That the very body of Christ is neither in, or under the Eucharist or Sacrament of the Lords Supper, is apparant by these few texts taken out of, and reasons deduced from Scripture.

1 Our Saviour Christ himself saith, Matth. 29. [Page 8] 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.

2 He saith again,John 6. It is the Spirit that quickneth, 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?

3 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 then 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, &c. Now if he be corporeally in heaven, how shall he be upon the Altar, for the same body cannot possibly be in two places.

4 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 Priests 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.

5 We do finde all the holy Evangelists calling it bread, Gospels Acts 2.41. 1 Cor. 10. we finde in the Acts of the Apostles said, how they continued stedfastly in the Apostles doctrine, and fellowship, and in breaking of bread, &c. 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 [Page 9]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.

6 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.

1 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.

2 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.

3 It is confest by all of your own side,that the Primitive Christians, did always communicate under both kindes, 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 forbid them the use of the whole Eucharist?

4 You all confess that your Priests 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.

1 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 &c.

Then afterwards the Apostle, repeats, and refers thus, for by one offering be hath perfected for ever them that are sanctified.

2 Then again he speaks more plainly in ano­ther Chapter to this purpose, Heb. 7.26. & 27. For such an high Priest became us, &c. who needeth not dayly 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.

3 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 e­ternall redemption, 26. and towards the latter end of it expresly says, vers. 26. that now, once at the end of the world, hath he appeared, to put a­way sin, by the sacrifice of himself.

4 The Mass can be but a Testament at most,out of our Saviours 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 [Page 11]I would fain know how a sacrifice can be made out of a Testament.

5 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 Lattine, and not in English do offer abuse to God and his Church is proved thus.

1 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.

2 It is manifest likewise in the current of that Chapter, Vers. 19. that whatsoever is done in the Church publickly must be done to the under­standing of the people, but when your Mass is said in Lattine, it is impossible for all the Laity to understand your service.

3 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, [Page 12]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.

To the first.

To what you alledge 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 loe 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, inhumane conversation, for now he is not to be annointed washed, and dryed, as then, when he spoke those words, he was to be, by the blessed Mag­dalen.

To the second.

To what you alledge out of S. John, that the flesh profiteth nothing, I say first, that if the flesh [Page 13]profiteth us Catholicks nothing, I am sure, the bare bread must profit all Hereticks less. Nor indeed do I remember; that I ever heard of any Heretick 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 Logick, 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 oppinion, as to think upon our Saviours mystical words, that the very flesh of Christ should be visibly, under the species of flesh torn by mens teeth, that sottishness of theirs, our Saviour onely reproves.

To the third.

To what you alledge 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 lye 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 [Page 14]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 chuse 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 alledge out of our Saviours 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 Priests 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 [Page 15]Saviour dies no more) that his body shall be delivered, but they relate onely 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 Aarons 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 alledge, out of the 24th. of S. Matthew, I answer, that you are mistaken cleerly in the Text, for those words you make to be spoken of the body of Christ, are clearly meant of Christs kingdome of Faith. His di­vine Majesty cleerly foresaw, that the Hussits [Page 16]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 Hereticks are, our blessed Saviour gives us a fair warn­ing to beware, which good Mrs. N. God give you grace to do.

Thus I have bri [...]fly, and punctually as I could, answered your alligations out of the Scripture against the mystery of Christs Reall Presence in the Sacrament. Now give me leave to mind you of some places of Scripture, that do most expresly assert the Catholick doctrine against you.

First, the words of our Saviours 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 brake 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 yee all of it, for this is my bloud 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 brake 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 bloud of [Page 17]the new Testament, which is shed for many. Luke 22.19, 20. St. Luke thus, And he brake bread, and gave thanks, and brake 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 shew how our Saviour did en­deavour to explain this mysterie; and therefore is pleased expresly 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, &c.

The Gospels themselves are yet more clearly explicated by St. Paul, who tels 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 brake it, and said, Take eat, this is my body, which is broken for you; [Page 18]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, &c. 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, begins 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 expresly shew 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 mysterie; so we must think them stupid that will not, and worse then 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 [Page 19]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 sence 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 Arch-bishops, 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 alledge, see what God hath done in the like kinde; first in the beginning of the world, God form'd man of the dust of the earth, here God changed dust into flesh; in the same chapter we finde how God turn'd the rib of man into woman, a bone into flesh. Gen. 19. Exod. 4. Then Lots wife looking back is turn'd into a pillar of salts then Moses threw down his Rod, and it was turn'd into a Serpent.

Then I will strike the water of the River with my Rod, and it shall be turn'd into blood, Exod. 7. and divers more such mutations there are in the Old Testament. As for the New, we find that our Saviours first publick miracle was to turn water [Page 20]into wine; and this great omnipotency of his, the Devil full well knew, when he to tempt him said, If thou beest 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, whilest 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 rose 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 enjoyned you by the same Authority to believe, you are pleas'd to dispute. What is this, but to pick and choose what you please your selves to believe? and from be­ing such a chooser in matter of Faith, shall be ever a part of my Letany, Good Lord deliver me, for that, I am told, is to be a true He­retick.

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 shews 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 spake they were spi­rit, and they were life. From whence we may [Page 22]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. Johns 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 stedfastly 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 liquour. 2. It would be very difficult to finde a commo­dious Vessel, to contain a quantity equal to such a [Page 23]multitude, from whence it might be taken without danger of effusion. 3. The Sacrament under the species of Wine, could not easily be conserv'd for the use of the sick, because it would be apt to grow sower, 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 carry'd from place to place, as it should be to the sick. 5. It would happen sometimes that some high irreverencies would be offer'd 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 kindes; 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 beleeve, 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 bee shew'd, 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 [Page 24]could take away one species, it might as well take away both, I utterly deny; for the whole Christ being no lesse 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 ought to consecrate both species, because he is to perform the representation of our Lords 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 ought to beleeve, that they receive and drink the very blood of Christ by a spirituall 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 bee pleas'd 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 pleas'd to examine throughly the sixth Chapter of Saint Iohns 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 [Page 25]bread of God is he which cometh down from heaven and giveth life unto the world. Then again, Iesus 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 dye. And again, I am the living bread which came down from heaven, if any man eate 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 ple [...]s'd to mention nothing but Bread.

Secondly: St. Luke assures us, Luk. 24.30 that our Saviour gave the Sacrament himself but in one kinde to the two Disciples going to [...]: And it come to passe as he sate at meat with them, he t [...]k bread and blessed it, and brake, and gave to them, and in­mediately their eyes were opened, &c. And this was the onely 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 Ascention of Christ, that the people continued stedfastly 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, &c.

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 [Page 26]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 inform'd, 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 first.

Those Texts of the Apostle which you urge, are clear to another sence than what you propose: For you are to understand a twofold offering of Christ, yet both reall 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 sinnes of the whole world, and salvation of mankinde; and of that great offering the Apostle onely speaks there, shewing 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 sav [...]n. Now this grand oblation is re­presented [Page 27]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 receiv'd, lest the Church of Christ should remain depriv'd of the comfortable fruits of our Lords Passion. The other way of Oblation is cleerly Sacramental, and yet nevertheless real, by which Christ is daily of­fer'd in the Church, and receiv'd 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 Sonne 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 call'd 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 doe make daily by the com­mand of Christ himselfe, Luke 22. grounded upon those words, Do this in remembrance of me: For this word do cannot referre onely to a bare sumption, or taking of the Sacrament, as you would have it, [Page 28]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 deriv'd to us: So that the Mass is not only a representation of our Lords last Supper, but of his Passion, Death, and Oblation of himselfe; and therefore our Eucharist is not onely 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 doe clearly speake 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 alwayes 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, &c. I grant; but deny that there­fore the Mass should be so; for that which he spoke was onely to confirme 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, &c. 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 confirm'd his New Testament unto us, and enter'd 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 Keyes, &c. 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 [Page 30]Jesus Christ said, do ye, not onely take ye, but do ye: that is (if we joyne 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 Anti-Christ shall come, as our Doctors do affirm, and then it shall cease for a while.

