Deus est ubique sed in uno loco vult orari, & honorari plusquam in alio. God is every where, but in one place he will be prayed to and honoured more than another, and what you seem to fling against tho riches & ornaments of our Churches is nothing to the purpose, supposing that we must have Churches at all, consecrated to divine use, sure common reason tells us, that they are not then to be like Burnes, nor our Priests to go like Beggars who serve in them: what you produce out of Persius, is little to the purpose, and you show yourself to be a true imitater of your grand Patriarch Martin Luther, who when he went about to prove that all things in this world came by a fatal, absolute, and inevitable necessity, produceth a Heathen Poet for his Authority, certa stant emnia lege, so when we bring clear Scriptures, and you are pleased to produce Ethnic Poets, we conceive ourselves not bound to answer to their authority, how valid soever you take it to be, for we know they knew not God, therefore they are not to be received by us, as any authority. But of this we shall tell you more hereafter. To the Eight. I say you have done very bravely, to make all Christian Princes and Magistrates, to be pilate's and Herodes, and whereas you say that Christ asserted pilate's power, the contrary is plain out of the Text, for our Saviour there clearly taxeth him of sin, when he says, that he that betrayed him into his hands, had the greater sin: Now that Pilate had a power given him from above, our Saviour says it, but in reference to God, that is permissively only, that God did permit to him only that power; for we know, it was his own will to offer himself, if the Text be understood, as in reference to Cesar, and the supreme civil power, you then gain nothing by your argument. To the Ninth. We will grant you that all saithful Christians are Priests, as they are also Kings, that is to be understood spiritually, because God reigneth in them by his free grace, and they by the unction of his holy spirit, do play the Kings over, and govern the powers and faculties of their souls and senses, hut yet besides those Kings, which may be beggars, there are, and were always Kings and external external Governors. In like manner all the faithful, who offer to God their faith and faithful prayers, etc. may be said to be spiritual Priests, and that Priesthood needs no ceremonies: but it is plain, that besides this internal Priesthood, there is and must be an external one in the Church; Take for example, every faithful Christian is the Temple of God, for so S. Paul says to the Corinthians; ye are the holy Temple of God, but yet besides those Temples there must be external Temples, affixed to certain places, in which do meet the Congregations of the faithful. Then as to the words of the Text you quote, you may as well infer out of another, that all the Jews were Priests too; Enod. 19.5, 6. for we find in Exodus, how God tells them, Now therefore, if ye will obey my vain indeed, and keep my Covenant; than ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all peoples, and ye shall be unto me a Kingdom of Priests, and a holy Nation, etc. This was said to all Israel, and yet you will not deny but there were particular Kings, and Priests besides In fine you know well enough the difference between a Priest of your making, and a Priest of Gods making, a Lay-Priest, and a Hierarchical one, but you are willing to let yourselves be cheated by that sophism of equivocation, that you may do again as Jeroboam did, set up your Lay-Priests to hinder people from going to Rome, as he did to hinder the Israelites from going to Jerusalem. So here again you are Jeroboites. To the Tenth. We say that you torment and turn that Text of the Apostle to the Corinthians to a most heretical sense, for though we are all one body in Christ, yet sure it is a most sottish inference to say that therefore we are all the hand, or that we are all the foot, when we know that there is and must be a difference, between the members themselves, wherefore the unity of the body, may consist with the difference of members. Then as to that other Text out of the Romans, we do acknowledge that all Christians, though merely Lay-mem may offer spiritual oblations, and so may be mystical Priests, erecting in their hearts an Altar of their affections to God, but it does not at follow from thence, that therefore there are not, nor aught to be external, and Hierarchical Priests. To the Eleventh. We say that our Saviour in that Gospel you urge, finds not fault with praying, but praying as the Hepocrites do, who with his words prays to God, not with his deeds, which kind of praying shuts the gates of the Kingdom of Heaven against them. Then as to a necessity which you say our prayers must impose upon God, we do absolutely deny any such thing, but yet we know that God is pleased to express himself, as if he were necessitated by the importunity of faithful prayers, as he said to Moses, let me alone that my fury may wax hot, as if he were hindered from his purpose, by Moses his prayers he requests him to let him alone. And as to your inference, that if prayers be prevalent with God, than good works an necessary we do absolutely deny it, for we are to do the one, and not toleave the other undone, for by fasting, and alms giving, etc. Prayers are carried up to Heaven, as with Angels wings. To the twelfth, To what you urge out of S. Matthew, and the Prophet Malachy, we acknowled that God foreknows our wants before we ask him, but yet we confess his power, in praying to him and beseech him as he is all powerful to help us, we ask therefore only that which God has ordered us to ask for, and has promised to give to our prayers, and God will be asked, before he gives, lest we should do that, which most in the world do, vilify his proffered graces. Neither is God to be thought to be changed by our prayers, that is in his essence, but the effects of things are many times changed by holy prayers, as that before by Moses. You mistake therefore if you think, that our prayers are ordained to change the divine disposition, but that we may obtain by our prayers, what his divine goodness had disposed for us, before the world was. To the thirteenth and last. We say that our Saviour forbids not much speaking in prayers