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
to the tryal of Metals by the Fire and all it says is this That he who hath held firm the Foundation if he hath taught any vain ungrounded Doctrins yet if in the main he be found sincere he shall be saved but as one that scapeth out of the Fire and therefore speaks nothing of a Place of Purification after this Life much less of a place of temporal Punishment for the Apostle doth not say he shall be saved by Fire but so as by Fire that is as one that hath escaped the Fire with much Difficulty Pa. But why do you falsify that Text. Mat. 5. 25. Be at an agreement with the Adversary quickly c. Pro. We do not falsify it our Saviour speaks there of the Prison of Hell and of no other therefore we say there is no ground for Purgatory in this Place therefore we deny it Pa. 72. Those Souls which our Blessed Saviour and his Apostles raised from Death were either in Heaven or Hell or they were not If not why then do you deny a third Place Pro. I might very well except against this loose and idle way of arguing from such unknown Points but I wave it and tell you it was not necessary they should be either in Heaven or Hell. Pa. Then they must be in a third Place Pro. 'T is true but you cannot argue that because on such an extraordinary occasion God kept them in a third Place for a time therefore there is a third Place for all to go to but if we should grant that there is no Consequence from hence that will prove that place a place of Punishment and Purification if there were a third Place destined to Souls which we deny yet it doth not thence follow it must be a Purgatory Pa. 73. Christ's descensiou either was into the Hell of the Damned or it was not Pro. What if it was Pa. Then you Blaspheme Pro. I deny that Christ might go down there to triumph over the Powers of Darkness upon their own Ground or for several other reasons Pa. But if it was not into the Hell of the Damned it was into a third Place Pro. What then was it therefore into Purgatory suppose that Expression he descended into Hell be meant only of the grave or the State of the Dead as Sheol in Hebrew and Hades in Greek signify what is that to Purgatory I still affirm therefore with St. Austin Ser. 232. Let no Man deceive himself for there are two Places and there is no third he that deserves not to reign with Christ shall without doubt perish with the Devil Pa. 74. When Christ Preached to the Souls in Prison 1 Pet. 3. 19. It was either to the damned or it was not Pro. We are no where told that Christ went and Preached unto the Damned in Hell or any Spirits in a separate State. That which the Apostle says is That there are many Spirits now in Prison to whom Christ once Preached by his Spirit in the Ministry of Noah So this speaking nothing as appears from v. 20. of Christ's Preaching to Spirits already in Prison you can draw no Argument from thence Of Venial and Mortal Sins PA. 75. All kinds of Sin either rob the Soul of Justice and make her guilty of Damnation or they do not Pro. Guilty of Damnation is an odd Phrase but all kinds of Sin do make a Soul deserve Damnation though every Sin doth not rob it of Justice or Righteousness Pa. If they do why then doth Christ make three different sorts of Sin of which the least makes a Man guilty of Damnation Mat. 5. 23. Pro. If the least of them makes a Man guilty of Damnation as you Phrase it then every Sin does so and this overthrows you but I believe you mistake your own meaning However you beg the question for Christ doth not there make three different kinds of Sin but speaks of the different degrees of Punishments alluding to the Punishments among the Jews Pa. 76. All Sins are either Mortal and sufficient to break Charity betwixt God and Man or they are not Pro. In their own Nature all Sins are Mortal Pa. If they be then the Apostles themselves are not in the Charity of God seeing it is said in St. James 3. 2. We all offend in many things Pro. 