Now give me leave again to return you some proofes out of the Scriptures, of the congruity, and necessity, that the Mass should bee a Sa­crifice.

First, Lev. 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 alwaies the duty of the Priests to offer for their ignorances and sins, 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 Prophesie 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 shal 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 [Page 31]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 finde 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, &c. And he shall sit as a refiner and puri­fier of silver; and he shall purifie 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 then this Prophecy, that the Savi­our of the world should purifie his Priests, that is, our Evangelical ones, 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 tryed, but the wicked [Page 32]shal 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 sulfilled, 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, least 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 Peoples, as well as for his own sins; and to [Page 33]this purpose I have been told by those that are skil'd in Antiquity, that it has been call'd the Sacrifice of the Mass, ever since the beginning of Christianity: So enough I conceive said, as to this point.

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 publick Liturgy of the Church.

To the second.

I answer as before, that the understanding so required by the Apostle, is principally meant of prophecying 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 Curats; 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 peoples actions there, who sometimes kneel, and sometimes stand up, sometimes bow, sometimes beat their brests, 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, then 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 shew you, how much use and edification more, the people doe receive by our Masse, though in Latin. First, there is very much of the Holy Scripture in it, and by that the Holy Ghost speakes, and instils instruction into our hearts, though delivered in any tongue. Then the scope of the whose Masse, is unknown to no body, though never so ignorant; for the end of the Masse, and principal intention of the Church, who ever hears must know, whether he understand the words more or lesse, 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 Masse to be sufficient for the peo­ple; but yet if this were all in difference between [Page 36]us, I am perswaded the Church would easily per­mit you to have it in your own Mother tongue; for in what language it is said, is onely matter of Discipline: But yet I have thought good to send you some Arguments likewise to convince you of the congruitie and conveniencie, if not necessitie, that the celebration of those Divine Mysteries should be still in Latin.

The Scripture tels 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 Veyles 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 himselfe, and for the errours 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 payed then, were but to teach us our humble distance, and how to behave our selves before our dreadfull, 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 Lukes Gospels. Hee prayed, [Page 37]undoubtedly, for all the world, but his prayers were not heard, much lesse understood by any.

Now that you may be better inform'd in this point of Discipline, I must tell you that our Church has been ever carefull to pay equall reve­rence to those most sacred Mysteries, insomuch as from the beginning of Christianity, the people, nor yet Princes were ever suffer'd to come with­in the Rayle before the Altar; and where there is no Rayle, the people are forbid to presse 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 Veyles 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 onely 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 principall Languages that were in our Saviours time were these three, He­brew, Greek, and Latin, which is clearly by the Title affixt upon the Crosse of Christ, that Pilate caus'd to be written in those three Languages, que­stionless not without a Mysterie: for as his Divine Majesty was pleas'd, to suffer his name then to be glorifi'd by that Triumphall Title, in those three Languages; so his Church hath ever since thought fit to glorifie it, and to perform divine offices [Page 38]principally in those tongues: and therefore in our Mass is retein'd the Hebrew Allellujah, Osanna, Eya, Sabaoth, &c. Then the Greek, Kyrie Eleyson, Christe 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 wil 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 Latine. For as we Western Christians receiv'd our Faith from Rome; so we have their Language still in divine service; and indeed so speaking, Latine may be call'd 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, &c. Communicate with us, if our Masses were in English; all Christian Nations would seem Barbarians one to another, and the sa­cred Mass it self, 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 call'd our Mother-tongue, because it belongs to so many eminent Nations, and proves such a com­mon benefit to: all you may please to adde, 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 scandall in each particular people and Nation. For let us look no further, than our own little England here, [Page 39]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 signifie 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 onely 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 Catholick, but upon such an account as this, that you may have our Mass said to you in English; I tel you again that I dare assure you, your whole Church may have it so; for I have been fairly inform'd, that it ha's been already proffer'd by the Pope, towards an accom­modation: for that, I am sure he may for a great­er good dispence withall, it being but a pure point of discipline.

That good Works signifie 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 expresly 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 finde in St. Lukes 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. 11.43we 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, fill'd the world with Hospitals, Colledges, 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 then this, that by Faith alone we are to gain everlasting life?

6. Charity it self 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 [Page 44]to that righteousnesse is a hypocrite; for the Prophet Isaiah tels us, Isa. 54.6. that we are all as an unclean thing, and all our righteousnesses are as fil­thy rags: And again, the Scripture tels us, that there is not a righteous man upon the earth who does well, Eccl. 5.and sins not. And the Prophet Da­vid cryed 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 farre from being a good work, and acceptable in the sight of God, that it is meerly to be esteemed Wil-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, Whosoevrr 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 Peters 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, expresly forbidding them to do more, then 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 lawfull and [Page 46]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, &c. 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 my self before the high God? Shall I come before him with burnt offerings, with Calves of a year old? Will the Lord be pleased with thousands of Rams, or with ten thousands of Rivers of oyl? Shall I give my first-born for my transgression, the fruit of my body for the sin of my soul? Then the Prophet concludes immediately, He hath shew­ed 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 then this, to shew, that God Almighty requires nothing of a sin­ner, but a faithfull returne to his Duty: Where is then your pitifull satisfaction?

Our Saviour Jesus Christ did most suffi­ciently satisfie 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; w^ch (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 [Page 47]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 it self, was taken away by him, without any piece of our satisfaction re­quired. And Jesus Christ, the great Physitian, 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 extreamly false, and that Man hath no free-will 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, &c. Saint Paul yet more plainly, 2 Cor. 3.5. that we are not sufficient of our selves to think any thing, as of our selves, 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 [Page 48]hadst not received it? With the truth of all these Texts, how can your Doctrines of Free-Will 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 Free-Will, to then it is not of him that wil­leth, nor of him that runneth, but of God that shew­eth mercy; Therefore he hath mercy on whom he will have mercy, and whom he will be hardneth. what now will become of your Free-Will.

The Phophet Isaiah expostulates somewhat strangly with God about this. O Lord why hast thou made us to erre from thy ways, and bardned our heart from thy fear. What can man do then with his Free-Will.

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, mans goings are of the Lord; how can a man then 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 formed, to say to him that formed it, why hast thou made me thus? and the Apostle in the same Chapter, says, that God of his free grace, and meer election faves 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 cleerly against your Churches doctrine?

6 Our Saviour tells his Apostles,as three Evangelists do joyntly, 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?

7 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?

8 Our Saviour very positively concludes this point in S. Johns 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 [Page 50]our will, or works? so I beseech the same Fa­ther to draw your Ladiship, 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 cheifly to de­fire her for the future, to forbear Scholastick questions, least by their little skill in those ni­cities, they might before they were a ware, engage themselves in Blasphemy or Heresie. So Mrs. N. returned thanks to her Ladiship for her kind caution, and promised to avoid all speculative disputes, and to proceed upon things more morall and practicall, with which the Lady was satisfied, so fell to work upon the papers thus.

To what you alledge against our doctrine of goodworks, and for your justification by faith alone, I answer thus.

To what you are pleased to alledge against our Auricular Cenfession, I answer thus.

To what you alledge against our doctrine of Satisfaction for sins I answear thus.

The Catholick doctrine that I am to prove now against you, is this, that sins being by contri­tion, confession and absolution perfectly for­given, the penitent ought yet to satisfie for the temporal punishment due to them.

Adam without doubt repented himself of his sin, Gen. 2.17. notwithstanding he was not presently ab­solved from the punishment that was threatned by God for it; which was this, for in theday, that thou eatest thereof, thou shalt surely dye. Nay after the transgression of the divine precept, beyond the business of death, which was before threatned, God addes others, saying to Adam, Gen. 3.17.because thou hast hearkened unto the voice of thy wife, and hast eaten of the tree, of which I commanded thee saying, thou shalt not eate of it, cursed is the ground for thy sake, in sorrow shalt thou eat of it all the days of thy life. Thornes also and Thistles shall it bring forth to thee &c. Gen. 3.16.in the sweat of thy face shalt thou eat bread, till thou return unto the ground, for out af it wast thou taken, &c. 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, &c.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 baptisme it self, 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 Leprosie, 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 Leprosie.

