before there was no chief over the rest Of Oral Tradition PA. 55. Oral and Apostolical Tradition without written Books either was the means of Planting and Conserving the Christian Religion or it was not Pro. It was not Pa. If not how did the Apostles propagate the Faith of Christ without written Books Pro. They did not but in propagating the Faith they always appealed to the Scriptures of the Old Testament they indeed taught the Christian Doctrine by word of Mouth before they committed it to Writing but that was no Tradition handed from Father to Son which is the Tradition you plead for Pa. 56. The number of the Canonical Books are mentioned in Scripture or they are not Pro. They are not Pa. If not how do you know the Canonical Books but by Oral Tradition Pro. By written Tradition the Testimony of all Ages in their Writings Pa. 57. The Christians of the Primitive Age on pain of Damnation held nothing for Faith but what they had received from Christ and his Apostles for such or they did not Pro. They did Pa. Why then do you deny Tradition Pro. We do not deny all Tradition but we affirm that Tradition is not as the Council of Trent affirms of equal Authority with the written Word but the Primitive Christians received their Faith from Christ and his Apostles by means of the Scriptures not by means of unwritten Tradition Pa. 58. Apostolical Tradition is the Rule by which we may be infallibly assured both what Doctrine Christ and his Apostles taught and what Books they wrote or else not Pro. If you can shew us any Apostolical Tradition and prove it to be such we will own it but for unwritten Tradition it is not the Rule Pa. If not how otherwise can we be assured Pro. What Doctrine Christ taught we can be assured by the Scriptures what Books the Apostles wrote we can be assured by Universal written Tradition the greatest Historical Evidence but not by unwritten Of the Eucharist PA. 59. That natural Body and Blood which Christ offered upon the Cross for the remission of Sins it was the same which Christ gave to his Apostles or it was not Pro. If you mean that material Body and Blood it was not Pa. Why do you then deny that Scripture of St. Luke 22. 19. This is my Body which shall be given for you and that Matt. 26. 20. This is the Blood of the New Testament which shall be shed for many for the Remission of Sins Pro. Why do you falsify the words of St. Luke and St. Matthew their Words are This is my Body which is given for you and This is my Blood which is shed for many not which shall be and we deny not the Words of the Evangelists but we deny the real Presence you assert because Christ spake here of his real figurative Sacramental Body not of his real natural Pa. 60. Christ either gave his Body and Blood to his Apostles at his last Supper or he did not Pro. He did Pa. Why then do you deny the real Presence Pro. We do not deny a real Presence but a natural Corporal Presence we do we affirm Christ to be present really and sacramentally but not naturally in the Body and Blood on which he hung upon the Cross according to that of St. Austin in Psal. 98. You shall not eat that Body which was Crucified nor drink the Blood which was shed upon the Cross. Pa. 61. When Christ said This is my Body did he speak Metaphorically or not Pro. He did Pa. If he did prove the Metaphor out of Scripture Pro. So we do both from the words of the Institution and the parallel places of Scripture 1. From the Words of the Institution This is my Body either those words are to be understood in a Metaphorical Sense or they are not if not then they are to be understood in a litteral if they are then they are a Metaphor If they are to be understood in a litteral Sense then they are either true in that Sense or they are not If they are not then Christ was a Lyar which is Blasphemy if they are true in a litteral Sense then the Bread is Christs Body or it is not if it is not then those words This is my Body are false if it be then an Impossibility is true for your own Authors confess that it is impossible that the Bread should be the Body of Christ litterally Gra. de Consec dist 2. c. 55 But an Impossibility cannot be true therefore the Bread is not Christs real Body If it be not Christs real Body they cannot be taken in a litteral Sense therefore they must be taken in a Metaphorical 2. From the Parallel places of Scripture when Christ says I am a Vine it is a Metaphor when he says I am a Door it is a Metaphor when he says I am a way it is a Metaphor when he says this is the Cup of the New Testament it is a Metaphor These are parallel Places