inclosed for which I teturn my most humble thanks and instead of another which you seem to require of me I have sent you two herein inclosed the one to shew you the superstition Idolatry and Will-worship of your Church the other to convince you of the Pride Arrogancy Tyranny and Usurp'd power of it which when your Ladyship hath been pleased to peruse and as well as you can to answer I shall summe up all that you have said rogether and make a short rejoynder to the whole of your replies for I am refolved to trouble your Ladyship with no more Papers so praying God for your Ladyships good health both of Body and Soul I take leave to remain Madam Your Ladyships most assured faithfull servant N. My Lady upon the return of her servant opening the Packet that Mistress N. had sent back to her found the Papers inclosed whereof the first was to this effect as followeth That which your Church teacheth concerning the invocation of Saints is a Doctrine very injurious to God and yet not more prophane then superstitious and impertinent and that I will prove thus 1. Jesus Christ our blessed Saviour with God the Father God the Holy Ghost Holy Trinity in Unity three Persons and one God alone is all-sufficient alone is most liberall and alone is most mercifull and who alone loves us more than all the Saints There is not a Christian living that I think dares deny a word of this if there should be such a monster a were easie to prove every word of it by express Scripture who can think it rationall then to invoke any other thing and besides that this all-bountifull all-mercifull all-powerfull most good most gracious and most loving Lord God has not onely enjoin'd us but importun'd us to pray to him and him alone promising to hear and grant our requests and that I prove by most express Scriptures thus 2. First by the Gospells it is most clear our Saviour in Saint John assures it with a Verily verily I say unto you whatsoever ye shall ask the Father in my name he will give it you John 16.23 24. and then in the next verse Ask and ye shal receive thus it is but asking of God and having and yet you must think fit to go about by the Saints 3. Then in Saint Lukes Gospel we find and I say unto you ask and it shall be given you Luke 11.9.10 11 12 13. seek and ye shall find knock and it shall be opened unto you For every one that asketh receiveth and he that seeketh findeth and to him that knocketh it shall be opened Then by the paralel of God with a good Father granting his childs requests he concludes how much more shall your heavenly Father give the holy Spirit to them that ask him Again what you ask in prayet believing ye shall receive as Saint Matthews Gospell tells Matth. 2. with an infinity of other places too many to repeat to that purpose wherefore Saint Paul most pithily concludes Heb. 4.16 Let us therefore come boldly unto the throne of Grace that we may obtain mercy and find grace to help in time of need 4 The Apostle tells us 2 Cor. 1.3 that God is the Father of mercies and the Lord of all comforts who comforteth us in all our tribulation that we may be able to comfort them which are in any trouble by the comfort wherewith we our selvs are comforted of God c. If all our comfort then be from God had we not better make our address to him that we know is the fountain of all Grace than to the Saints who can have nothing but what they derive from him 5. The same Apostle tells Tymothy plainly that there is but one Mediatour between God and men and that is Christ Jesus what an offence then must it needs be to God to make more Mediators that is the Saints Then we finde frequently in Scripture that he alone maketh intercesion for us as in Isaiah that he makes intercession for transgressors 1 Tim. 2.5 Isai 53.12 Rom. 8.26.24 Heb. 7.25 and Saint Paul tells us that he ever liveth to make intercession for us And again who always maketh intercession for us why should we date to make more intercessors that is the Saints 6. In fine to summe up all in short your Doctrine of invocacion of the Saints is highly injurious to God who is a jealous God and will onely be worship'd It is injurious to Jesus Christ who is the onely Mediatour between God and man Thirdly it is injurious to our selves for it is an argument of a diffidence and distrust in God when we fly to the Saints for succour and then lastly it is an impertinent and unprofitable piece of devotion because the Saints in heaven neither do nor can hear our prayets nor know our wants or what is done here amongst us as Job tells us Job 24.21 Eccles 9.5 his sons came to honor and he knoweth it not Ecclesiastes assures us that the living know that they shall dye but the dead know not any thing and the Prophet Isaiah yet more plainly Isai 63.16 doubtlessthou art our Father though Abraham be ignorant of us and Israel do not acknowledge us c. Thus it is plain that the Saintf in heaven are incapable to know our wants or hear our prayers much less to help us That your Doctrine of Veneration of Images is an abominable Idolatrcus Dactrine and prejudicial to divine Worship I prove Thus. First out of the plain words of the Commandement Thou shalt not make unto thee any graven Image Exod. 20.4 5. Deut. 4.5 2â— 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 Exâ—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