simply, but as the heathen do, vain repetitions, and babbling in prayers is forbidden, not prolixity & to continue long in prayer, it is the superfluity of words that is offensive to God, therefore the old Father's prayers were very short, Luke. 22.1. Sam. 1. but frequent. Christ himself prayed long, and Amn prayed long, and multiplied prayers, Luke. 2.6 Nay our Saviour was a whole night in prayer, as the Scriptures testify. Then that Canonical hours are not commanded in holy writ I grant, but they are sufficiently insinuated, and the Church has always learned them from its holy Masters, the Apostles, and we ought to obey those that are set over us in the Lord, Than last of all, Heb. 11. what can be more edifying to Christians, than those collects of holy prayers and homilies made by the holy Fathers of the Church: the legands of the Saints, and agonies of those invincible martyrs who have sealed our Chrsstion faith with their blood, if they be well and faithfully written? So now give us leave to reply a little upon you. That it is lawful to build, use, and adorn Churches, and to give lands and possessions to them, and to the persons that Officiate in them, and that we are not all equally Priests, and that our Canonical hours and prayersure lawful, we prove by Scripture thus. First we find in Exodus that Jacob said surely the Lord was in this place, Exod. 28 16, 17. and I knew it not and again how dreadful is this place, this is no other but the houset of God, and the gate of heaven. Again in Deuteronomy we find thus, Deut. 46.2. Thou shalt therefore Sacrifice the passover, unto the Lord thy God, of thy flock and of thy herds in the place which the Lord thy God shall choose to place his name there. Therefore God appoints some places for his worship, and delights in them, more than in others. We find in the Chronicles that it was not permitted to David because he was a man of blood, 1 Chron. 17. and had made many wars, to build a house to the name of God. Heer it is to be observed that the Lord had a great care of the Reverence due to his house, when he would not suffer it to be built by a warrior or a man of blood, ibid. but by a king of peace, as Solomon was. Then in the same chapter; and else where God expresseth himself to have walked about in Tents, 2 Kin. 7. and Tabernacle, from place to place, observe, he that was every where, says, he was in the Tabernacle. 1 Kings. 6, 7, 8. etc. How often does the Almighty call Solomon's Temple his house to dwell in? what infinite care and vast expense was in the building, and not so much as the noise of a hammer to be heard about it all the while it was building, and you will pull down Temples, with noise of Drums and Trumpets. 1. Chron. 17. Then, that God is more propitiated, and hears our prayers sooner in a place hollowed to his name than in an other place, is as plain for it is said: That King David came and stood before the Lord, that is the Ark: by which it is plain, that God is more present in one place than in another. Daniel when he could not pray in the Temple, Dan. 6. being a captive in Babylon yet prayed thrice a day with his face towards the Temple in Jerusalem; Then the Prophet Isay tells us, that God says, Isay 36. my house shall be called by all people, the house of prayer, which our Saviour himself repeats & confirms, and adds upon the Jews, but ye have made it a den of Thiefs, Mat. 21. so many of your faction have made our Churches lately, worse than dens of Thiefs. It is said in the Acts, Acts 3. how Peter and John went up into the Temple to pray, at the ninth hour of prayer, observe how the Apostles would pray in the old Temple, when there was no Christian Church built. 1 Cor. 11. St. Paul rebukes the Corinthians for profaning of their Churches with eating and drinking, and may not we say to you, as the Apostles does to them, despise you not the Church of God, ibid. does not the same St. Paul require that women should hold their peaces in the Church out of reverence, 1 Cor. 14.25. and that an unlearned man coming into the Church should falldown upon his face, should worship God, etc. Now that the building of Churches is acceptable to God, is evident because it was practised in the Apostles time, Luke 7. and the Jews knew that it was acceptable to our Saviour, when they told him of the Centurion, that he loved their Nation and built them a Synagogue. Exod. 23.26.29.30.31.35. etc. Then how acceptable to God the adorning of Churches must be, I pray you look upon the sumptuous offerings that were made by the people in the old law towards the building of their Tabernacle, and the making of costly ornaments for their Priests, and so for their Temple afterwards, and I presume you will be satisfied. Nay not withstanding the Temple was so richly provided for by Solomon, Num 27.28, 29. Nehe 10.32. and in every thing most abounding yet Nehemiah tells us, that the Jews made ordinances to oblige, and charge themselves yearly, with the third part of a sheckel for the service of the house of their God, besides their freewill offerings which were unvalvable. And our Saviour discommends not the rich Temple then in his days, Luke 21. for takeing the poor widow's mite, Jos. 21. towards its encreas and ornament. As for the possessions of the Priests there was as great a care taken by God, Num. 25 as first we find that Joshuah divided cities amongst the Priests and levites as the Lord commanded by Moses. And again we find that the Priests and Levits, had the tithes The first borne the first fruits, Leu. 27. and great parts of the offerings and sacrifices, for their attendance on the Tabernacle, Num. 18. where they served day lie; and all this was by the express precept and ordinance of God, 2 Kings 12.4, 5. Then in the Kings we find, that Joash said to the Priests, all the money of the didicated things that is brought into the house of the Lord, even the money of every one that passeth the account is the money that every one set at: & all the money that cometh into any man's heart to bring into the house of the Lord, let the Priests take to them &c: 2 Chron. 