of Scripture all Metaphors therefore This is my Body is a Metaphor too According to Theodoret. Dial. immutab he who called himself a Viae called the Sign his Blood. Pa. 62. The blessed Body of Christ not being contained in the Bread can be eaten or it cannot Pro. That Body which is not contained there viz. His Natural Body cannot be eaten but his Sacramental Body which is Spiritually there may therefore we do not maintain that we eat the Body which is not contained in the Bread but that which is therewith given to the Faithful we do eat Pa. Doth it not imply a great contradiction seeing you hold the Body is eaten in the Eucharist and not eaten in the Eucharist Pro. No. We do not say his Body is not eaten we affirm it is but not Carnally but Spiritually so that it is eaten by the Faithful not eaten by the unworthy receiver to maintain as you do that it is eaten and not eaten at the same time by the same person would be a contradiction but it is none to affirm that it is eaten by the worthy and not eaten by the unworthy receiver Of Liturgy in an unknown Tongue PA. 63. That which the Apostles practised is either lawful for us to practise or it is not Pro. Every thing they practised is not lawful for us to practise for some things they did which their Extraordinary Office warranted which is not Lawful for us to do but every thing they practised as private Christians is lawful for us to practise Pa. If it be why do you deny the Lawfulness of the Liturgy in an unknown Tongue seeing the Apostles had their publick Liturgies in Greek Syriack and Latin. Pro. We do not deny the Lawfulness of Liturgies in any Tongue but we deny the Lawfulness of using them among and imposing them upon a People who understand not the Language they are in And though I deny the Liturgies you speak of to have been extant in the times of the Apostles
explain what you mean by those Terms if you mean as Bellarmine and the Catechism ad Parochos that to be called Universal is a Mark of the True Church or if you intend that to be existent every where be a Mark of it I answer it is not Pa. Why then does the Scripture say Matth. 28. 20. Go ye teach all Nations c. And behold I am with you even to the Consummation of the World. And again Ephes. 4. 12. He gave some Apostles c. to the Consummation of the Saints Pro. The Scripture says so because under the Gospel the Church was not limited to the Nation of the Jews but all Nations might be Members of it and there should be a Church to the end of the World but it doth not therefore say this Church should be in all Nations at all times much less doth it say that its being so is a Mark that it is the True Church Besides that Text of St. Paul Ephes. 4. 12 13. is spoken of the perfection of the Saints in Holiness not of the consummating their Number tho' if it were it says nothing of the Name Universal or the Churches existing every where being a Mark to know it by Pa. 11. The Church of God is either Universal or coexistent with all time or not Pro. It is John 14 15 16. The Comforter shall abide with you for ever Luke 1. 33. He shall Reign in the House of Jacob for ever and of his Kingdom there shall be no end Pa. If it be why do you deny Universality Pro. Before you took Universality in one Sense now in another That the Church shall abide for ever and this Universality we do not deny but we deny it to be a Mark of the true Church and that for this Reason because it cannot be known what Church shall endure for ever till the end of all things matter of Future Duration being impossible to be known till the time is finished for how can you know before-hand what will endure for ever the true Church will endure for ever but you must first know which of all the Pretenders to it is the true before you can know which shall endure for ever This therefore cannot be a Mark of the true Church For the Marks of a thing are always present but this Duration is not present but to come and therefore cannot be a Mark. Pa. 12. Christ's Church is Universal or co-existent with all places or it is not Pro. You seem here to mean that Christ's Church is dispersed over all the World in all places and if so I say it is not Pa. How then can it be true that their sound went over all the Earth or kow can all Nations be taught Pro. All Nations shall be taught but there is no necessity that they should be so at all times or that the Church should be always dispersed in all Nations So that this can be no Mark because a Mark must be always evident but it was not evident in the beginning of Christianity nor is not now in many places