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 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 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 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 briâ—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 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
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 which it may be you will willingly grant but also to take away the pains and punishments due to us for them for the Prophet I say affirms it thus surely he hath born our griefs and carried our sorrows Isai 53.4 5. and again he was wounded for our transgressions he was bruised for our iniquities the chastisement of our peace was upon him and with his stripes we are healed Thus it is plain aswell the punishment of sin as sin 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 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 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 S. Matthew again tells us in the same Chapter Mat. 14.29 how our Saviour argues the matter with them are not two sparrows sold for a farthing and one of them shall not fall to the ground without your Father if a Sparrow fall not without him how shall a thought word or action of ours Our Saviour very positively concludes this point in S. 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 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 the first We do humbly believe acknowledge and profess that the just must live by faith for faith is the foundation of the spirituall building Heb. 11. and the substance of all things hoped for as the Apostle tells us But what you do from thence gather of your faith alone is a meer tearing and a falsifying of all those texts out of the Prophets Apostles and Evangelists For it is no where said that the
of those Legalities We find again in the last of St. Matthew Christ saying to his Disciples Go ye therefore and teach all Nations baptizing them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you Here Christ laid down an express form of Baptism in the name of the holy Trinity and yet the primitive Church did think fit to change that form into a Baptism in the name of Jesus Christ only for so St. Peter enjoyned them Repent and be baptized every one of you in the name of Jesus Christ for the remission of sins c. And again we finde that the Samaritars were baptized by St. Philip in the name of Jesus Act. 2.38 Acts 8. Act. 19.5 Act. 15.28 29. So again upon St. Pauls preaching at Ephesus when they heard this they were baptized in the name of the Lord Jesus Above all this we find the Scripture telling us that it was defined in the Apostles Councel thus It hath seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us c. that ye abstam from meats offered unto Idols and from blood and frous things strangled c. This we see is most plainly and expresly defined by the Apostles and as clearly attested by Scripture and yet the Church in after Ages hath thought fit to change that decree and permit Christians to eat strangled things and blood nay you that dispute against the Authority of the Church in matters of Faith are contented to submit to it in point of eating you could not otherwise deny the eating of a black pudding or strangled Hen to be a most notorions transgression nor could any thing excuse us from sin in so doing if the Church hâ—d not a power over the Scriptures And to conclude if the authority of the Church were not over the Scriptore then all Jews that should be converted now to the Faith of Christ and come to Baptism should be tyed still to the observation of Mases his Law for so we finde in Scripture that the Apostles themselves and others of thâ— Nation which became Converts did always do St. James and all the Elders said to St. Paul upon his return from the Gentiles Thou seest brother how many thousands of Jews there are which believe and they are all zealous for the Law and they are informed of thee that thou teachest all the Jews which are among the Gentiles to forsake Moses Saying Act. 21.18 20 21 22 23 24 25. that they ought not to circumcise their children neither to walk after the custums What is it therefore the multitude must needs come together for they will hear that thou art come Do therefore this that we say unto thee we have four men which have a vow on them Them take and purifie thy self with them and be at chrrges with them that they may shave their heads and all may know that those things whereof they were informed concerning thee are nothing but that thy self also walkest orderly and keepest the Law As touching the Geutiles which believe we have written and concluded that they observe no such thing save only that they keep themselves from things offered unto Idols and