God forbid 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 confest 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 dye: yet addes, howbeit because by this deed thou hast given great on­casion to the enemies of the Lord, to blaspheme, the childe also that is born unto thee, shall surely dye, and the Lord strake the childe, that Ʋriahs wife bare, &c.

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 [Page 71]not, and therefore I have sworn unto the house of Eli,1 Sam. 4.14. &c.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 onely; accordingly Hophni and Phinehas were slain, Eli falling backward, brake his neck, and Phinehas's wife dyed in travell.

David we know had his great sin pardoned him for numbring of the people, 2 Sam. 24.18. &c. 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 reare an altar un­to the Lord in the threshing-floor of Araunah, &c. and his offering cost him fifty shekels of filver.

We finde that the Ninivites at their grand repentance, fasted, and put on sackcloth, Jonah 3.1 Kings 21.27. A­habrent his clothes, and put sackloth upon his flesh, and fasted, and lay in sackeloth and went softly, by which humbling of himself he did in part, sa­tisfie and pacifie the divine wrath conceived against him. Jerem. 18.8. This the Prophet Jeremy most cleerly expresseth, saying in the person of God, if that nation against whom I have pronounced, turn from their evill, 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 finde it cleer in the Gospel, [Page 72]where our Saviour after he had cured the man that was sick of the Palsie eight and thirty years he said unto him, behold thou art whole sin no more, least 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 injoyned to penitents, are necessary to the Sacrament of Penance, appears plainly by these Scriptures.

We finde 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 cleerly yet to Nebuchad­nexzar, wherefore O King let my counsell be accep­table unto thee, and break off thy sins by righteous­ness, and thine iniquities by shewing of mercy to the poor, it may be a lengthening of thy tranquillity &c. We sinde again how the Ninivites repenting at the preaching of Jonas proclaimed a fast, and put on Sack-cloth, from the greatest even to the lest of them. The King himselfe arose from his throne, layed by his Robe, and covered him­self [Page 73]with sack-cloth and sat in ashes, crying all mightyly unto God, and turning from their evill ways, and the violence in their hands. And God saw their works that they turned from their evill way, and God repented of the evill &c. is not here a plain fatisfaction performed by the Ninnivites, and so accepted by God, and as cleerly exprest 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 satis­fie for their sins) and shall condemn it, for they re­pented at the preaching of Jonas &c.

That great preacher of repentance, Mat. 3. Lxke 3. the holy Baptist, crys 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 repented long agoe 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, least 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 our selves as the Ministers of God, in patience, 2 Cer. 6.4.5.in watching, and in fastings, so I presume you will [Page 74]not still deny, that satisfaction is very requsite nay necessary to a perfect penitent.

To what you alledge against the doctrine of our Church, in point of the Liberty of the will, I answer thus.

That your Church has so overladen the souls of Christians with their own Traditions, and humane constitutions, that it has not only abridg'd Christian liberty, but hardly left room for the observation of divine pre­cepts, I prove thus by express Scriptures.

We finde in Deuteronomy, Deut. 4.2 how God does absolutly 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 ought from it. The like was commanded by the mouth of Joshuah, that from that law, which they had read, they should not turn [Page 86]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 &c. and then proceeds, Adde thou not unto his words, least he reprove thee, and thou be found a liar, and S. John assures us, That if any man shall adde unto the words of his prophecy, Revel. 22 18.19.that God shall adde unto him the plagues that are written in that book, and if any shall take away &c. God shall take away his part out of the book of life, and yet notwithstanding these clear commands, and terrible threatnings, your Church dares to do those things daily, by ad­ing of meer 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 mens 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 kinde, 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 seruants 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 [Page 87]are not under the law, so then 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, &c. what then are good Christians concerned in your new­fangled 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 burthen insupportable, and abusive to our Christian liberty, I prove by Scripture thus.

1. Does not our Saviour in S. Matthews Gospel, call the multitude expresly about [Page 88]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 &c. why does your Church then, tye up mens mouths from meat at any time?

2. 1 Tim. 4.1, 2, 3, 4, 5. S. Paul tells us, that now the speaketh expresly, that in the latter times, some should depart from the faith, giving heed to seducing spirits, and doctrines of Devils, speaking lies &c. 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. Heer the Apostle plainly calls it a doctrine of Devils, and meer 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 forewarne us, not to give heed to such doctrines as those, which he calls the commandements 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 &c. 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 &c. 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 yoake upon the neck of the Disciples, which neither we, nor our Fathers were able to hear; Christian liberty en­dures no such burthensome bondage, for Christ himself never made any distinction of meats or commanded any such observations, why then should Christians, his faithfull 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 burthen laid upon Christi­anity, I prove thus.

1. It is plain, that Jesus Christ our Saviour bestowed a freedome upon us, which we call [Page 90]Christian, Deut. 4.2. Revel. 22 18. &c. why should vows then reduce us into bondage, Nay our Saviour cleerly shewed 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 forbid­en and reproved in Scripture, by consequence most unlawfull.

S. Paul forewarns Timothy from all those ex­ternall 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 thy self ra­ther unto Godliness, for bodily exercise profiteth li­tle 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 then 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, then they do the commandments of God, to whom he pronounceth a woe for no other reason, Luke 11.42. &c. but for tything of Mint, Rue, and all maner of herbs, and passing ore judgement, and the love of God, &c.

4. Over and above all this the grand pre­sumption of your votaries appears in oblieg­ing themselves to a straiter rule of liveing, than the Evangellicall rule, to which every faithful Christian is tyed in Baptisme 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, then 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 depart from the faith, giving heed to se­ducing spirits, and doctrines of devils &c. forbid­ing to marry &c. who should this be but, you, [Page 92]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 ought 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 &c. and your Church is pleased to make it worse than the breach of a command­ment.

7. In fine there can be nothing more cleer, than that vows of virginity are vain and in plain English foolish, because impossible; it were the same thing to obliege a man to live without meat or drink; and your Pope pre­tends by his humane traditions, to mortifie mens 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 meer humane constitu­tions, which I prove in short thus.

1. All Sacraments ought to be of our Savi­our Christs 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 shewed 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 [Page 94]of it self a great mystery or Sacrament, but onely 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 shew you, how your Church abuseth you with their own inventi­ons, and would obtrude them upon us, for di­vine institutions.

To what you alledge against our Church for over lading the souls of Christians, with Traditions, and humane corstitutions &c. I answer thus

Now that Humane Constitutions, the com­mands of Councils, and Bishops are to be kept, and all Ecclesiasticall rites and cere­monies duely observed, I prove by express Scriptures thus.

S. Luke recites our Saviours words thus, speaking to the seventy that he sent out, Luke 10.16. He that heareth you, beareth me, and he that dispiseth you, dispiseth me, and he that despiseth me, dispiseth him that sent me. Observe I pray you, how he that despiseth the Prelates, and Ecclesiasti­call constitutions of Christs Church, is judg'd 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, then 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 [Page 100]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 errour; you had best therefore have a care of your selves. 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 president 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 finde how S. Paul himself made Laws, that you will not dare deny obedience to: as for the constituting of Bishops, concerning widdows, and women to be veiled, and not to preach in Churches, of not for saking the unfaithful husband, or wife and of many prophane and meer 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 ma­ter of discipline, we finde in Deuteronomy, how the Lord commanded that no Altar should be set up but where was the Ark of the Cove­nant, [Page 101]and yet Samuel whilest 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. 2Paul 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 ha's been, and is to be governed by custome, is playn by-another text of St. Pauls, where he saies, wee 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 vertue, and if there be any prayse, think on these things; Those things which ye have both learned, and received and hard, and seen in me doe &c. Now what are all these things but Traditions, and ecclesiasticall constitutions? Acts 15.41.16. Wee finde in the Acts how Paul and Silas went through Syria and Cylicia con­firming the Churches, Acts 15.41; and so after­wards wee find how Paul, Silas and Timothy [Page 102]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 one­ly of the cessation of the legall 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 in­feriour 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 your selves, for they watch for your souls, as they that must give account, that they may doe it with joy, and not with griefe 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 ought to be governd 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 Bretheren in the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, that ye with draw your selves, from every Bro­ther, that walketh dissorderly, and not after the Tradi, tion, which he received of us, if this be not cleer, I declare for my part, that I can see no light.