Pa. 13. The Church of Christ is either Universal or Catholick or it is not Pro. What mean you by its being Universal or Catholick If you mean as we do in the Creed that it comprehends all the true Professors of the Gospel I say it is Pa. Why then do you renounce Universality Pro. We do not renounce it we only say it is no Mark for seeing the Catholick Church is that Church which comprehends all true Christians we must first know who are true Christians before we can know what Church comprehends them Of Sanctity as a Mark of the true Church Pa. 14. The Church of Christ is eminent for Sanctity of Discipline and Dectrine or it is not Pro. It is Pa. Why then do you deny Sanctity in the Church Pro. We do not deny it we affirm it that is Holiness and Purity of Doctrine to be the mark of the true Church and we desire it may be tryed whether we are not of the true Church by that Rule Pa. 15. The Church of Christ is either Sanctified or She is not Pro. The Church of the Elect is Sanctified but the Church of visible Professors is not yet the Doctrine of it is indeed Holy as to the Foundation in which respect we do not deny Sanctity in the Church Pa. 16. The Church of Christ is manifested to be Holy by the Grace of Miracles or she is not Pro. The Grace of Miracles is a new Grace which I understand not and I believe neither do you but for the gift of Miracles I say that is not a Mark of the Sanctity of the Church Pa. Why then did Christ say Joh. 14. 12. c. He that believes in me the Works that I do he shall do and greater Pro. Christ said so because he gave the Holy Spirit to his Followers and a power of working Miracles as long as it was necessary but it doth not follow that it is so always much less doth it follow that they are a Mark to know the Holiness of the Church by seeing Antichrist is to do miracles and the Holy Fathers tell us Hereticks did many yet their miracles will not prove the Sanctity of their Church Pa. 17. Christ either granted true Believers the Grace of Casting out Devils or he did not Pro. Christ did not grant that Power to all true Believers Pa. Why then do you belye the Scriptures Mar. 16 17. Pro. We do not belye them that Text is not spoken of all at all times that do believe and this you must grant or else affirm that none are saved but them who work Miracles which is absurd and false That Power was given in the Beginning of the Church because it was necessary but you cannot prove it so now However we do not deny that God can work miracles by the Hands of his Faithful Servants when he pleases but we do deny that they either are or can be a mark to find the true Church or its Holiness by and you cannot prove that God ever intended or promised that they should be so The true way to find the Church is to examine the Holyness and Purity of its Doctrine and on this we rest our Cause that ours is Pure and Holy and therefore we are of the true Church Pa. 18. Your Church hath these abovementioned Marks or she hath not and if not she is false Pro. That doth not follow for they are not the marks of the true Church as I have proved Holiness indeed is a mark of the true Church that is Holiness of Doctrine and that we affirm we have which is a sufficient Answer to the rest of your Queries however let us hear them Pa. 19. Your Church hath been apparent or visible ever since Christ or it hath not and if not she is false Pro. Our Church hath been always visible to its Members though as a distinct Congregation not to those who were not Members of her
an Evidence of the Churches Sanctity but is indeed a meer invention of Men but our Sanctity we will prove by the Word of God because we teach the same Doctrine which that contains Pa. 32. Luther and Calvin and the rest of your Reformers confirmed their Doctrine with Miracles or they did not Pro. What if they did not Pa. If they did not they were not true Apostles Pro. The Doctrine they Preached was not theirs but that which Christ and his Apostles taught and confirm'd by Miracles so that it needed no more Confirmation except we had received it upon their Authority which we did not We acknowledge they were not Apostles as the twelve were and therefore no need of their working Miracles Pa. 33. The Signs which Christ said in Scripture followed your pretended Reformers or they did not Pro. All the Signs which Christ said should always accompany the true Preachers of the Gospel did follow them Pa. If they did shew one Man they dispossessed or one sick that they restored to Health for if these Signs did not follow them they are not true Believers Pro. That