a dreadful hazard in the point of worshiping of Creaturers Images Saints and especially the Bread in the Sacrament in which you run other hazards besides those I spoke of I am told that your Doctrine is this That it is necessary to the making of a Sacrament and so to the conversion of the Bread into Christs Body that the Priest intend to consecrate it Is it so Pop. Yes doubtless Bellarmine and all our Authors largely dispute for that Prot. And can I be sure of another mans intentions It is sufficiently known that divers of your Priests are prophane and atheistical wretches others envious and malicious and some actually Jews What assurance have I that my Priest is not such an one and that he doth not either out of a contempt or hatred of Religion or malice against my person intend to deceive me and not make a Sacrament of it Sure I am they intend to deceive their people in the preaching of the Word and why they may not do so in the Administration of the Sacrament I know not VIII My eighth and last general consideration is this that your Religion destroys even the principles of morality which true Religion is so far from destroying that it improves and perfects it I confess the bloodiness of your Religion hath ever made me both suspect and loath it I find that Christ is a Prince of peace though he whipt some out of the Temple yet he never whipt any into his Church that he drew in his Disciples with the cords of a man of conviction and perswasion and so did his Apostles after him but your Religion like Draco's laws is written in blood I perceive you answer our Arguments with Fire and Faggot besides this your Religion destroyes all civil Faith and Society your principle is known and so is your practice of equivocation and keeping no faith with Hereticks Pop. I know where you are you mean because of John Husse who after he had the faith of the Emperour given him for his safe Conduct was contrary to that faith put to death in the Council of Constance Prot. I do so and what can you say for it Pop. This I say you must not charge upon our Church the opinion of some few private Doctors since others disown this and have written against it Prot. It seems it is a disputable point among you whether you ought to be honest or not but I have heard that Iohn Husse was condemned by the Council of Constance and that when the Emperour scrupled to break his Faith they declared he might do it and ought to do it Is it so Pop. It is true what was done in that point was done by the Council Prot. And you hold Councils especially where the Pope joyns with them as he did with that Council to be infallible and therefore this I may confidently charge upon you as a Principle of your Religion I cannot but observe your fine devices At other times when we alledge passages out of any of your learned Doctors which make against you you tell us they are but private Doctors and we must judge of you by your Councils Now here we bring an approved Councils testimony and you send us back to your private Doctors Pop. These discourses of yours are only general I had rather you would come to the other thing you proposed viz. to examine the particular points of our Religion wherein I hope I shall give you such solid grounds and reasons that when you shall understand them you will embrace them Prot. You shall find me ingenuous and docible only remember I expect not words but solid Arguments I think our best course will be to pick out some principal points of your Religion and examine them for the rest will either stand or fall as they do Pop. I am perfectly of your mind let us proceed accordingly Prot. First then if you please we will begin with the sacrifice of the Mass which you say is essential to the Christian Religion Pop. It is so and Bellarmine rightly saith that where there is no sacrifice as you Protestants have none there is in truth no Religion Prot. Therefore I pray you let me hear one or two for those are as good as an hundred of your chief grounds and reasons for that Sacrifice Pop. I approve your motion and I shall only insist upon two Arguments First the Sacrifice of the Mass was appointed by God or Christ in the words of Institution of the Sacrament do this in remembrance of me It is the great Argument of the Council of Trent Prot. I adore the fruitfulness of your Churches Invention It seems they think these two words do this contain no less than two of your Sacraments to wit that of Orders which makes Priests and that of the Supper Pop. They do so Prot. That no sober man will easily believe nor that Christs meaning in the words mentioned was this Sacrifice me in remembrance of me But let me hear how you prove the Institution of the Mass from these words Pop. Christ bid his Disciples do this viz. that which he did Christ did in that last Supper truly and properly offer up himself to his Father his Body under the shape of Bread his Blood under the shape of Wine and therefore they were truly and properly to offer up or Sacrifice Christ in the Sacrament The Argument is Bellarmin's Prot. How do you prove that Christ did in that last Supper truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood to his Father I read that Christ offered himself but once Heb. 8. 27. and 9. 25 26 27 28. and 10. 14. and that was upon the Cross nor do I find that he offered any thing at all to God in that Supper but only to his Apostles And what did Christ Sacrifice himself and imbrue his hands in his own Blood and did he eat up his own Body did he take his whole Body into his Mouth these are Monsters of Opinions But how prove you that Christ did then offer up himself to God Pop. Because Christ speaks in the present tense This is my Body which is broken Blood which is shed he doth not say which shall be broken and shed and therefore it must be broken and shed at that very time Prot. What a vain Argumet is this you know nothing is more usual in Scripture than to put the Present Tense for the Future Christ saith I do lay down my life when he means I will do it shortly Iohn 10. 15. I do go to my Father Iohn 16. 28. that is I shall go shortly Do that thou dost that is art about to do John 13. 27. And in Mat. 26. Christ saith of his Blood This is my Blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins and yet I suppose it was not shed at that time for you all profess the Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody Sacrifice But again tell me I pray you when Christ said do this did