To what you Alledge against our days of fasting, and abstinence and especially the holy fast of Lent, I answer thus.

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 &c. Acts 15.28, 29.that ye abstein from meats offered unto Idolls, and, from blood and from things strangled &c.

S. Rom. 14.20, 21.Paul declares freely to the Romanes, that we ought not for matter of meat, destroy the worke of God, all things indeed are pure, but it is evil for that man who cateth 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 &c. heer 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 &c. and then concludes, wherefore if meat make my Brother to offend, I will eat no flesh whilest the world standeth, least I make [Page 109]my Brother to offend; heer 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 pleasent bread, neither came flesh nor wine into my mouth, neither did I a­noint my filf at all &c. 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 thy self before thy God, thy words were heard &c. heer you see how the Prophet Daniel did abstain from meat, and wine, and God repro­ved and loved him for it.

In the like maner 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. Gospell 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. Lukes Gospell he says, can ye make the Children of the Bride-chamber fast whilst the [Page 110]Bridegroome is with them, but the days shall come &c. and then shall they fast in those days. And these words of our Saviours were abundantly fullfiled by the Apostles, as you may see in the Acts. Acts 13.2.3. first as they ministred unto the Lord and fasted the holy Ghost said &c.

And again, when they had fasted, and prayed &c. 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 &c.

S. Paul declareth to the Corinthians, how he and others that were ingaged in the service of the Church should behave themselves thus. 2 Co [...]. 6.4.5. In all things approving our selves, as the ministers of God &c. in watchings 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 beleived God (that is the word which was preacht 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 fol­lowes, it was decreed by the King and all his Nobles, saying, let neither man beast, heard nor flock tast any thing, let them not feed nor drink water but let man and beast be covered with sackcloth, &c. And God saw their works and that they turned from their evil way, and God repented of the evil that he [Page 111]had said, that he would do unto them and be did it not. Thus you may see how acceptable to God, this solemne fast of the Ninnivits was, and yet you will question that duty.

But to summe up all this in a few words, Mat. 6.16, 17, 18. I pray you observe what our Saviour says in S. Mathews Gospell. 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, annoint 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 seeth in secret shall reward thee openly. Heer our Saviour does not onely implicitely 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 performe think you a more Christian, duty, Deut. 9. than to fol­low so great an example, so far as we can?

Again we finde that Moses fasted fourty days, and fourty 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 finde in the Prophet Joel who crys out, Joel 2.15, 16, 18. blow the Trumpit in Sion, 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 goe forth of his chamber, and the Bride out of her closet &c. Then will the Lord pitty his people &c.

The Prophet David frequently acknowledg­eth that he did humble his soul with fasting, Psalms and the Scripture throughout is full of noth­ing more then 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 widdow, and agreat many more, that would be infinite to recount. So for a close of all I shall onely put you in minde, that there were a sort of Devills, of whom our Saviour himself says, Mark 9.29. that that kinde is not to be east out but by prayer and fasting who then shall cast out Devils, from them that are enemies Profest, against that great and holy duty of fast­ing.

To what you alledge against our Vows, espe­cially those of Chastity and single-life though in one Priests themselve.

To what you alledge against our vows of cha­stity, and restraining of Priests from Marriage, I answer thus,

To what you alledge against us for multiply­ing of Sacraments, and making them, as you say, out of meer humane inventions, I answer thus.

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 [Page 124]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 receiv'd the Word of God, Act. 8.14.15, 16, 17.they sent unto them Peter and John. Who when they were come down, pray'd for them, that they might receive the Holy Ghost. (F [...]r as yet he was fallen upon none of them; only they were baptized 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 confer'd, 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 [Page 125]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 baptized? and they said unto him, Johns Baptism, then said Paul, John verily baptized 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 bad laid his hands upon them, the Holy Ghost came on them; and they spake with Tongues and Prophesy'd. Here is I say again, af­ter Beliefe 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 Gospells, 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 it self, 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 Kingdome of God, &c. Now it is very pro­bable that he did either institute this Sacrament then, or at least infinuate 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 expresse 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 sicknesse 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, &c. 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 brake it, giving thanks and saying; this is my Body, &c. Do this in remembrance of me. Then last of all look into St. Johns Gospel, and you wil find yet a more express Ordination and mission. As my Father h [...]th sens 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 retein, they are reteyned. Thus you have in the four Gospells the institution of this Sacrament: Let us now look a little into the Apostolicall pra­ctise.

We find in the Acts, Act. 13. [...]As they ministred 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 Pr [...]phecy, 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 Creet, that thou shouldst make Elders in severall 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 your selves. 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, &c. Feed the flock of God which is among you, taking the eversighe thereof, &c. 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 [Page 128]Apostles, Exhorts the Elders of Eph [...]sus thus, Take heed therefore unto your selves, 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 ex­presse Scripture thus.

First it is very probable that the blessing which God Almighty gave to Adam and Eve in Para­dice, was not unaccompani'd 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 leav 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 joynd 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 exprest by St Paul to the [Page 129] Ephesians thus, Wives submit your selves 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, 225so 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, &c. And then concludes, for this eause shall a man leave his father and mother, and shall be joyned with his Wife, and they two shall be one flesh. This is a great Mystery, or Sacrament, chuse 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 Sacramentall 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 avoyding of Formeati­on; yet it is not to be supposed, that any man by the help of a Wife onely, be she what she can be of virtue and beauty, can be capable to avoyd For­nication without the said Sacramentall Grace.

Again, to the Thessalonians thus. 1 Thes 1. Let every one amongst you know how to possess his Vessells in san­ctification and honour, now sanctification, we know cannot be without divine grace.

Then he tells Timethy, that a woman shall be [Page 130]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 acknowledg God to be the immediate Authour of Marri­ages, as we say matches are made in heaven, and by the grace of this Sacrament, onely to be made happy.

That extream Ʋnction is a Saeroment like­wise, and a visible sign of an invisible grace, I prove by ezpress Scripture thus.

We find in Saint Markes Gospell, 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, &c. And after he had gi­ven [Page 131]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 De­vills: And then anointed with Oyle 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 Masters command, by whose power they did those mighty works, and having his com­mand, sure then 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 Oyle in the Name of the Lord, &c. and if he have committed sinns, 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 extream Unction is a Sacrament of our Saviours own Institution, or at least plainly impli'd 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 declar'd to be so by the express words of one of the Twelve that is Saint James. Over and above this, we have the universall tradition of the Church of Christ, that in these matters of faith, we know cannot erre: and that alone indeed might have been a sufficient proofe of the verity [Page 132]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 principall care to deliver punctually to us onely 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 Baptisme, Pennance; and Eucha­rist, and as for confirmition, and extream 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 reliques 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 onely recei­ving this Sacrament, receives likewise such a grace along with it, that by virtue of it, his sins though mortall, 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 lye within the power of

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 Comman­dement. 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 thy self to them, nor serve them, &c. The same thing is repeated at the latter end of Ex [...]dus, and in severall 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 brake the Images, and brake in pieces the beazen Serpent that Moses had made &c. Yet your Religion strives to restore to Christians that kind of worship.