doth not follow for Christ never made that a Sign of True Believers nay you must confess that many never worked any of these Miracles who are yet true Believers If indeed they had Preached any new Doctrine you might call for Miracles but seeing they Preached none new but the Doctrine that was taught by Christ his Apostles and the Ancient Fathers there is no need to confirm that by Miracles seeing all the Miracles Christ and his Apostles wrought were for that end However we can shew many certain instances of Mens being dispossessed by the Prayers of the Faithful in our Church and many among us who have had their Health restored them in answer to their own and the Churches Prayers but for all that we have better grounds for our Faith which we rest upon Pa. 34. Your Reformers were either famous for their virtuous Lives or they were not Pro. They were Pa. If they were why did they break their Vows made to God and teach Men so to do Pro. The Vows which they broke were unlawful Vows and your own Canons expresly say that an unlawful Vow ought to be broken C. 22. qu. 4. c. in malis by breaking then their Vow of single Life that is by repenting of it and not observing it they did no more than what they were in duty bound to do and therefore were holy Men for all that Pa. 35. The Catholick Roman Church and no other stands firm and infallible against all the Tempests of Apostasie Heresy and Schism Pro. The Roman Church is not firm nor infallible but as to the visible part of it is fallen both by Apostasie Heresy and Schism Pa. 36. The Romans had once the true Church or they had not Pro. The question is Ambiguous if you mean by it that the Roman Church was the true Church as the Mother of all other I deny it if you mean that the Roman Church was a true Church and had the true Faith I answer that she had the true Faith. Pa. If the Romans had the true Faith they retain the same still infallibly or do not Pro. They do not Pa. 37. If they do not then they must have their fall either by Apostasie Heresie or Schism Pro. She hath fallen by them all Pa. The Ancient Apostolick Catholick Roman Church fell by Apostasie or it did not Pro. The Ancient Apostolick Catholick Church fell not at all Nay the Ancient Roman Church fell not but the present Roman Church is fallen Pa. If she is fallen by Apostasie what prudent man will say that she ever renounced the sweet Name of Jesus which she ever hath in so great Veneration Pro. She may have fallen by Apostasie and yet not have renounced the Name of Jesus so that her having it in so great Veneration is no Argument that she is not fallen by Apostasie Pa. 38. The Roman Church fell by Heresie or she did not Pro. She did Pa. If she did by what General Council was she ever Condemn'd which of the Fathers ever wrote against her Or by what Authority was she otherwise reprov'd Pro. If nothing be an Heresy but what a General Council condemns then those Heresies which sprang up in the first three hundred years were wrongfully esteemed such in those times seeing there was then no General Council If a Doctrine may be Heretical which was never Condemned by a general Council then the Dostrines of the Church of Rome may be Heretical though never Condemned by a General Council so that question doth not vindicate her from being guilty of Heresie Pa. But which of the Fathers ever wrote against her Pro. All the Ancient Fathers disclaim those Doctrines which the Roman Church now holds but they could not write purposely against her because she did not then profess those Doctrines But if it be a good Argument the Church of Rome fell not into Heresy because no Father wrote purposely against her then the same Argument will vindicate us seeing no Father hath writ against us but if no Father had writ against the Church of Rome she might be Heretical for all that so that this question and the former are both impertinent Pa. But by what Authority was she reproved Pro. By the Authority of the Scriptures by the Authority of the Testimony of the Antient Church and the Authority of right Reason Pa. 39. The Ancient Roman Church fell by Schism and by dividing herself from some other Church or she did not Pro. She did Pa. If she did whose company did she leave from what Body did she go forth Where was the true Church she forsook Pro. She forsook the Primitive Church the Eastern Church and all those Christians who always maintained their Freedom from the Roman Yoke Pa. 40. The true Holy Apostolick Catholick Church is fallible and can err or it cannot Pro. Remember by the Church I mean the Faithful throughout the World