31.4, 5.6, 7, 8, 9, etc. So Hezekiah commanded the people that dwelled in Jerusalem to give proportionably to the Priests and Levites, that they might be encouraged in the law of the Lord, and we find in the Text, that they of Judah and Jerusalem did bring in so abundantly, that new chambers and granaries were erected to receive their offerings. Luke 8.2.3. Jesus Christ himself we know carried always a treasurer or purse-bearer with him, that was Judas who was to receive and dispose of what was sent to him. And we find that divers did minister unto him of their substance, as Joan the wife of Chusa Herod's Steward, and divers others. S. Paul is so express in this point, that I wonder you, or any man can doubt not only that it is a good devotion, but a necessary duty, to contribute towards their Priests. For he saith, Who goeth to warfare any time at his own charges. 1 Cor 9.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14. Who planteth a vineyard and eateth not of the fruit thereof. Or who feedeth a flock, and eateth not of the milk, of the flock? say I these things as a man, or saith not the Law the same also. For it is written in the law of Moses, thou shalt not muzlle the mouth of the Ox that treadeth our the corn, doth God take care for Oxen? Or saith be altogether for our sakes, for our sakes no doubt this is written, that he that ploweth should plough in hope, and he that thresheth in hope should be partaker of his hope. If we have sown unto you spiritual things, is it a great thing if we shall reap your carnal things. Do you not know that they which minister about holy things, live of the things of the Temple, and they which wait at the altar, are partakers with the altar? Even so hath the Lord ordained, that they which preach the Gospel, 1 Tim 2. should live of the Gospel etc. Then the same Apostletells, Timothy that a Bishop must be blameless, the husband of one wife, vigialent, sober of good behaviour, given to hospitality, apt to teach etc. Now I would fain know how a Bishop can be hospitable, Acts. 4: 24.25. if he have not wherewithal. Then in the Acts, we find, how so many as were possessors of lands or houses sold them, and brought the prices of the things that were sold, and laid them down at the Apostles feet etc. By what is it most plain, that in the primitive Church, there were collections for the sustertation of the clergy in a plentiful manner, which failing, than benefices succeeded in their rooms. And to conclude all that we mean to say in this point, Luke. 10. our Saviour tells you, that the labourer is worthy of his hire. Mat. 27.25; 26. As to immunities due to their persons, we shall add only one word or two; our Saviour asks Peter, of whom do the Kings of the earth take tribute, of their own Children or of strangers, Peter saith unto him of straingers, Psal. 104 Jesus saith unto him, then are the Children free. The Psalmist in the person of God commands thus, not to touch his anointed nor do his Prophets any harm. And again the same King David says in another place, Who can stretch forth his hand against the Lords anointed and be guiltless? 1 Sam. 26.1. This was spoken truly of the unction of a King, but the same must follow upon the unction of a Priest. Mat. 19 Mar. 9 Mat. 21. Now that we are not all Priests equally is sufficiently proved in our paper concerning the Sacrament of holy orders, so shall not he make repetition. Then for our Canonical hours and prayers we are justified by Scriptures, Luke. 11. Matt. 6. Mat. 14. Mark. 6. Luk 5.16 Luke 9 Luke 22. Mat. 26. Mar. 14. Mat. 24. Mar. 13. Matt. 5. Luke. 18. Mat. 26. innumerable. First the Disciples said to Christ, Lord teach us to pray, and he said, when ye pray say our Father etc. and then sending away the multitude he went into a mountain alone for to pray; again, he withdrew himself into the wilderness and prayed; again, he went into a mountain to pray and he was all night in prayer to God, again he went up into a mountain to pray, and whilst he prayed his countenance was changed. Then again kneeling down he prayed saying, Father if it be thy will let this cup pass from me, and being in his agony he prayed long, So much for our Saviour's practice, as for his precept, observe first, Pray that your flight be not in the winter, nor on the sabbath day; again, watch and pray, for ye know not when the time will come, again, pray for those that persecute you etc. again pray always, and faint not; again, pray that ye enter not into temptation, than this sort of devils, is not to be cast out but with prayer and fasting and whatsoever thou shall ask in prayer believing ye shall receive. As for the Apostolical practice of this holy duty of prayer, every leaf is full of it, as first in the Acts, Acts 1.14. These all continued with one accord in prayer and supplication with the women and Mary the Mother of Jesus and with his brethren, Cap. 24. and again in the same chapter as they prayed, and said, thou Lord which knowest the hearts of all! men etc. Acts 4.31. Again, and when they had prayed the place was shaken where they assembled were together and they were all filled with the holy Ghost and they spoke the word of God with boldness; and again, Acts 10.31. Thy prayer is heard, and thine alms are had in remembrance in the sight of God. Acts 12.5. Cap. 12. Peter was kept in prison but prayer was wade without ceasing of the Church unto God for him and then when he was delivered he came to the house of Mary the mother of john whose Sir name was Mark where many were gathered together praying. Acts. 13.3. Acts 14.23. So again in the next chapter, and when they had fasted and prayed and laid their hands on them, they they sent them away, and again in the next chapter, and when they had ordained them elders in every Church and had prayed with fasting, they commended them to the Lord; on whom they believed. What therefore the Apostles so earnestly desired to know how to do, Christ himself so expressly taught and commanded, and perfectly practised in his own person to give us an example, his Disciples and all the primitive Christians so faithfully followed, shall we leave undone now, to satisfy your fanatical humours, will you see yet how the Apostles enjoin that duty, Now I beseech you brethren for the Lord jesus Christ's sake, Rom. 15 30. and for the love of the Spirit, that ye strive together with me, in your prayers to God for me. 2 Cor. 1.10.11. And again to the Corinthians, in whom we trust that he will yet deliver us, you also helping together by praying for us etc. again to the Philipians be careful for nothing, Phil. 4.6. but in every thing by prayer and supplication with thanksgiving, let your request be made known unto God. 1 Thes. 1.2. So to the Thessalonians, we give thanks to God always for you all, making mention always of you in our prayers remembering without ceasing etc. Clos. 4.2. So again to the Colossians, continue in prayer, and watch in the same with thanksgiving withal praying also for us that God would open to us a door of utterance, to speak the mystery of Christ etc. So again to the Thessalonians pray for us that the word of the Lord may have free course, and be glorified etc. 1 Thes. ●. 