3 How well our Saviour is pleased with that kinde of Worship, Joh. 22, 23 24. you may see in Saint John's Gospell, where our Saviour says, ye worship, ye know not what, &c. But the hour cometh, and now is, when the true Worshippers shall worship the Fa­ther in Spirit and in Truth, for the Father seekes 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 onely add this one Argument, against so foul a thing, and that is this, either Ima­ges are commanded, or commended for good meanes of divine worship, or they are not, if they be, then shew it by Scripture, if they be not, then it must follow, that it is a piece of will-worship, and that all Images, are meer fond and vain things.

That your, Doctrines of Indulgences, Purga­tory, and Prayer for the dead, are dero­gatory to Gods 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 mortall one, out of Saint Paul to the Ro­manes where he saith, for I reckon. that the suffer­rings 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 w^ch the Lord is pleased to confer upon them in heaven, how can there be a superabundance of their me­rits, pick'd 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 inform'd the prophane and sottish opinion of your Church.

Then as to your Doctrine of Purgatory, I shall disprove it thus.

The Prophet Daniell mentions but two ways for soules 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 eternall, so St. Matthew; And again in St. Johns Gospell, They that have done good unto the Resurrection of life, and they that have done evill, unto the Resurrection of damnation. How dare any man invent a third place upon his own head, when God himself ha's 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 Lukes gospell, our Saviours own words to the Thief upon the Cross. And Iesus 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 depart, and to be with Christ: therefore after departure, the saved soul goes immediately to Christ, without any rubbs, stops or stays by the way: what then is become of your pitifull purgatory? So I presume I need not trouble your Ladyship with any more argu­ments, to convince so foul an errour. I shall only [Page 140]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 re­sonable 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 usefull 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, &c. If the dead be not in a condi­tion to be wept for, they are mch lesse in a condi­tion to be pray'd for; and by consequence again, there can be no Purgatory.

2. Luk. 7.13. Our Saviour again in like manner forbids the Widdow to weep for her Son that was dead; so still it follows, if there ought to be no weeping, then no Purgatory, and if no Purgatory then no prayer for the dead.

3ly. and Lastly, for the Explication of all that ha's 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, &c. So to the end of the Chapter com­forts them, with an assurance of resurrection to [Page 141]life eternall, without any the least mention of Purgatory, or prayers for the dead.

That the saints, the freinds of God, are to be implored that they will please to intercede for us, I prove by express Scripture thus.

Our Saviour in S. Johns Gospell saies thus, if any man serve me, John 12.26.him will my Father honor, if therefore God does honor his saints, why should not we mortalls give honour to them? Our Saviour saies again in S. Mat. 25.40.Mathews Gospell verily I say unto you insomuch as ye have done it un­to one of the least of these my bretheren ye have done it unto me; the honour therefore that is given to the saints of God, he takes as done unto himself.

We finde in Job how Eliphaz saies 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 wholsome councell from his freind.

Again in another place, Job 42.1, 9, 10. the Lord himself saies, go to my servant Job, and my servant Job shall pray for you, for him will I accept, least I deal with you after your folly &c. 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 freinds &c.

Then we finde how Absalon after he was re­conciled to his father, 2 Sam. 14.28. staid two years in Jerusa­lem, before he saw his fathers face, so a sinner though reconsiled 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, rose 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 sate on his right hand, and shall not Jesus Christ, a greater and a wiser than Solomon, honour his mother in the like kinde?

It is most manyfest that the Angells 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 Angells; who are their equalls in heaven as we finde in the holy Gospells, Psalm 90. how freequently in the Psalmes does the Royal prophet speak of Gods sending his Angells to snatch us out of dangers, to gard us, and to keep us in all our ways &c. Then we finde in the Prophet Zachcariah, Zach. 1.12.13. how the Angel of the Lord interceded for the people in these words, O Lord of Hoste, how long wilt thou not have mercy on Jerusalem, Heb. 1.7and on the Cities of Judah, against which thon hast bad indignation these threescore and ten years, and the Lord an­swered the Angell with good words, and com­fortable words. Then S. Acts 12.12.7, 8. Paul calls the Angels minnistring spirits, and we finde how free­quently they have delivered Gods servants, as S. Peter out of prison &c. now I say if it be in the [Page 148]power of the Angells 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 equalls, 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 saies 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 powred out mine indignation upon them, I have consumed them with the fire of my wrath &c. therefore did the Lord do it for want of an acceptable interces­or.

But it is most cleer in the Apocalyps, Revel. 4. & 5. how the four beasts and four and twenty elders are conti­nually falling down before the Lamb and interce­ding for the faithfull on earth, with their Violls full of precious oyntments, which are the prayers of the saints. And then again it is expressly said, that ano­ther Angell came and stood at the Altar, haveing 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 Alter, 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 Angels hand &c.

If yet there be any doubt remaining, me thinks meer reason raised from a most un­doubted Scripture, should cleer this point, as first we finde, and I thinke no body questions it, that Jesus Christ, as he is man does conti­nually [Page 149]interde for all mankinde, especially his faithfull 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 onely 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 uppon earth, for we are all members of the same mysticall body.

Again the liveing 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 pray'd 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 hretheren pray for us, that the word of the Lord may have free course &c. If therefore the living may pray for one ano­ther why may not the glorifyed saints in hea­ven do the same for us, who are more perfect in charity, more powerfull with God, and more pure in understanding? for if they may not pray for us, as the living do, it would ap­pear unworthy of Christs grace and favour to them, which we cannot apprehend; or it must [Page 150]be because it is a purpose of the excellency, that it is fiting onely for Christ himself to do it, and no person else, and then it will not be lawfull 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. Iames adviseth us, let us pray one for another, that we may be saved. I pray you heer take notice, that I have made use of no Scripture out of Baruch the Machabees, 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 alledge against our use of images, which you call an abominable and idolator­rious doctrine, I answer thus.

That the use of Images is lawfull, 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 Aposto­licall, 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 imprest the picture of his countenance upon a piece of linen cloth, which he gave to Veronica, by the virtue of which picture, the Emperour Tiberius was recovered [Page 155]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 ex­treamly false, for we finde our Saviour asking in the Gospel, whose image and superscription is this? But all this I must pass by, because we have resolved to insist onely upon Scripture, and in the old Testament we finde enough.

First we finde 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 finde 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 finde 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 then Christ himself, the Paschal Lamb [Page 156]less to be esteemed then our Eucharist, and cir­cumcision than Baptism. If then the image of the Brazen Serpent was honour'd, 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 then the children of Israel were in the wildernes, 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 minde 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 finde 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 finde that Joshua, [Page 157]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 maner did Samuel, which I have before insisted upon.

Again, if to set up Images in the house of God, had been absolutly 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 morall, 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 usefull, as lawfull, 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, adorne, 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 durt in the [Page 158]faces of them, beat e'm 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 freind, then 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 rejoyce, and make sport with it. I am sure, I pitty it, as the action of poor blind men, that are led by those that are willfully blind that is blinder than themselves.

To what you are pleased to alledge against our doctrines of Indulgencies, Purgatory and prayer for the dead, I answer thus.

To what you are pleased to alledge against our doctrine of Purgatory I answer thus.

To what you say against our doctrine of pray­ing for the dead which is a consequence of Purgatory I answer thus.

That there is a third place, which we call Pur­gatory, and that the prayers of the faithfull upon earth, are very helpfull to them, I prove thus.

First we finde 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 mans work shall be made manifest, for the day shall declare it, be­cause it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every mans work of which sort it is, if any mans 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 mans 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 whilest thou art in the way with him, least 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 [Page 166]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 cleerly 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 busie in blaspheming of it, it must then of necessity be the faithful souls that are in Purgatory.

In the like manner we finde 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 praysing [Page 167]and glorifying of God, and blessing him that fits upon the Throne, that their malice does wholely imploy it self 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 Machabees of Onias and Hieremias that appeared to Judas, we finde 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 then they would never wander here to so great a loss, nor can they be in hell, from whence there is no redemption.