and of these I say they all cannot err in any point of Faith. Pa. Why do you then falsly condemn her Pro. We do not condemn her we are part of her but for the Roman Church we condemn her Pa. 41. The Church of God is infallible in all her Proposals and Definitions of Faith or she is not Pro. All Definitions made by the whole Church of Christ are infallibly true Pa. If she be why do you deny infallibility Pro. The Infallibility we deny is that of a Pope or Council and this we deny because they are not the whole Church and therefore though the Church of Christ be infallible yet they are not Pa. 42. Christ being the Head of the Church and the Holy Ghost the Soul of the Church guiding and directing the Church in all Truth she can err or she cannot Pro. She cannot Pa. Then she is not fallible Pro. The Church of Christ is not fallible but the Roman Church is 43. Christ is either a
true Prophet or he is not Pro. He is Pa. If he be how then can the Gates of Hell prevail against the Church Seeing he prophesied in St. Matt. 16. 18. The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against her Pro. The Gates of Hell cannot prevail against the Church nor never shall that is they shall not prevail against the whole Church but against any particular Church as the Church of Rome they may and have prevailed But here as in the rest of your Queries you beg the question supposing the Church of Rome to be the only Church of Christ. Pa. 44. The Holy Ghost suggesteth all truth to the Church or it doth not Pro. It doth Pa. If it doth then it will suggest no Errors Pro. It will not But that doth not hinder but it may permit Satan to suggest Errors to a particular Church this you will allow and therefore to the Church of Rome which is but a particular Church Pa. 45. Christ was a wise Man or he was not Pro. He was Pa. Why then did he build his House upon the Sand and make it subject to the infernal Tempests Pro. He did not build his House upon the Sand nor did he make it subject that is he did not subject it to the infernal Tempests but he made it liable to them yet still he defeats their force and though he suffers them to overthrow some outer parts of it yet the House it self shall never be overthrown Pa. 46. A Congregation of People in dispising Christ are guilty of Apostasie or they are not Pro. If they were People that professed Christ before then they are guilty of Apostasie in despising him but not else if they never Professed Christ they are guilty of horrible Sin but not of Apostasie Pa. If they be how can you clear your selves of Apostasie in despising his Church seeing it is said in Scripture Luke 10. 16. He that heareth you heareth me c. Pro. We do not despise the Church it is you despise her by teaching so many things contrary to her Doctrine as we are ready to prove Pa. 47. Your Church is guilty of Heresie or she is not Pro. She is not Pa. If not how doth the Definition of Heresie agree with you in adhering to so many singular and private Opinions and Errors of Faith contrary to the general approved Doctrine of the Catholick Church Pro. It doth not agree at all to us we teach no such private and singular Opinions the Doctrines we teach are the received Doctrines of the Catholick Church but it agrees very well to you whose Doctrines wherein we dissent from you are such private and singular Opinions and contrary to the received Doctrine of the Catholick Church and this we will at any time prove Pa. 48. Your Church is guilty of Schism or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. How then doth the Definition of Schism agree with you in dividing your selves from the Body of all Faithful Christians and in breaking Communion with the Antient Apostolick Catholick Roman Church Pro. It doth not agree to us we made no such Division we indeed divided our selves from the corrupt Roman Church but we never divided from the Ancient Apostolick Church but you did and this I am ready to make good See here again you beg the question and suppose the Roman Church the only Church of Christ which is the point in Controversie and you can never prove Pa. 49. That Church to which Apostasie Heresy and Schism agree is a false Church or she is not Pro. She is Pa. Then your Church is a false Church seeing they so aptly agree with her Pro. They do not agree with her but rather with you as I have proved Therefore she is no false Church Pa. 50. All that which the Ancient holy Catholick Roman Church holds as Articles of Faith is pious good and lawful Pro. All that the Ancient holy Catholick Church held is pious good and lawful and so is all that the Ancient holy Roman Church held for she held nothing but what the Catholick Church held but all that the present Roman Church holds is not pious good and lawful Pa. I prove it is out of holy Writ and by common Sense and Reason Pro. Both holy Writ and common Sense and Reason are against you but go on Of the Popes Supremacy PA. 51. The Foundation of the Church of God next after Christ was builded upon St. Peter or it was not Pro. It was no more builded on St. Peter than upon the other Apostles Pa. Why then doth the Scripture say Mat. 16. 