from blood and from things strangled and from fornicaâ—on Here it is plain that St. Paul with many thousands more did observe the Law of Moses and that by the immediate order of St. James the Prelate of the place and the Councel of all the Elders This we know clearly altered since by the authority of the Church and what a fine confusion it would produce if otherwise practised now I will leave your self to judge To the second I say that what you urge out of Deuteronomy makes no more against us then it does against the Apostles themselves from whence we received our Traditions but most especially St. Paul who expresly bids us to hold fast the Traditions which we have received Nay and all the holy Fathers of the Primitive Church who have always imbraced and held them Nay yet further you do most manifestly oppose and oppugne your own selves who receive the Tradition of Scripture the Lords day and many holy days with divers other things which you hold in great reverence by no other Authority If therefore we Catholicks offend in so doing then the Apostles themselves and all the Primitive Fathers and Christians and you your selves are as guilty of a fault if they be innocent and you too why should we be condemned Again give me leave to tell you that you have wholly mistaken the sense of that Text and that I will demonstrate to you out of the context which runs thus Deu 4.1.2 Now therefore hearken O Israel un-the Statutes and unto the Judgements which I teach you for to do them that ye may live and go in and possess the Land which the Lord God of your Fathers giveth you Ye shall not add unto the word which I command you neither shall you diminish ought from it that ye may keep the Commandments of the Lord your God which I command you As if he should say I give unto you precepts both Ceremonial and Judicial which ye ought perfectly and entirely to keep for so much is signified in those words ye shall not add nor diminish and this precept to that people is delivered though in other words yet to the very same sense in divers other places that they should be punctual in the observation of what was commanded them and not to swerve or turn to the right hand or the left So that these three things are upon the matter all one that is perfectly and intirely to keep Moses his precepts Deut. 17.20 Deut. 28.14 Deut. 31.29 Josu 1.7 not to turn from them neither to the right hand nor to the lest and last of all neither to add to nor diminish from their observation Which now is plain cannot be so understood as if it were unlawfull to add any new precept for then it had been utterly unlawful to add those new Evangelical precepts as Faith in the blessed Trinity the whole business of Holy Baptism and the Eucharist which you receive as well as we but the sense of those Texts must be plainly this that they ought to be very exact in the observation of Moses his Laws not to corrupt them with any addition or dimunition but to keep them intirely as for example this was a Mosaical precept Levit. 12.2 3. If a woman have conceived seed ann born a man child then she shal be unclean seven days c. And in the eighth day the flesh of his soreskin shall be circumcised c. To this precept now it was not lawful to add or diminish from that it was not lawful neither before nor after the eigth day to circumcise the child nor was the uncleanness of the mother to last more or less than seven days Now the same reason holds throughout all other precepts as I shall
too when he says for there must be allso Heresies amongst you that they which are approved may be made manifest amongst you 6. Then that no civil magistracy is to be born amongst Christians Luke 22.25 is plain out of Lukes Gospell when the Lord said unto them the Kings of the earth exercise Lordship over them c. but ye shall not be so And this it plainly again confirmed by Paul to the Ephesians Ephes 4.5 where he tells us that there is but one Lord one Faith and one Baptisme if therefore there is to be but one Lord who who shall dare to make more so that Kings Princes and Magistrates are all unlawfull things 7. Last of all that it is absolutely unlawfull for Christians to give or take Oaths is most evident out of our Saviours own words recited at large in Matthews Gospell thus Matt. 5.33 34 35 36 37. Ye have heard that it hath been said by them of old time thou shalt not forswear thy self but shalt perform unto the Lord thy Oaths But I say unto you swear not at all neither by Heaven for it Gods Throne nor by the earth for it is his footstool neither by Jerusalem for it is the City of the great King neither shalt thou swear by thy head because thou canst not make one hair white or black but let your communication be ye ye nay nay for whatsoever is more than these cometh of evil And is not all this as plainly repeated Jam. 5.12 and confirmed by James in his Epistle General where he sayes But above all things my Brethren swear not neither by Heaven neither by the earth neither by any other Oath but let your yea be yea and your nay nay least you