'T is true the Apostles themselves had not been in the Charity of God upon that account if the Grace of Christ had not been stronger than the guilt of those Sins so that we do not deny but there are Sins which we call Sins of humane Infirmity which in a regenerate Person are but venial because the Grace of Christ forgives them though in their own Nature they are mortal Pa. 77. All idle Words either are mortal Sins or they are not Pro. All idle sinful Words are in their own Nature mortal Pa. If they be how can any one hope for Salvation seeing Man morally speaking can avoid idle Words Pro. By the grace of Christ pardoning those unabidable Imperfections Pa. 78. All Sins are even unto Death or they are â—ot Pro. If by that Expression you mean deserving Death â—hey are Pa. Then you make Christ a Lyar who said There is Sin unto Death and a Sin not unto Death Pro. It was not Christ but St. John who said so 1 Jo. 16. But he there speaks not of a Sin which barely deserves â—eath but of that Sin which whosoever commits it shall â—ertainly dye Eternally that is the Sin against the Holy Ghost he doth not say there is a Sin not deserving Death â—ut there is a Sin not unto Death by which as appears by v. 18. he means those Sins of daily Incursion in the Regenerate which though they deserve Death yet they do not bring it because the Grace of Christ covers and forgives them Of Invocation of Angels and Saints PA. 79. The Enjoyment of God Angels Saints and the Glory of Heaven either robs Men of their Knowledge or it doth not Pro. It doth not Pa. If not why do you deny the Prophets now in Heaven can know things at a distance as well as they did on Earth Pro. We deny not but God may reveal things to them in an extraordinary manner as well as when they were on Earth but as his revealing some things to them on Earth did not prove they knew all things so neither will it prove they know all things now that Knowledge then while here being only particular and extraordinary they are not rob'd of if they have it not but if they have it what is that to praying to them Pa. 80. The damned Spirits of Hell either know morâ— than the Blessed Souls in the Glory of the Father or they do not Pro. They do not Pa. If not why do you acknowledge the Devils to understand our most secret Thoughts and Prayers and not thâ— Saints and Angels also Pro. We do not acknowledge that the Devils understand our thoughts we say it is Blasphemy to assert it For God
Peace here and Bliss hereafter The Consideration of this when duly weighed can never fail of putting us on Enquiry how we shall attain it The Jaylor was no sooner awakened but he puts the question what shall I do and we have this Enoouragement to prosecute the Search that if we seek we shall surely find and the Holy Spirit shall guide us into Truth Of all the Papers lately published by the Gentlemen of the Romish Church I find none which seems more earnestly to seek Truth than this which I have here answered and I am not so uncharitable as to doubt at all of the Sincerity of the Authors Profession in the Epistle but I must say they have not taken the right Course these Queries should have been put before they turned which if they had I believe their now Ghostly Fathers had missed their Proselytes therefore I desire of thee Reader that if any Reply be made to this Treatise or if some Emissaries should attempt thee privately in defence of what I have here answered thou wouldest Suspend thy Judgment till I have time to Reply or else consult some learned Divine and then I am sure there is no danger of thy Perversion if thou retainest a sincere desire to find the Truth the want of that Caution hath perverted several within my Knowledge the Priests industriously keeping those whom they design upon from such Helps by urging the plainness of their Arguments which often catch unconsidering Persons For thy Benefit I have answered every Argument which my Adversaries offer setting it first down in their own Words So that all the Papist speaks is the words of their Book which I have therefore caused to be Printed in a different Letter I have been brief in my Answers yet plain and full if any reply be made I desire it may be done with the same Calmness I have used and without running from the question if any particular be proved Erroneous I here promise to recant it for I write not out of Prejudice or Passion God is Witness but a desire to find the Truth and I shall receive so much Satisfaction from being better informed that I shall not be ashamed to learn. My Adversaries profess the same I beg of them they would keep to it I promise nothing but plain Evidence of Truth shall prevail with me I hope the same of them that if they find the Motives of their Change weak and frivolous as I think I have made them appear to be they will not be ashamed to make â—â— better Since my Answer was finished there came forth a Treatise pretending to search into the Grounds of Religion which is much to the same purpose with that I have here answered and I don't know any Material passage in it but what thou wilt find resolved here it is drest up with a little more Art than my Adversaries