Again, we finde the Theif 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 baptized for the dead, if the dead rise not at all, why are they then [Page 168]baptized for the dead? which plainly shews 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 cleer, 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 satisfie 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 loose, and yet he may inflict banishment, or imprisonment, upon the same person, and this very course we finde 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 punisht with a temporal death. Again we finde King David, after he had obtained a pardon for his fins of Adultery and Murder, was punisht 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 dye yet his son must, and again the same King David for his sin of pride in numbring 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 [Page 169]Plagues for it. I might be infinite in examples of the like kinde, 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 dye 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 joyes 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 finde 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 lye &c. 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 practise of the Church in praying for the dead is a most invincible argument for Purgatory, and no man can deny, but that custome is much ancienter than Christianity, and has con­tinued ever since That it was ancienter then Christianity, we finde in the Machabees, which book though you shut out of the Cannon of holy Scripture, (with as much reason as you [Page 170]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 lye 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 Drachmes of silver to Je­rusalem, to offer a sin-offering, doing therein very well and honestly, in that he was mindeful 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 dyed 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 finde 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 practise of the Church of Christ has [Page 171]been cleer and universal, that no prudent Christian can deny his assent, if he be not re­solved to shake the very foundations of Christi­anity it self. which the gates of bell, shall never prevail against.

Thus my Lady having dispatcht her answer and replies to this paper, made hast 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 Ladiship, which indeed might have served for all the rest, for it striks 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 confider what followes.

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. Heer the Apostle acknowledgeth no head but Christ, and concludes Peter to be as much a member, as any one of the faithfull and that not onely in respect of Christ we are [Page 172]members, but in respect of our selves is cleer by those words, every one members, one of another so that Peter, Pope or Bishop be he what he will is not onely a member of the body of the Church, as he has relation to Christ the head, but as he does relate to the other faithfull members.

2 Again as the head and the other members, make up one entire naturall body, 1 Cor. 12 so Christ and his Church make up; one entire mysti­call 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 finde in the Gospells, Math. Mark Luke John that Jesus Christ does equally commend the care of his Churh 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 &c. 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 priveledge nor prehemminence over the rest.

4 S. Gal. 2.11Paul 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; [Page 173]For S. Paul had he beleived that, would not have shewed such arrogancy, and perversness 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 dayly guilty of such per­sonall crimes.

6 Again we finde 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 Saviours passion in and about Jeru­salem, where was then the Romane 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 finde 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 fullwell that such a power or superiority was expresly forbiden 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 Gentils, 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 cheifest shall be servant of all. All which our Saviour spok rebuke a strife that was amongst them who should be the greatest? Nay it is plain by the Text in all those Gos­pells, that it is onely 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 shews such a detestation of this affected superiority that he rebukes the Diciples for it and warnes them against it in severall other places of the Gospells 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 sames is greatest in the Kingdome of heaven &c. How well your Pope is an immitator of Jesus Christ, and follower of his commands I will leave your self to judge, who takes upon him not onely a power over all Bishops, but Princes.

That it is not in the power of the Pope, neither by himself, nor with all his Cardi­nalls, and councells, to determine any mat­ter of faith, I prove thus by Scrip­ture.

1 We finde 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 Testemony, Luke 16.29. so are we Christians to our Scripture for our judge of all things in difference, so our Savior brings Abraham in the Gospell, 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 thinke ye have eternall life, and they are they which testify of me. John 5.39. Christ therefore remits us to Scripture onely for a judge of controversie.

3 Again we finde 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 minde, and Searthed the Scriptures daily, whether those things were so. Heer we finde, I say, that those of Berea did not overhastyly beleive what the Apostles themselves delivered to them, but [Page 176]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 controversie in matter of faith ought to be infallible, for if the judge should erre, all that follow his judgement must erre likewise, now it is plain on tone side, that Scripture is infallible, being the word of God which can­not erre, and on the other side that all men are lyars, and subject to errours, as we finde in the Romans, Rom. 3.4 Psal. 111God is true, but every man is a lyar. Now the pope is but a man; all the Cardinalls are but men, nay councells 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 onely 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 anothers constitutions, and if that any such things as councells, 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 preists, 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 it self, is, and ought 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 then the Authority of the Church, for the Church ought to be govern'd by Scripture; the Word of God we know is to yield to no man, nor is it lawfull for any man, or power of men whatsoever to oppose or diminish it.

2. We find expresly in Deuteronomy, Ye shall not adde unto the Word which I command you neither shall you diminish out from it, Deut. 4.8.that ye keep thn Comandements of the Lord your God which I command you, all your tradition therefore are to cast away, for they adde 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 adde thereto, nor diminish from it. That therefore is to be done onely, which God commands, what men require or adde of their own, is unlawfull and not to be obey'd.

4. St. Paul declares his mind in this particu­lar, very freely to the Galatians thus, but though we or an Angell from Heaven, preach any other Gospell unto you, then that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed, and presently repents [Page 178]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 Gospell.

Again, We have most solemnly said in the Revelation of St. John, Revel. 22.18.19.That if any man shal take away from the Words of the Book of that Prophesie, God shal take away his part out of the Book of Life. And so if any man shall add unto these things, God shall adde unto him the plague; that are written in that Book: Therefore it is not law­full to adde 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 Righteousnesse, 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 Commande­ments of God of none effect, by your traditions; and the Apostle gives the like caution to the Colossi­ans,Col. 2.8.beware least 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 redeem'd from their vain conversation, receiv'd by Tradition from their Fathers. Thus you see how much Jusus Christ and his Apostles were carefull to forewarn and forbid us, and yet you will restore to us the vani­ty [Page 179]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 Councell does determine, Heb. 10.38 when the Church is a Congregation of all the faithfull 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. Cardinalls, Bishops, or Coun­cills tell us, though backt 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 spirituall 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 wee 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 onely your Church, which I take to be but a part, but the whole Church of Christ, may and must erre 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 saylings in [...]ch as first in the time of Moses, when Aaren with [Page 180]all the people worshipt a Calf. Exod. 32.4 Again in the time of Elias, when there remain'd none faithfull but himself, as he himself complains, I have been ve­ry jealous for the Lord God of Hosts, because the Children of Israell 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 universall revolt of the people from the Lord. And Isay complains how the Ox knew his owner, and the Ass his Masters Crib, But Israel ha's not known me, &c. And the Prophet Jeremy complains thus, for my people have com­mitted two evills,Jer. 3.13.they have forsaken me the foun­tains of living waters, and heat'd them out Cisterns broken Cisterns that can hold no water, &c. And yet more plainly we may see in the Chronicles, 2 Chro. 15.3. how Azariah the Prophet says, that for a long season Israell 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 felf and all it's devises, were abolisht by Jesus Christ. And I hence conclude that if the Jewish Church did so grosly fail, then 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, &c. that is agreed on [Page 181]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 universall, ha's fail'd in faith long since.

We find it says again in Daniell, that he shall cause the sacrifice, and the Oblation to sence, and for the overspreading of abominations, he shall make it desolate, &c. Here is a plain Prophets of the fayling of the Church.

4. The Church is frequently compar'd to the Moon in the Scripture, Cant. 10. Revel. 12.1. now the Moon we know is often fayling, therefore the Church is not amiss compar'd to it and it's 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 Wickliffe, John Huss, Luther Calvin, and others, to this very day.

3. Lastly that your Church may and must erre, I shall adde 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 hee ha's done wee in defending of Purgatory, invocation of Sauls sacrifice of the Mass, &c. vers. 3. The second Note is that he shal 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 shew himself as God, and this the Pope plainly does, when he makes himself the visible head of Christs Church. The fourth mark is to exalt and oppose himself to, and [Page 182]above all that is called God. This the Pope does whilst he exalts himself above all Ecclesiasticall and civill 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. Iohn, 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 Lyar 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 Revellation, 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 Chrisme, hee signs the Fore heads of Christians when they take your Sacrament of Confirmation, Revel. 13.16. &c. 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 shal 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 promis'd to be the last of her troubles upon this occasion. So she proceeds.