18. Thou art Peter and upon this Rock will I build my Church Pro. Christ says not there that he will build his Church upon the Person of Peter but upon the Confession that he had before made vers 16. Thou art Christ the Son of the Living God which is the Foundation of the Christian Religion so St. Austin explains it Aug. trac 10. in 1 John What means this saith he vpon this Rock will I build my Church Upon that Faith upon that which is said Thou art the Christ seeing then Christ did not build his Church on Peter more than the other Apostles we with good reason deny his Supremacy Pa. 52. Christ did prefer Peter before the other Apostles or he did not Pro. He did not give Peter any Preference of Order or Power more than to the other Apostles Pa. If he did not why did he say to Peter only John 21. 16 17 18 feed my Lambs feed my Sheep Pro. He did not say it to Peter only St. Austin tells us Aug. de ago Christ. c. 30. when it is said unto Peter Feed my Sheep it is said unto all and St. Amb. Lib. de Sacerd. which Sheep and Flock St. Peter did not receive alone but we all received them with him Seeing then here was no Prerogative given to Peter but what the rest of the Apostles and all Pastors received we have good reason to deny his Supremacy Pa. 53. The Apostles were of equal Authority or they were not Pro. They were Pa. If they were why have you Primates Archbishops Bishops and no equal Authority as they had Pro. The Question is impertinent all Archbishops are of equal Authority in their own Provinces All Bishops are of equal Authority in their respective Dioceses So that we have an equal Authority But as Bishops were under the Apostles and Presbyters under them so we have the same degrees but for the Office of an Apostle that is no longer in the Church Pa. 54. To whom the chief Charge of feeding Christs Sheep was given he was chief of the Apostles or he was not Pro. He was Pa. Why then do you deny Peter's Supremacy to whom the chief charge was committed Pro. The chief Charge was not committed to him therefore we deny his Supremacy And although I acknowledged that if the chief Charge had been given to any he had been Chief yet seeing it was given to none as I proved
yet if they were they never used a Greek Liturcy among the Latins but among the Greeks these several Liturgies being for the several Nations whose Language they were pen'd in Pa. 64. Seeing God hath commanded nothing concerning the Language of the publick Liturgy we ought either to follow the Commands of the Church or we ought not Pro. God hath commanded already that the publick Service should be in a known Tongue and not in an unknown so that you suppose what is not true the whole fourteenth Chapter of 1 Cor. forbids Prayer or Preaching in an unknown Tongue Pa. Why do you deny the Liturgy in an unknown Tongue seeing the Church commands it Pro. The Church doth not command it the Roman Church indeed doth but that is not the Church we deny it therefore because it crosses the ends of Prayer which is Edification and because God hath forbid it in the forecited place Pa. 65. The Man that prays and gives thanks in an unknown Tongue either doth well or he doth not Pro. He that gives thanks or prays in a Tongue unknown to himself doth not well and he that publickly prays and gives thanks in a Tongue unknown to his Auditors doth not well Pa. Why do you condemn that place of Scripture 1 Cor. 14. 17. Thou indeed givest thanks well but the other is not edified Pro. We do not condemn that place The Apostle there speaks of the matter of such a person's Thanksgiving which he says may be good but at the same time he condemns the manner the doing it in an unknown Tongue because others are not edified and he commands vers 26. that all things be done to edifying This then being a Breach of that Command is not lawful the Apostle says he may give thanks well for the matter but not in a right manner seeing the other is not edified For which reason we condemn the use of a Liturgy in an unknown Tongue Pa. 66. That which is praised in Scripture and proved to be pleasing unto God is either lawful and expedient for us to prastise or it is not Pro. That which is proved to be pleasing to God for us to do is lawful Pa. Why then do you deny the Liturgy in an unknown Tongue seeing the Apostle says 1 Cor. 14. 