fall into condemnation can any thing be made more plain by more expresse Scripture than that all manner of swearing is utterly unlawfull Let them look to it therefore that make it their common practise to swear vainly and they too that under pretence of Law dare to administer or receive any Oath how judicial soever for it is a thing injurious to God and Tyrannical over humane souls That to Baptise Infants is an injury to the Lord and a most high abuse of Christian Souls and that the doctrine of a Character imprest in the Soul by Baptisme is a mear Popish cheat and collusion I prove by Scripture thus First It is plain that our Saviour in the Gospell bids his Disciples Goe and teach all Nations Mat. 28.19 20. Baptising them in the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you So Matthew renders his words Mar. 16.15 16. and Mark not much different Goe ye into all the world and preach the Gospell to every creature he that believeth and is baptised shall be saved but he that believeth not shall be damned by both which Gospells it is evident that they who would be baptised ought first to be taught and to believe but Infants for their want of age are neither capable of learning not of faith therefore they are not capable of Baptisme 2. We find it as plain likewise in the practise of the Apostles first we see that Philip preached the Gospell a long while to the Ethiopian Eunuch bofore he was baptised Acts 8.35 36 37. and when he was sufficiently instructed he said here is water what does hinder me to be baptised and Philip said if thou believest with all thy heart thou mayest and he answered and said I believe that Jesns Christ is the Son of God and so he was baptised thus you see how his express belief was to goe before his baptisme and so you may see how the Gospoll was preached to Cornelius by Peter Acts 10. before he would baptise him all which sufficiently argues the madnesse of your Pedo-baptisme wherein their is an utter incapacity of hearing learning or believing 3. Over and above these express Scriptures I 'le give you one argument or two out of reason First you will grant that Reprobates are not to be baptised but many Infants are Reprobates therefore they are not to be baptised 4. Then why did the Ancient Primitive Christians administer Baptisme but at certain times and that but thrice a year if that Children were to be baptised so soon as they were born 5. Lastly The Scripture speaks not one word of baptising of Children but one pittifull Pope Nicholas as we find in History begun that childish Baptisme and you have been all dotards twice Children and Pope-ridden ever since 6. As for the Character that you pretend to in Baptisme it is altogether as sottish and vain a thing A Character is a meer Popish fiction likewise of which there is no mention at all made in Scripture how can we then imagine it to be any thing more than a meer figment especially since if it could be true it would would prove to be of such importance 7. Then to conclude I pray you consider a little impartially with your self what a horrid rediculous doctrine it is that water should be capable to impresse such a seal upon a soul as to stamp an indeleble character upon an immaterial thing Spectatum admissi risum tene atis Amici To what you object against our building or using of of Churches which you call Steoplehouses in the service of God adorning or giving lands and possessions to them with priviledges extraordinary as also to our Church-men and against their Priesthood Canonical hours and prayers we answer thus To the first We grant what you urge from S. Stephen out of the Acts to be great truth that the most high dweleth not in Temples made with hands 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 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
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 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 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 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 That it is lawfull to make war against Turks Jews or Heriticks upon a reasonable and lawfull occasion or to punish them and that Christians may make war and bear Civil Magistracy yea give and take Oaths We prove by Scripture thus First As to the matter of war it is plain that when the Souldiers came to St. John Baptist and asked him what they should do Luke 3.14 he answered them do violence to no man neither accuse any falsly and be content with your wages here it is plain he forbid them not their trade which was to go to war but taught them how to do it honestly S. Paul tells the Romanes Rom. 13. that Kings and Supream powers carry not the sword in vain The Children of Israel we know got the possession of the Land of Promise by an open war of Gods own appointment as is abundantly to be seen in the Books of Joshuah Judges and Kings Nay the Lord commanded them to have a continual war against Infidells for so we find in the Book of Judges Now these Nations the Lord left to prove Israel by them even as many of