and consequently with less Sincerity One of the great Charges which they draw up against us is That we follow the Private Spirit a word which they make much use of but I don't know what they mean by it if they intend to blame us for expecting the assistance of the Spirit of God in teaching and instructing us let them prove that God hath not promised it and we are not to expect it if they can but if they mean as I suppose the believing nothing but what Sence and Reason tells us is from God if it be this they call the private Spirit at the same time they find fault with us they condemn themselves for it is no more than what they must necessarily follow in Reading their Councils Catechisms and Fathers or in hearing their Preachers for we do not use our Reason in the examining the Truth of what God hath said but in examining what it is that he hath said and let them shew us another way to come to the knowledge of his Will and they will do more than their infallible Councils ever thought of I would willingly take away all occasion of disputing about Words for which reason I desire thee to take notice that because I would not puzzle the unlearned Reader with hard Words I have called several Passages METAPHORS in the 61st Query which are indeed METONYMIES but the other term being more generally understood I chose to use it which I hope my Adversaries will take notice of and not wrangle about the Propriety of the Expression when there is no need of it I cannot but take notice what wonderful Reverence my Adversaries and their Church pretend to have for the Fathers and yet these Gentlemen Quer. 73. Charge several of them with Blasphemy for say they if you say Christ descended into the Hell of the Damned then you Blaspheme and yet St. Austin Ser. 120. de tempore lib. 12. de Genesi ad litteram c. 33. Epist 57. ad Dardan Epist. 59. ad Euo-diam diam and St. Jerome Commen in Zachar. c. 9. verse 11. teaches that he descended to the Hell of the Damned even to the Hell where Dives was punished So that though the Author of Nubes Testium P. 208 209. censures the Protestants for rejecting the Fathers in some things yet we find they only are not to be blamed for it for these Gentlemen and the Jesuits who approved their Book charge them with Blasphemy which is a something bolder way of treating them than what that Author accuses them of but 't is no unusual thing with them for I can make it appear that there is not one of the Fathers of the first five Ages nay scarce any of later Date but are censured and rejected and accused of Ignorance and Error by the greatest of the Romanists I will trespass upon thy Patience no longer but with my Hearty Prayers to the God of Truth that he would remove Prejudice from thy Heart and clearly discover the Truth to thee as it is in Jesus I commend thee to God and rest Thy Servant L. E. INTRODUCTION IF you had not left the State of the Question wholly untouched and made use of general Terms without explaining in what Sence you intended to have them understood when the whole Controversy depended upon the right acceptation you would have proceeded with greater Candor than I could ever yet find any of your Authors shewed Thus you make serveral Dilemma's upon the Church the Visibility and Unity of it but never tell us what you mean by the Church But seing you speak of the Church of Christ in general in your first Dilemma I suppose you inténded that Church which is thus defin'd by the Catechism ad Parochos out of St. Austin Par. 1. Pag. 77. Edit Lug. ann 1676 The Church is the faithful People dispersed throughout the whole World. Now in this Sence I answer to your DILEMMA's by way of DIALOGUE PA. 1. God hath a Church in the World or he hath not Pro. He hath Pa. Then yours is the true Church or it is not Pro. If by our
only knows the Thoughts but we do affirm the Devils who are always about us do know what we speak and act but the Saints are at a distance from us and therefore cannot and the Angels if the Opinion of every Persons having one for a Guardian be true may possibly know the actions of those whom they are Guardians to but this proves no knowledge of the Thoughts nor if they did know them is there any Reason we should pray to them Pa. 81. The Angels of God have prayed for those on Earth or they have not Pro. They have not Pa. Why then do you not agree with us that Angels pray for us Pro. We do agree with you that they pray for us but what is that to our Praying to them Pa. 82. It is either Lawful to pray to the Angels or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. If not why do you accuse Jacob of an Error in invocating the Angel to bless his Children Gen. 48 16. Pro. Jacob did not there invocate any created Angel but the Angel of the Covenant the Lord Jesus Christ. So saith St. Athanasius orat 4. in Arrian the Patriarch Jacob in his Prayer joined none with God but him only who is the Word whom he calls Angel so that we do not condemn him of an Error Pa. Why do you condemn this Text Job 5. 