1. 2 Cor. 1● 1 Tim. 2.12. So again to the, Corinthians, we pray God that ye do no ill; but most expressly to Timothy, he says, I exhort therefore that first of all supplications, prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks, be made for all men, for king and all that are in Authority, that we may lead a quiet and a peaceable life in all godliness and honesty than adds a little after, I will therefore that men pray every where, lifting up holy hands without wrath and doubting. Acts 6. 4● Nay that this duty of prayer is the first and grand concernment of a Christian, see what is said in the persons of all the Apostles, but we will give ourselves continually unto prayer, and to the ministry of the word, it is very observable how all the Apostles preferred the duty of prayer before preaching itself. I have picked out these few texts, out of a thousand that might be produced, for as we said before, every leaf both in old and new Testament, is full hither of the precept or practice of this holy duty. And as for the set hours of praying, they are altogether as plainly prescribed to us in Scripture. Psalm. 118. Dan. 6.10. The Prophet David tells us, that he did it seven times a day, and Daniel we find did it three times a day, he went into his house, and his windows being open in his chamber, towards jerusalem, he kneeled upon his knees three times a day and prayed and gave thanks before his God, as he did afore time. Acts 3. 1● It is as clear likewise that it was the Apostles practice, Now Peter and john we ●t up together into the Temple at the hour of prayer being the ninth hour; Act. 10.9 and again, Peter went up upon the house to pray about the sixth hour. So of this we conceive enough said, and from your godly Church-work, we will pass to your goodly State work. To what you allege against the lawfulness of making war against Turks, Jews, or Heriticks, or persecution of any for conscience, and against making of war at all, or bearing of Civil Magistracy as Government, or giving or taking of Oaths; we answer thus. To the First. We say, that though God doth visit our sins upon us by the Turks, Jews, Heriticks, etc. yet we are not forbidden to make our own defences. Otherwise when he doth visit us by famine, pestilence, fire, or any other way, it would be unlawful to make any provision for ourselves, as to lay in any store against famine, any medicine against diseases, or to fly from the plague. But we know that God so visits us, as not to forsake us, Psal. 88 for so the Psalmist tells us, I will visit their iniquity with rods, and their sins with scourges, but I will not take my mercy quite away, etc. And as to our fight with prayers, we do confess it the duty of every good soldier to pray frequently, yet to take his Arms in hand likewise, with Joshua, Gedion, David, and the Maccabees, for we find that Moses prayed, but Joshuah fought against Amalech; Exo. 17. so let those that cannot sight pray, and those that fight pray too, so they may obtain doubtless the easier victory. To the Second. We grant that our Saviour commands us not to resist evil, but that command sure is not absolute, that we should never resist evil, but so often as we are struck on one side to offer the other also, for then neither Christ nor his Apostles had been so perfect: for Christ, when he was struck on one side before the Chief Priest, did not turn t'other, but rather resisted by a rebuke, If I have spoken well, Joh. 18.23. Acts 23.3. why strikest thou me? if evil bear witness of the evil? So S. Paul likewise, when by the command of the Chief Priest he was struck, replied, the Lord will smite thee, thou whited wall. So then those words of our Saviour must be understood, that we resist not evil, that is, that we seek not our own private revenge, but should be rather ready to offer up the other cheek, that is; to receive another injury, rather than to revenge any. Nor can it any way follow from hence, that war is unlawful, for the invader, as well as the defender, ought not to make war out of any private affection, to revenge, but out of a right intention for the public good, otherwise war must be unlawful indeed. To the Third. We find two parts of your argument to be answered to, the first is, Christ's command to Peter, Put up thy Sword again into his place, then give us leave to tell you, that Christ speaks not of war at all, but meekly reprehends Peter for these reasons: first, because all the Apostles had asked leave to strike and healone without staying for Christ's answer, drew his Sward, and wounded a servant of the High Priests. Secondly, because it was a rash and indiscrect thing, that one man should assault such a multitude of armed men. Thirdly because if it had been necessary, our Saviour could have commanded Angels to have so defended him, as he tells him, I can ask the Father, and he will send me more than twelve legions of Angels, etc. Fourthly, because he would not have his death hindered, as he said, The Cup which the Father hath given me wilt thou not that I drink? All this hinders not, but that war may notwithstanding be lawful, if the just conditions of war be observed. The second part of your argument consists in those words, both out of the Gospel and Apostle, he that killeth with the Sword, must perish or be killed with the Sword, which cannot be understood simply to be true, for we know the contrary, and that many bloody men die in their beds; but both our Saviour and the Apostle, allege an old Law out of the Text, whosoever shall shed man's blood, his blood shall be also shed, Gen. 9.6. Leviticus 24.17. and whosoever shall strike