To what you alledge against our Pope or Bishop of Rome, that he neither is, nor can be head of the Church of Christ, or St. Peters Successor, or have any po­wer over other Bishops. I answer thus.

To what you alledge against the power of the Pope, that he can neither by himself nor with all his Cardinalls, and councills about him, he able to determine any mat­ter of Fath. I answer thus.

That the Pope with a generall Council, may detrmine what is of Fath and what is not, I pove by expresse 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 bur­then 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 burthen than these necessary things that they abstein from meats offered to Idols, and from blood, and from things strangled, and from For­nication; from which if ye keep your selves ye shalde well. See here the form of an Apostolical Coun­cell: First the Text tells us, that the Apostles and Elders came together, and that St. Peter was President 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 faithfull 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 Councell 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 mosaicall 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 Councills.

We read again of another Council celebrated by the Apostles when they wer 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 your selves 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 antient Land­marks which our Fathers have set.

In what respect a Councill 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 Israell &c. And yet afterwards it is said of Moses, that he came and call'd for the Flders onely of the people, and laid before their faces all these Words which the Lord commanded him, &c. And though it is plain, that the Elders of the people onely answered, with whom Moses was talking, Deut. 32.7. yet the Text tell us, That all the peo­ple answered together and said, &c. Which could dot be, [...]nless onely so representatively by their convocation of Elders. How well therefore does the same Moses express this in his fong, [Page 221]when he saith, Remember the days of old confi­der the years of many generations. Ask thy Fa­ther and he will shew thee, thy Elders and they will tell thee, &c. I should be infinite to run through all the Old Scripture to shew what a stamp of Majesty and Authority God Almighty fixt upon such assemblies, and what respect the people always rendred them. So it shall suffice to give you our Saviours 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, then he that will not hear a Councell 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 gene­rall Councells are, and yet you are pleased to cast contempt upon them. But give me leave to tell you, let the Authority of Councells be once taken away and all things in the Church will bee ambiguous and uncertain. First all the antient Heresies that have been condemned by the au­thority of Councells, and cast out of the Church may be reviv'd and reinforced upon Christians with as much reason, as any primitive and Ca­tholick Doctrine. Then set up the Authority of Scripture alone against that of the Church and [Page 222]Councills, and then Scripture it self will be un­certain, for thrusting out that authority wich ha's commended sacred Scripture to us, and com­manded us to recive it, what Scripture is it that opinionated men wil 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 himselfe 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 order'd 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 shal more amply shew in my answers and replyes to the following heads of this your Paper, which God give you grace with prudence and imparti­ality to petuse.

To what you alledge for Scripture to be the only Rule of our faith, and against the Authority of the universall Church and it's Traditions, I answer thus.

That the whole Church of Christ cannot possi­bly erre, and that the Roman Catholick Church is that Church disperst over all the world, I prove by most express Scripture thus.

How that the Catholick 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 [Page 149]that a thing so nearly related to him, and in so high, dear, and honorable 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 ful­nesse 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 carefull 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 Baptisme, 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 Ro­manes, he sayes, 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 onely one of her mother, she is the choice one of her that bare her, &c. And in another place, A garden inclosed is my Sister, my Spouse, Cant. 4.11.a spring shut up, a fountain sealed; and therefore S. John sayes of the new Hierusalem, 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 your selves unto your Husbands, as unto the Lord, for the Husband is the head of the Wife, even as [Page 150]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 prety piece of Christianity it is, to impute impurity and errour to it?

Then that the Church is called the King­dome of Heaven too, Mat. 20. is as plain by Scripture, first out of S. Mat. 22.2, 3. Matthews Gospell, For the King­dome 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 King­dome 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, &c. Then again, The Kingdome of heaven shall be likned to ten Virgins, which took their lamps and went forth to meet the Bridgroome, and five of them were wise, and five were foolish, &c. Many more such Para­bles we find in the Gospells, but these three will be enough for our purpose, to draw from thence these three conclusions, first, if the Church be called the Kingdome of Heaven, how should errour, falsity, and uncleaness raign in it so many hundred years, as you pretend it has? when the Kingdome of Heaven we know is the Kingdome of truth and purity. Secondly, [Page 151]It is plain that God goes out even untill 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 saies 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 errour, because it is the Spouse of Christ, his body, and called the Kingdome 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 Gospell, Holy Father, Joh. 17.11.keep through thine own name those that thou hast given me, &c. and he explains himself in the same cha [...]ter, that he prayes not for them onely, 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 erre?

Then S. John tells us, that our Saviour said that he had many things to say unto them, but [Page 152]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 alwaies capable to distinguish a lye from truth, it must be therefore the unction of the holy Ghost, that alwaies teacheth the Church.

In fine, Matth. 28.20. S. Matthew makes them the conclu­ding words of his Gospel, Go yet herefore & teach all Nations, &c. teaching them to observe all things, whatsoever I have commanded you, and loe I am with you alwaies, 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 erre; how pro­bable is it then, that it should be in an errour for above a thousand years together, as you fondly 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 joyned together in the same mind, and in the same judgement: and then in another place in the same Epistle sayes, 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 your selves, that have nothing but confusions a­mongst [Page 153]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 Romanes, 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, &c. Again the same Apostle in the same Epistle laies an injunction upon the Romanes, 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 bowells of mercy, fulfill 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 Gods Church, is most passionately, if it be lawfull to say so, Jerem. 2.12, 13. bewail­ed by God himself, as the Prophet Jeremy ex­presseth [Page 154]it, nay, proposeth it as a matter of a­mazement to Heaven it self; 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 your self, whether you do lesse, by leaving off the Church, the true and living fountain, and digging to your selves broken cisterns, out of Wicklif, Huss, Luther, Calvin, &c. 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 Christs Church assembled together, do make the re­presentative body of the whole Church; the other is, that the Romane Catholick Church, is that universal Church, disperst over the whole world. As to the first, it is sufficiently clear, by many such Scriptures as thse, And he stood and blessed all the congregation of Israel, with a loud voice, &c. And the King and all Israel with him, offered Sacrifice before the Lord; now that this must be onely meant of the body represen­tative of Israel, is plain to sense, and parti­cularly exprest in the beginning of the Chap­ter, Then Solomon assembled the Elders of Israel, [Page 155]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 faith­full, who being disperst over all the world, did in old daies alwaies adhere, and still do to the Bishop of Rome, so it is called Catholick or Universal, because diffused over the whole world, and it is called Romane 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 shew, that any other Church has continued without errour 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 errour, or interrupti­on but onely she, it must follow, that she is the onely true Church of Christ. First the Jewish Church has been long since more then inter­rupted, quite abrogated. The Turkish or Ma­humetan has not always been. The Liaheran, Calvinian, and reformed Church of England, are all new; for they began with pretended [Page 156]reformation, which was made by them, and other particular Doctors, so must of necessity imply novelty: The Roman onely 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 errour, I beg the favour onely to know by what name she was called, and is, what parts of the world she has possest, & does? what pastors and Bishops she has had, and still has? what Kings and Emperours have adhered to her, and still do? What Hereticks 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 per­swasion. Now though I conceive enough said in my answer before, as to the business of the popes being Anti-christ, and that no obligation at all lyes upon me, to prove a negative, yet because that is so great a gudgeon, and so vul­garly swallowed, I shall undertake the taske a little further.

That you may better understand this con­troversie 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 Hereticks are, and in that sense, we are to understand the Apostle who tells us, [Page 157] that even now there are many Antichrists, that is many Hereticks, 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 principall 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, &c. 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 finde in the Revelation, Rev. 11.3.6.I will give power unto my two wit­nesses, and they shall prophesie a thousand two hundred and threescore dayes, clothed in sack­cloath, who shall have power to shut up heaven that it rain not in the dayes of their prophesie, and have power over waters to turn them into blood, &c. but these two witnesses are not yet come, [Page 158]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 ruine of the Ro­mane Empire, but the Pope came and still is, in the flourishing condition of the Romane 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 informes us, for a time, and times, and half a time, and in the Revelation it is said, for forty and two moneths in one place, and a thousand two hundred and threescore dayes in another place: but now the Pope has raigned 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 te­stifie, 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 inlarge upon this particular, it being so vulgar an errour, and the grand pretext of all the schisme and here­sie in the whole world, for to justifie 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 [Page 159]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

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.