1. Call therefore and turn to thee some of the Saints Pro. We do not condemn that Text but we may justly condemn you for alledging it after such a manner and to such a purpose the Words are Call now if there be any that will answer thee and to which of the Saints wilt thou turn whereby Eliphaz upbraids Job as unworthy of such a Privilege as he had enjoyed in Chap. 4. v. 16. of a Vision to instruct him but says nothing of Prayer to Saints or any thing like it Pa. Why do you condemn that Hos. 12. 4. Jacob prevailed against the Angel and wept and prayed to him Pro. We do not condemn it the Prophet there speaks of the Angel which he met in Bethel Gen. 23. 24. Which Angel was no created Angel but Christ for Gen. 32. 30. Jacob calls him God now will it follow that because Jacob worshipped God therefore we must invocate a Created Angel Are these Arguments for Men of Reason to use Of the Worshipping of Angels and Images PA. 83. When St. John in the Apocalypse 22. 8. fell down to adore before the Feet of the Angel be knew it either to be lawful or it was not Pro. It was not Pa. Then you accuse the most Wise and Excellent Apostles of gross Ignorance and wilful Idolatry Pro. We do not accuse them of gross Ignorance it was no invincible Ignorance for it is plain St. John took him for Christ in that the Argument he uses to withhold him is that he was a Created Spirit and such an Ignorance St. John was guilty of but for wilful Idolatry We do not accuse him he did not as you do worship that which he knew not to be God but he was about to worship that which he took for God. I wonder how you can alledge this Text in your Favour which is so clearly against you Pa. Again when Lot ador'd the Angels Gen. 19. 1. with his Face bowed towards the Earth he either committed Idolatry or he did not Pro. You beg the question Lot did not adore the Angels the Scripture tells us he rose np to meet them and bowed himself with his Face towards the Ground which was only a civil Salutation for he took them only for Men and therefore could not adore them So that there is no Argument to be drawn from hence Pa. 84. All that which is recorded in Holy Writ to have been done by the known Saints of God without reproof either is Lawful or it is not Pro. All that they so did without an extraordinary Call to it is Lawful but there were some things which were peculiarly lawful to them which is not so to us Pa. If all things they did as their ordinary Duty be Lawful then why do you call it Idolatry to worship Images Pro. Because the Saints of God never worshipped them Pa. Did not John the Baptist the great Precursor of Christ worship the very Latchets of our Saviours Shooes Pro. This is a pleà sant question where do you find he ever did The Scripture saith no such thing he said indeed he was not worthy to bear them but he never worshipped them Prove it if you can Pa. Why did Jacob worship the top of Joseph's Rod Heb. 11. 21. Pro. He did not there is no text of Scripture that says he did that place which you quote is plainly perverted for the words are He worshipped upon the top of his Staff that is leaning on it or that he worshipped leaning towards the Beds Head and therefore St. Jerome whose Translation you profess to follow in his questions upon Genesis rejecteth that Version which yet you retain we affirm then still that the Saints of God did not worship Images Pa. 85. The holy Veneration and Worship of Images have either profited the Jews and Christians or they have not Pro. They have not Pa. How then were the Israelites healed of the biting of the Serpents in the Desarts Pro. Not by worshipping any Image no not the Brazen Serpent but by looking on it thereby exercising their Faith on Christ whom it was a Type of Pa. How then did the Primitive Christians receive special benefit by venerating the Shadow of St. Peter and St. Paul Acts 5. 15. and 19. 11. Pro. Here again you suppose what is not the Shadow of St. Peter healed many and so did St. Paul but they did not venerate or worship either their shadow or their Persons Pa. 86. It is lawful to bow the Knee to Images or it is not Pro. It is not Pa. If not why doth the Apostle say at the Name of Jesus every Knee shall bow Phil. 2. 