a man so as he dieth, let him die the death: Now that murderers are to die by the law, hinders nothing but war may be lawful: for otherwise it must have been unlawful under the old Testament, for then the Law was made against Homicides. Now the difference between homicide, and a lawful war, if you know not, we will tell you, the one is committed against the public laws of God and man, as well against common justice, as the Decalogue, it must be therefore unlawful. The other is undertaken for the defence of public justice, and to keep off, or repay a public injury, and that sure by all laws of God and nature, must be lawful. To the Fourth. I would fain know of you, what Prince or Emperor did then believe in Christ, whose aid the Apostles might have implored against Heretics, it was not that the Heretics than did not deserve it, but because the swords of the Princes and Emperors than were shut up in Pagan sheaths, but when they came to serve the Gospel under Constantine, than the Christians besought them upon all such occasions; and to what you say, that Heretics are to be conquered with the sword of the spirit, that is, 1 Pet. 3. the word of God, it is true that S. Peter teacheth us to be ready to give an account to every one that asks it, of the faith that is in us, and yet S. Paul adviseth us, Tit. 3.10, 11. to reject a Heritick after the first and second admonition, and gives the reason, knowing that he is subverted, and sinneth, being condemned of himself. We beseech you therefore look to yourself, and all your party, that you do not dispute out of Scriptures, against known faith. To the Fifth. It is plain, that our Saviour only would not that one Tares should be pulled up, to endanger the Wheat, for so he explains himself after, Mat. 18. lest whilst ye pull up the Tares, ye pull up the Wheat also. We grant also, that heresies must be, but yet there is a woe pronounced to him, by whom they are, and that must too, implies no absolute necessity, but a conditional one, as they are foreknown to God, so must be: or else a necessity of the end, which the Apostle implies, that they who are approved may be made manifest: this proves nothing against the punishing of a notorious Heritick. To the Sixth. We answer, that when our Saviour said, but ye shall not be so, he did not forbid civil Magistracy, but only instructed his Apostles, that they being to be the future Pastors of souls should not meddle with secular businesses, nor dominear after the manner of secular Lords, but rather that they should attend their own charges, and become patterns of humility to all; and so in like manner when the Apostle tells us, that there is but one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, he excludes not Kings and Princes, or other secular Lords, Rom. 13.6. but only a plurality of Gods, for there is but one God, who is King of Kings, and Lord of Lords, whose Ministers all other Kings and Lords are. To the Seventh. We say that in those Texts you urge, the use of swearing is not forbidden, but the abuse of it: and that consists plainly in swearing vainly, and in business of no moment, and in calling God to witness, a thing without evident necessity, which is against the reverence that is due to God, this abuse only Christ forbids in these words, but I say unto you, swear not at all, that is, Exod. 20.7. Deut. 10. without necessity ye shall not swear at all, and this is explained in other Texts. Thou shalt not take the name of the Lord thy God in vain; & again, thou shalt not mention the name of God lightly, or to no purpose, now by these two words in vain, and lightly, or to no purpose, it is plain, that it is only forbid so to do rashly, vainly, or without necessity. Now give us leave to reply. That it is lawful to make war against Turks, Jews, or Heriticks, upon a reasonable and lawful occasion, or to punish them, and that Christians may make war, and bear Civil Magistracy, yea, give and take Oaths, We prove by Scripture thus. First, As to the matter of war, it is plain, that when the Soldiers came to St. John Baptist, and asked him what they should do, Luke 3.14. he answered them, do violence to no man, neither accuse any falsely, and be content with your wages; here it is plain, he forbidden them not their trade, which was to go to war, but taught them how to do it honestly. S. Paul tells the Romans, Rom. 13. that Kings and Supreme powers carry not the sword in vain. The Children of Israel we know got the possession of the Land of Promise by an open war, of Gods own appointment, as is abundantly to be seen in the Books of Joshuah, Judges, and Kings. Nay the Lord commanded them to have a continual war against Infidels, for so we find in the Book of Judges. Now these Nations the Lord left, to prove Israel by them, even as many of Israel as had not known all the wars of Canaan, Judg. 3.1, 2. only that the generation of the Children of Israel might know, to teach them war, at the least such as before knew nothing thereof. Observe, I pray you the great care the Almighty took, to teach the Children of Israel the art of war. Observe again, the strict command that Samuel, by God's command, giveth to Saul: Now go and smite Amaleek, 1 Sam. 15.3. and utterly destroy all they have, and spare them not, but slay both man and woman, infant and suckling, ox and sheep, camel and ass. This was you'll say a severe command and commission for war. Indeed the whole Old Testament is so full of instances, how the Jews by the command and assistance of God, did not only resist Infidels, but invade them, as in Abraham, Mases, Joshuah, etc. that it would be us endless as needless to make a recital of them: Jer. 48. Nay, we find high words in Prophet Jeremy, cursed be he that refrains his sword from blood; and to sum up all this, that the trade of war is and must be lawful, is plain, that God himself does own it, as to be the Patron and defender of it, and calls himself therefore the Lord of Hosts, and when the Pharisees asked our Saviour whether it was lawful to pay tribute to Cesar, which was for to pay soldiers wages, he answered them, give to Cesar the things which are Caesar's. In the next place, we prove that it is lawful to punish Heretics, now the first punishment that is spoken of in Scripture, is excommunication, and that is plain out of St. Matthew, Mat. 18. If he bear not the Church, let him be unto thee as a Heathen. and a Publican, that is, let him be separated from the Church by excommunication; so in the place before quoted out of S. Paul to Titus, Tit. 3. 