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 &c. so as to be circumscribed by his essence, that is a meer 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 imag­in it; but that he dwels not in his own houses dedicated to his service, by his more abundant [Page 177]grace is as sottish again to deny, and such a presence of God in his Church, we do onely beleive and maintain. This answer to your Ar­gument we do assure you, we have learnt from the wise King Solomon, 2 Chron. 6.18, 19, &c. when he was dedicating his Temple, when he sayd. 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, &c.

To the second.

We answer in like manner, for both those texts are to the same tune perfectly, onely you are pleased to name this last pittifully, for had you produced the whole out, the latter end of the Text would have answered the begining: for we graunt as aforesayd, that the Lord of hea­ven and earth dwelleth not in Temples made with hands, neither is worshiped with mens 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 worshipt 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, onely use. Besides, S. Paul said that onely to refute a vulgar errour, which was, that it was not lawfull 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 sayes, 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, expresly testifie there that, the Temple was his most choice and beloved place, and addes 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 priviledge 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 disswade 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. [Page 180]God is every where, but in one place he wil be prayed to and honored 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 shew your self 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 Ethnick Poets, we conceive our selves 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 Pilates and Herodes, and whereas you say that Christ asserted Pilates power, the contrary is plain out of the Text, for our Saviour there clearly taxeth him of sin, when he sayes, that he that betrayed him into his hands, had the greater [Page 181]sin: Now that Pilate had a power given him from above, our Saviour sayes it, but in re­ference to God, that is permissively onely, that God did permit to him onely 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 supream civil power, you then gain nothing by your argument.

To the Ninth.

We will grant you that all saithfull 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 alwaies Kings and external external Governours. In like manner all the faithfull, who offer to God their faith and faithfull prayers, &c. may be said to be spiri­tual Priests, and that Priesthood needs no ce­remonies: but it is plain, that besides this in­ternall Priesthood, there is and must be an external one in the Church; Take for exam­ple, every faithfull Christian is the Temple of God, for so S. Paul sayes to the Corinthians; ye are the holy Temple of God, but yet besides those Temples there must be external Temples, af­fixt to certain places, in which do meet the Congregations of the faithfull. Then as to [Page 182]the words of the Text you quote, you may as well infer out of another, that all the Jewes were Priests too; Enod. 19.5, 6. for we find in Exodus, how God tells them, Now therefore, if ye will obey my vaine indeed, and keep my Covenant; then ye shall be a peculiar treasure unto me above all peoples, and ye shall be unto me a Kingdome of Priests, and a holy Nation, &c. 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 your selves be cheated by that sophisme 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 Romanes, we do acknowledge that all [Page 183]Christians, though meerly Lay-mem may offer spiritual oblations, and so may be misti­cal 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 ought to be external, and Hierarchi­cal Priests.

To the Eleventh.

We say that our Saviour in that Gospel you urge, sinds not fault with praying, but praying as the Hepocrites doe, who with his words prayes to God, not with his deeds, which kind of praying shuts the gates of the Kingdome 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 faithfull prayers, as he said to Moses, let me alone that my fury may wax hot, as if he were hindred from his purpose, by Moses his prayers he requests him to let him aloue.

And as to your inference, that if prayrs 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, &c. Prayers are carried up to Heaven, as with Angels wings.

To the twelfth,

To what you urge out of S. Mathew, and the Prophet Malachy, we acknowled that God foreknowes our wants before we aske him, but yet we confess his power, in praying to him and beseech him as he is all powerfull to help us, we ask therfore onely that which God has ordered us to ask for, and has promised to give to our prayers, and God will be askt, be­fore he gives, least we should do that, which most in the world do, vilify his profered 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 obtein 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 doe, vain repetitions, and babling in prayers is forbiden, not prolixity & to continue long in prayer, it is the superfluity of words that is of­fensive to God, therefore the old Fathers pray­ers were very short, Luke. 22.1. Sam. 1. but frequent. Christ himself prayed long, and Amn prayed long, and mul­tiplied [Page 185]prayers, Luke. 2.6 Nay our Saviour was a whole night in prayer, as the Scriptures testify. Then that Canonicall hours are not commanded in holy writ I grant, but they are sufficiently insinuated, and the Church has allways learnt them from its holy Masters, the Apostles, and we ought to obey those that are set over us in the Lord, Then 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 seald our Chrsstion faith with their blood, if they be well and faythfully writen? So now give us leave to reply a little upon you.

To the First.

We say, that though God doth visit our sins upon us by the Turks, Jews, Heriticks, &c. 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 our selves, 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 iniquitie with rods, and their sins with scourges, but I will not take my mercy quite a­way, &c. And as to our fighting with prayers, we do confess it the duty of every good soul­dier to pray frequently, yet to take his Arms in hand likewise, with Joshua, Gedion, David, [Page 159]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, replyed, 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 unlawfull, 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 publick good, other­wise war must be unlawfull indeed.

To the Third.

We find two parts of your argument to be answered to, the first is, Christs 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 askt leave to strike and healone without staying for Christs 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 then twelve legions of Angels, &c. Fourthly, because he would not have his death hindred, 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 lawfull, if the just conditions of war be observed. The second part of your argument consists in those words, both out of the Gospell 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, alledge an old Law out of the Text, whosoever [Page 197]shall shed mans 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 murtherers are to die by the law, hinders nothing but war may be lawfull: for otherwise it must have been unlawfull under the old Testament, for then the Law was made against Homicides. Now the difference between homecide, and a lawful war, if you know not, we will tell you, the one is committed against the publick laws of God and man, as well against common justice, as the Decalogue, it must be therefore un­lawfull. The other is undertaken for the de­fence of publick justice, and to keep off, or repay a publick injury, and that sure by all laws of God and nature, must be lawfull.

To the Fourth.

I would fain know of you, what Prince or Emperour did then believe in Christ, whose aid the Apostles might have implored against Hereticks, it was not that the Hereticks then did not deserve it, but because the swords of the Princes and Emperours then were shut up in Pagan sheathes, but when they came to serve the Gospel under Constantine, then the Chri­stians besought them upon all such occasions; and to what you say, that Hereticks 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 askes it, of the faith that is in us, and yet S. Paul advi­seth [Page 198]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 your self, and all your party, that you do not dispute out of Scriptures, against known faith.

To the Fifth.

It is plain, that our Saviour onely would not that one Tares should be pulled up, to en­danger the Wheat, for so he explaines him­self after, Mat. 18. least whilest 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 [Page 199]tells us, that there is but one Lord, one Faith, one Baptisme, 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.

To the first.

It is plain that in both those gospels, both of St. Mathewe and St. Markt, our Saviuor onely 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 baptisme 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, [Page 241]that is their God Fathers and God Mothers, as they did contract the sin by others, which in baptis­me 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 beleive 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 Devill. Now the reason of all this is plain to sense, for the Spiri­tual regeneration, holds great proportion, with the carnall generation, especially in this, for as children in their mothers 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 Churches action, receive Salvation, and so the faith of others, that is of the Church, their Pa­rents, and God Fathers offering them up to Baptisme, is sufficient for their Salvation, as the faith of those which offered the man sick of the palsy to our Saviours 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 [Page 242]daughter the dispossession of the Devill.

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 preacht 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 baptisme 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 administred but twise a year, and that was in the time of Easter and Whit-suntide, but that was the solemn baptisme 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 commandement 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 [Page 243]the baptisme 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 baptisme 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 shew 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 baptismall water, his divine omni­potency assisting that Sacrament: and in this point Christians have a priviledge 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.