8. Which Name is nothing else but an Image of the Hearing Pro. This is as impertinent an Argument as ever I heard the question is about graven visible material Images not about Images in the Hearing but pray remember St. Paul doth not say Every Body shall worship that Name So that it is nothing to your purpose about visible material Images or worshipping them Of the Veneration of Reliques PA. 87. The Honour and Veneration of the Reliques of Saints which God himself hath approved by many famous Miracles is good or it is not Pro. It is Pa. Why then do you condemn the Veneration of Reliques Pro. Because God hath never approved it either by Miracles or any other way Pa. 88. That Woman which was miraculously cured of the Bloody-Flux by only touching the Hem of Christ's Garment was Cured either for venerating the Reliques â—â— she was not Pro. She was not but for her Faith. Pa. Why then was not she Cured afar off Pro. That is nothing to us it is
from the Spirit of God and that portion of the Spirit which she for that end had in Ordination is only a power given by the Spirit and therefore no security from Error seeing all Hereticks have so much of the Spirit Pa. Either they had their Mission from God or they had not Pro. They had Pa. If they had why did not they confirm their Doctrine by Miracles Pro. Because Christ and his Apostles had done it before and seeing they preached no new Doctrine there was no need of them Pa. 122. Luther and Calvins Doctrine either was manifested to be true by Miracles or it was not Pro. It was not by any Miracles wrought by them but by the Miracles of Christ and his Apostles it was Pa. If they did no Miracles then seeing you cannot alledge any Text of sacred Writ to vindicate their Tenets you must of necessity have recourse to the private Spirit Pro. Are not you ashamed of such an Argument when you know we produce Texts plain Texts of Scripture for every one of our Doctrines and we found them upon nothing else and for the private Spirit it is a thing we know not neither do you know what you mean by it we renounce any such thing but the Assistance of the Spirit of God we own and pray for Pa. 123. The Apostles either had the private Spirit or they had not Pro. What you mean by the private Spirit is best known to your self But that Assistance of the holy Spirit which we hope for and God hath promised they had Pa. If they had why then did they call a Council Acts 19. Pro. I appeal to your self whether that is an Argument that they had not even a greater viz. An infallible Assistance of the Spirit attending every one in particular which if they had you cannot deny them the Assistance we plead for Pa. 24. Your private Spirit either is of God or it is not Pro. The Assistance of the holy Spirit promised anâ— given to every private Man who seeks it with Humility and Prayers is of God. Pa. Why then are there so many disagreeing Sects among you Pro. There are no disagreeing Sects among us in matters of Faith in which alone the Assistance of the Holy Spirit is given Pa. 125. A Man endowed with your private Spirit either can interpret Scripture or he cannot Pro. A Man endowed with the Spirit of God which in the only assisting Spirit can interpret Scripture aright Pa. If they can what need have you of Preachers Pro. To instruct the ignorant to convince the erroneous to stir up the negligent to excite the slothful to comfort the Broken-hearted and Administer the holy Sacraments Pa. But after all no Man will believe any thing but what his Spirit suggests unto him Pro. No Man ought to believe any thing but what the Spirit of God suggests unto him either by the Scriptures the Law of Nature or internal Convictions for which he makes use of Ministers as the Means FINIS POSTSCRIPT I Desire the Gentlemen against whom I write would deal so fairly with me as to let me and the World know what Scandals and Calumnies they aim at in their Caution to their Adversaries and who they are who they say could never learn to speak or write Truth and what those sores are which they threaten to rip up a few words will explain their meaning which is there a little dark Qu. 1. 41 5. Qu. 5. 41. 46. 111. Qu. 37 40 46 47 50 c. Qu. 54. 55. 64. 89. Qu. 66. 93. 95. 96. 97. 102. 103. 104. 117. 84. Qu. 11. You take Universal for being in all Places Qu. 12. You take it for being existent at all times c. Qu. 13. You take it for being called Universal Acts 16. Seek and ye shall find Epist. Ded.