2 Thess. 3 2 Joh. 2. so to the Thessalonians, so S. John, which for brevity sake I forbear to recite. The next punishment to be inflicted upon Heretics as enemies to God is death, and first it is plain out of the Old Testament, Deut. 13.5. And that Prophet, or that dreamer of dreams, shall be put to death, because he hath spoken to turn you away from the Lord your God, etc. Then again in the next chapter it is said, That he that shall grow proud, Deut. 14. and refuse to obey the commands of the Priest, who at that time ministers to the Lord, he was to die the death by sentence of the Judge, that the evil might be taken from Isaael. The reason of this Law holds still, that the evil may be taken out of the Church. And again, in the same Book it is expressly said, that the Prophet who shall arrogantly dare to deliver in God's name, Deut. 18. what he had not commanded him to say, or anything else in the name of any other Gods, Levit. 24. should be put to death. Then Blasphemers were to be led out of the Tents, 1 Kings 18. and stoned to death, and why not Heritics? so we find Elias the Prophet of the Lord, killed the Prophets of Baal. Then as to the New Testament, we find our Saviour calls false Prophets or Heriticks Wolves in Sheep's clothing, Matt. 7. but within were ravenous Wolves now such aught to be killed if the safety of the flock cannot otherwise consist. Acts 20. So S. Paul says, that he knew that ravenous Wolves would enter, not sparing the flock, such therefore aught to be put to death. If Jesus Christ whipped the money-changers out of the Temple, John 2. what should he do if he were in the earth, to the Heriticks that are in his Church? Ananias and Saphira, in the beginning of Christianity, Acts 5. for a little diffembling in matter of money, were put to death, how ought they to be used then that make it their business to cousin and cheat Christians of their souls, nay to defraud God of them. Last of all St. Paul chargeth the Galatians, Galat. 4. 2 Cor. 10. and Corinthians too, to be in readiness to prosecute and punish all disobedience, and in another place speaks it out plainly, Galat. 5. I would they were even cut off that trouble you; so enough we conceive said as to this. Then that it is lawful to bear civil magistracy, is first plain out of our Saviour's words, Matt 22.21. render to Cesar the things which are Caesar's, and to God the things which are Gods, by those words he does sufficiently justify all civil Authority. But S. Rom. 13.1.2.3.4. etc. Paul in that whole chapter to the Romans most expressly asserts it, Let every soul be subject unto the higher powers, for there is no power but of God, the powers that be are ordained by God, whosoever therefore resisteth the power, resisteth the ordinance of God, and after that again he says, the Magistrate beareth not the sword in vain, for he is the minnister of God, a revenger unto wrath unto him that does evil etc. Again to Timothy he saith, 1 Tim. 2.1. I exhort therefore, that first of all supplications; prayers, intercessions, and giving of thanks be made for all men: For Kings and all in Authority etc. Tit. 3.1. 1 Pet. 2 27. Yet again to Titus he saith, put them in mind; to be subject to principalities and powers to obey rulers etc. and St. Peter commands us expressly to fear God and honer the Kings. Now last of all that a lawful oath may be lawfully taken and given, is plain by Apostolical practice, for we find that S. Paul did very frequently swear, which he should never have done, Rom. 1.19. 2 Cor. 1.23. Phil. 1.8. 1 Tim. 5.21. if swearing had been absolutely forbidden 〈◊〉 our Saviour, as you pretend it was. First to the Romans he says, God is my witness Then to the Corinthians he says I call God for a record upon my soul, Then to the Philipians again God is my witness, or God is my Record, how greatly I long after you all, in the bowels of Jesus Christ; & then again to Timothy, I charge thee before God and the Lord Jesus Christ and all the elect Angels, etc. and to close up all this pitiful controversy, Heb. 6.26. the same St. Paul affirms in his Epistle to the Hebrews, that every controversy ought to be ended by an Oath: and accordingly this practice has obtained all over Christendom, and ever since the beginning of Christianity, that in all judgements and Tribunals, when a man cannot clear his innocency by witness, he ought to attest it by his Oath, and then the controversy ceaseth. By all these Texts that we have produced out of Scripture, it is most plain to any reasonable man, that it is only, as we said before in our answers to your arguments, that the abuse of Oaths is forbidden, not the use of them. To what you allege against the Baptism of infants, and the character impressed upon the souls of Christians by Baptism, we answer thus. To the first. It is plain that in both those gospels, both of St. Mathewe and St. Marked, our Savivor only speaks of those that are grown, and for that you urge, that to believe and be baptised is 〈◊〉 enough for our Saviour requires that the person before baptism should be taught, & made to keep the commandments of God; we answer again that Children are taught and believe, and keep the commandments of God, by others, that is their God Fathers and God Mothers, as they did contract the sin by others, which in baptism is forgiven in the same manner; the Church lends her motherly mouth, to promise for the teaching and nursing of these little ones, which cannot confess with their own mouths the Lord Jesus, nor can believe in their own hearts to Salvation, as the Apostle expresseth it. And if they may be called faithful, because they profess the faith, by the mouths of those that hold them and answer for them, why may they not also be reputed penitents, when by their mouths likewise that hold them, they do renounce the world, and the Devil. Now the reason of all this is plain to sense, for the Spiritual regeneration, holds great proportion, with the carnal generation, especially in this, for as children in their mother's wombs, Rom. 10.9. do not take nourishment themselves, by