2. He that speaketh with Tongues speaketh not to men but God and vers 14. If I pray with Tongues my Spirit prayeth but my Understanding is unfruitful and vers 30. to speak with Tongues forbid not Pro. For God's sake Sir consider how strangely you argue this is the very reason why we Condemn publick Prayer in an unknown Tongue because it is not to Edification and because the Understanding is unfruitful and we ought to pray with Understanding 1 Cor. 14. 15. the Apostle here in vers 30. commends speaking with Tongues and so do we but it is one thing to speak with Tongues and another to speak in an unknown Tongue it is not unlawful to speak to or Pray with the People in Greek and Hebrew if they understand it or I or any other interpret it to them But to speak or pray in a Tongue they do not understand without interpreting what I say is expresly forbid by the Apostle 1 Cor. 14. 27 28. If any Man speak in an unknown Tongue let one interpret but if there be no Interpreter let him keep silence in the Church Thus Prayers in an unknown Tongue are so far from being recommended that they are expresly forbidden therefore we reject them Of Confession and Absolution PA. 67. The Apostles being made Spiritual Judges by our Lord had power from him to bind and loose from Sin or they had not Pro. They had no power to bind and loose from the Guilt of Sin but a power of binding and loosing they had Pa. Why then do you reject Absolution Pro. We do not reject it but the Absolution of the Church of Rome we do which pretends to more than Christ ever gave and we also deny that it is a Sacrament as Baptism and the Lord's Supper are Pa. 68. The Laity are obliged to disclose their Faults to their Judges or they are not Pro. If by their Judges you mean their Ministers they are not their Judges and they are not obliged to disclose all their faults to them Pa. If not how can they absolve them from what they know not Pro. Absolution is either general or particular the general is sufficient except in particular grievous Sins which trouble the Conscience for these we enjoyn a particular Absolution but for the general it is sufficient for the Ministers to know in general that they are Sinners and see that they profess to be Penitent Pa. 69. Christ in speaking these words whose Sins ye forgive c. John 20. 24. spoke true or false Pro. He spoke true Pa. Why then do you deny the power of Absolution Pro. We do not deny the power but we condemn your abuse of it Pa. 70. That which the Scripture commands either is necessary or it is not Pro. Whatever the Scripture commands as our Duty is necessary Pa. Why then do you deny that of St. James 5. 16. Confess your faults one to another Pro. We do not deny it but we say it doth not prove the necessity of Confession to a Priest it speaks of confessing one to another to our Brethren therefore by no means proves Confession of all our Sins to a Priest necessary to Salvation We condemn not the use of Confession but the making it necessary to Salvation and part of a Sacrament Of Purgatory PA. 71. There either is a Penal Prison or Place of temporal Punishment and Payment after this Life or there is not Pro. There is not Pa. Why then do you falsify that Scripture Zach. 9. 11. Thou also in the Blood of thy Covenant hast set forth thy Prisoners out of the Pit wherein there is no Water Pro. We do not falsify it but you do it is not Thou in the Blood of thy Covenant but as for thee in the Blood of thy Covenant or whose Covenant is by Blood I have sent forth thy Prisoners out of the Pit wherein there was no Water and it speaks not a word of Purgatory but of the Deliverance of the Israelites and the Redemption by the Messiah Pa. Why do you falsify that Text. Mal. 3. 3. He shall purify the Sons of Levi. Pro. We do not falsify it but we affirm it proves nothing of Purgatory but of the Conversion even of the Priests by the Gospel of Christ which we find was fulfilled Acts 6. 7. Or if it did speak of a Purgatory it speaks only of one for the Sons of Levi and therefore says nothing of such a third Place as you maintain Pa. But you falsify that Text 1 Cor. 3. 15. The work of every Man shall be manifest and yet he himself shall be saved yet so as by Fire Pro. We do not but we say it is evident that this whole Text is an allusion