themselves, but are sustained by the nourishment of their mothers. So children not having yet the use of reason, being as it where in the womb of the Church, do not by themselves, but by the Church's action, receive Salvation, and so the faith of others, that is of the Church, their Parents, and God Fathers offering them up to Baptism, is sufficient for their Salvation, as the faith of those which offered the man sick of the palsy to our Saviour's cure, was the means of his recovery, Matt. 8. Matt. 9 Mat. 15. and the forgiveness of his sins for our Saviour seeing their faith, said, Son thy sins are forgiven thee. So the faith of the Centurion obtained health for his son, and the faith of the Caananitish woman obtained for her daughter the dispossession of the Devil. To the second. We say that what you urge of Philip and Cornelius makes nothing to our purpose for they were grown men, so ought to be taught and have the Gospel preached to them. To the Third. To your grand argument out of reason, we answer & return it thus upon you. Reprobates are not to be baptised, but many grown men are reprobates, therefore all grown men are not to be baptised. It is altogether So as strong against, you as against us. To the fourth. To what you so learnedly urge out of antiquity that the ancient primitive Christians did administer baptism but thrice a year, therefore children so soon as they were born were not to be baptised. We will grant you more than that, for it was administered but twice a year, and that was in the time of Easter and Whit-suntide, but that was the solemn baptism for those that were grown, & taught by a long course of Catechising. & in that the primitive Church, did rightly observe the order that was prescribed by our Saviour Jesus Christ, which was this, first to instruct them that were to be baptised, in the faith, Secondly to teach them to keep the commandment of God. 3ly. To baptise them, but this order we say was only to be observed with those that were grown and capable of such instruction, and in this we conceive by all your main mistakes. To the Fifth. That there is not a word in Scripture concerning the baptism of infants, we utterly do deny, and shall anon prove to the contrary, as also that it was the invention of Pope Nicholas is altogether as false, but as bad antiquaries as we are, we will prove it to have been a constant practice in the Church in S. Ieroms, S. Augustins and S. Cyprians time, that were before Pope Nicholas, four hundred, and Six hundred years, To the Sixth We answer as for the character imprinted on the soul by baptism that gives you so much offence, it is no feigned thing by the Fathers as you pretend, but those men of God have always so understood it, by the instruction of the Holy Ghost, and out of the letter of Scripture, as we shall show you anon more largely. To the Seventh. We say that by your favour, it is no such ridiculous thing, that water by the assistance of divine grace should make such a character or impression on the soul. It is not we say water, but God that makes such an impression by the means of baptismal water, his divine omnipotency assisting that Sacrament: and in this point Christians have a privilege over the Jews, for we have the mark and impression of the spirit on our souls, but they had it only in the flesh of their bodies, so give us leave to reply again, and we shall conclude. That the Baptism of Infants is lawful, and by it there is a character impressed upon Christian souls; we prove by Scripture thus. First, we find expressly in Genesis that Children are capable of the Covenant of Grace, for the Lord says there, This is my Covenant, which ye shall keep between me and you, and thy seed after thee, every manchild amongst you shall he circumcised, Gen. 17.10.14. etc. And then afterwards it is said, and the uncircumcised manchild, whose flesh of his foreskin is not circumcised, that soul shall be cut off from his people, he has broken my Covenant, etc. If Children are capable of breaking the Covenant, than they are also of keeping it, and Baptism is the same in the Church, that Circumcision was in the Synagogue, for as by Circumcision the Jewish Infants were included in the divine Covenant, so Christian Infants sure are not to be excluded from the Covenant of Grace, wherefore Infants are to be baptised, and those that are not so, are in danger of damnation. All this is plainly made good by our blessed Saviour in the Gospels, where we find, that they brought young Children to him, that he should touch them, but his Disciples rebuked them that brought them, but when Jesus saw it he was much displeased, and said to them, Mar. 10.13, 14.16. Suffer little Children to come unto me, and forbidden them not, for of such is the Kingdom of God, and he took them in his arms, put his hands upon them and blessed them, etc. How can your Sect therefore justify to hinder little Children to come unto Christ? Our Saviour again in St. Matthews Gospel, commands his Apostles to baptise all Nations, Mat. 28.19. you must therefore grant Children to be included as a part of those Nations. St. 1 Cor. 11.1, 2. Paul plainly requires the Corinthians not to be ignorant of this, and tells them, how that all our Fathers were under the Cloud, and all passed through the Sea, and were all baptised unto Moses in the Cloud, and in the Sea. Now it is certain that the Infants were as well in the cloud, and in the Sea, as their Fathers were, and were so also figuratively baptised Again S. Heb. 6.4.6 Paul. has a remarkable passage in his Epistle to the Hebrews, which is this, For it is impossible for those who were once enlightened, and have tasted of the heavenly gift, and were made partakers of the holy Ghost etc. If they shall fall away to renew them unto repentance. This must be understood of the renewing by baptism, which cannot be reiterated; not of repentance, which we know may be, though you, and some other Heretics deny it, and from thence infer a renovation of Baptism. Again to the Romans, for if through the offence of one many be dead, Rom. 5.15, 16, 17, 18, 19 much more by the grace of God and the gift by grace, which is by on man Jesus Christ hath abounded unto many, and a little after says, as by one man's offence death reigned, by one, much more shall life by one Jesus Christ, and again as by one man's disobedience many were made sinners, So by the obedience of one, shall many be made righteous, from hence we infer, that as both men and childerens were capable of death by Adam's fall, so both men and children are capable of a regeneration by Christ. 1 Cor. 15.20. Rom. 6. This the Apostle confirms again to the Corinthians, when he tells them, for as in Adam all dye (that is children as well as men) even so in Christ shall all be made alive (that is children too as well as men) and that is by baptism, by which we are all incorporated into Christ as the same Apostle says in another place. Then we find that the Apostles did usually baptise whole families and households, Ags 16.14. as in the Acts Lydia was baptised and her household, and St. Paul says, he baptised the household of Stephanus etc. 1 Cor. 1.16. now in those households there were undoubtedly children too, and this has been always so universally practised in the Church, that no sober Christians can doubt the truth of it. And if there be yet any room for a doubt, be pleased to take this argument along with you. Whoever are capable of justifying grace may by Sanctifying grace be freed from original Sin, and so by consequence must be capable of the remedy of original sin, and that is biptisme: b●t infants are capable of justifying grace, as is plain in the example of S. John Baptist, of whom it is said that he was sanctified & filled with the holy Ghost from his mother's womb. Therefore sure children must be thought capable of the remedy against original sin, and that is baptism. So now I shall proceed to prove some thing of the character imprinted on our souls by Baptism, which it seems gives your party somuch scandal. Now that this character of ours is plainly prefigured and spoken of in the old Testament, as first in Exodus, Exod. 12 7. where we find that the blood of the Lamb, was to be sprinkled on the two side-posts, and on the uper dore-posts of the houses, where the passover was to be eaten that so the destroying Angel might pass them by. So Christ in Baptism, by the merit of his blood, does sign the side posts, and uper door posts of our souls, that they may be preserved from the malice of the devil. Again, we find that this Christian character of ours, was perfectly prefigured in the mark which Ezekiel speaks of, Ez. 9.4. by God's command, v. 6. And the Lord said unto him, go through the midst of Jerusalem, and set T. a mark upon the foreheads of the men that sigh, & that cry for all the abomination, that be done in the midst thereof, & a little after, when the Lord commanded to slay utterly both old & young, both maids & little children, but charged them not to come near any one upon whom was the mark, you may observe by the way, that the mark was to be set upon young as well as old & little children too, to be preserved from the hands of the destroyer, & that mark T then spoken of, is presumed by all the learned, to be the Type of our character in Baptism. Then this mark is most clearly prophesied of, & expressed by the Prophet Isay 66.18, 19 where speaking of the conversion of the Gentiles, & the future glory & sanctity of the Christian Church, he saith, It shall come that I will gather all nations & tongues, & they shall come & see my glory, & I will set a sign among them, & I will send those that escape of them unto the Nations to Tarshith, Pull, & Lud, that draw the bow, to Tubal, & Javan, & the Isles afar off, that have not heard my fame, neither have seen my glory, & they shall declare my glory among the Gentles. Hear the Prophet plainly forsees & prophesies the sending of the Apostles & Disciples into Africa & Jndia, as well as Europe and that this sign or character which we treat of, shall be established amongst all Christians: But now the new Testament is so plain & express in this point that we admire how any knowing Christian can dispute it. First St. Paul says to the Ephesians. 1.13 14. in whom also after that ye believed, ye were sealed with the holy Spirit of promise, which is the earnest of our inheritance etc. by which text it is evident that the faithful in the regeneration of Baptism are signed, sealed, and marked by the holy Ghost, that the sheep of Jesus Christ may be known and distinguished from others. Again the same Apostle repeats in the same Epistle Ephes. 4.30 Grieve not the holy Spirit of God whereby ye are sealed unto the day of redemption, that sealing of the holy Ghost is the only character that we speak of, and which is seems, gives you so much scandal St. john. in like manner is very large in his discourse upon this sealing of a Christian, in his whose book of his Revelation 7.2 3. but particularly in one place produceth, an Angel ascending out of the East and having the seal of the living God, crying with a loud voice to the four Angels, to whom it was given to hurt the earth and the Sea, and saying hurt not the earth neither Sea, nor the treas, till we have sealed the servants of our God in their foreheads, what is that seal I pray but our most sacred Christian Character, which we receive in Baptism? Thus we weak women have been bold, M. R. to show you some of our little skill in Scripture, by offering to your serious consideration these sew Texts. not doubting but your better Bible abilities, will soon furnish you with more. If your own obstanency of Spirit, which you call Text-fastness, will permi● to you a right understanding For it is impossible, that any one who keeps so contant a reading and conversation in Scripture, as most of you do, should not be satisfied in what is there declared against all sorts of such Fanatic Spirits, unless they be resolved, as (it is to be feared) most of you are, to prejudicated, nay to violate the sense of the holy Spirit itself. You know none are so blind, as they that are so wilfully, nor so ignorant as they that will not understand, from which perversity, if not reprobation of sense we do humbly pray Almighty God to deliver you, and all other miss Souls of mistaking Christians, and give you all that humility and resignation of Spirit, as is requifit for all those that will grow in grace, and in the knowledge of Jesus Christ and his holy word. So fa●e you well, and believe that we are. M. R. Your friends in Christ. M. N. FINIS.