in the species of Bread and Wine and the Bread and Wine are destroyed Prot. Call you this a destruction for one to remove from one place to another or to cease to be where he was before this is ridiculous and yet this fantastical and mock-destruction is all which you can bring instead of that real destruction which you confess necessary to the very essence of a Sacrifice And as for the Bread and Wine they were destroyed by Transubstantiation not by the Oblation or Sacrifice which comes after it And now having mentioned that let us discourse concerning your Doctrine of Transubstantiation And first tell me what is the Doctrine of your Church Pop. That the Council of Trent will inform you which declareth that by Consecration the whole substance of the Bread and Wine is converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ Prot. How is it possible for the Bread to be converted into Christs Body which was made already before the Bread That Christ could turn Water into Wine was possible but that he should turn that Water into such Wine as was in being before that change this is impossible but let that go My next question is if a Christian did actually receive Christs Body and Blood tell me what profit hath he by it I cannot believe that God would work so many Miracles as you affirm he doth in this Sacrament to no purpose Scripture and Reason tells me and your Council of Trent confesseth that the Sacrament is a feast for my Soul and not for my Body Is it not so Now what is my Soul the better for eating the very Body of Christ When the woman cryed out to our Saviour Blessed is the womb that thee Christ replies Yea rather Blessed are they that hear Gods Words and do it nevertheless if you can solidly prove it I will receive it therefore bring forth your Principal Arguments for it Pop. I will do so and our Church proves this point especially from two places of Scripture John 6. and the words of Institution I begin with the sixth Chapter of John where our Saviour oft tells us that the Bread which he gives is his flesh c. Prot. I have heard that divers of your learned Doctors confess this Chapter speaks not of the Sacrament Is it so Pop. I will not dissemble with you That was the opinion of Biel Cardinal Cusanus Cajetan and Tapperus and divers others Prot. Certainly This Argument is not likely to convince a Protestant which could not satisfie your own ablest Schollars But I will not press that farther Tell me then do you judge that Christ speaks here of a bodily eating and drinking of his very Flesh and Blood Pop. We do so Prot. I confess some of the Antient were of your mind I mean the Jews But with submission I am rather of Christs Opinion who plainly destroys that gross and carnal sense telling them it is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profits nothing vers 63. Again doth not Christ press this as a necessary and present duty upon all the Jews that then heard him Pop. That must be granted Prot. Then certainly Christ speaks not of the Sacrament which was not then instituted and therefore they could not partake of it I demand further is this Sacrament of such efficacy that all that receive it are saved and of such necessity that all that do not take it are damned Pop. No our Church utterly condemns both those Opinions Port But this eating of Christs Flesh is such that Christ saith all that eat it are saved v. 24. and all that do not eat it are damned v. 53. Therefore surely he speaks not of a Sacramental eating besides the whole Laity are utterly undone if your sense of this Chapter be true for I find that drinking of Christs Blood is no less necessary to life eternal than eating of his Flesh and therefore woe to them to whom you do not allow to drink of the Cup in the Sacrament I am told this objection is so considerable that it forced divers of your Doctors sore against their will to forsake this Argument and therefore this will not do your work but I presume you have better Arguments Pop. We have so I shall urge but one which is of its self sufficient from the plain words of Institution This is my Body Methinks the very hearing of them read should convince you if you would take the words in their plain and proper sense and not devise I know not what Figures and Tropes Prot. If it were true that Christ did turn the Bread into his Body by saying these words This is my Body yet how doth it follow that the Priest by reciting these words worketh the same effect any more than a Priest every time he reads those words Let there be light doth make light because God did make it by those words or than he raiseth a dead man every time he reads those words of Christ Lazarus come forth Moreover I have heard that divers of your most learned Doctors confess that this place doth not nor indeed any other place of Scripture prove Transubstantiation I have heard three Cardinals named viz. Cajetan and our Bishop of Rochester and Cameracensis and divers famous Schoolmen as Scotus and Biel of whom this is known and Durandus and Ocham and Melchior Canus and Vasquez and the great Cardinal Perron professeth that he believes Transubstantiation not by vertue of any necessary consequence or reason alledged by their Doctors but by the words of Christ as they are expounded by Tradition and Bellarmin himself confesseth This opinion is not improbable Methinks so many learned mens forsaking this Argument who doubtless would have been right glad if it had been solid and imployed all their wits to search out the strength of it is to me a convincing evidence of its weakness and vanity as also of the badness of your Cause that can find no better Argument yet I am willing to hear what you can say Pop. This then I say that these words This is my Body are to be taken in their proper and not in a figurative sense for surely Christ would speak plainly to the understanding of his Disciples especially when he was so near his Death and making his last Will and Testament and instituting the Sacrament in such cases men use to speek plainly Prot. I readily grant that Christ did speak plainly and intelligibly But tell me is not that plain enough when we take the words as they are commonly used in Scripture Pop. I must needs grant that but this is not the Present case Prot. But it is for we can give you scores of instances as you very well know where the word Is is so taken nor is any thing more frequent in Scripture the seven kine and so the seven ears of corn are seven years Gen. 4. 12 18. the Stars are the Angels
of the Churches Rev. 1. 20. the seven heads are seven Mountains Rev. 17. 9. So Christ saith I AM the way the door c. So Zach. 5. 7 8. This woman is wickedness and a thousand such expressions How do you understand these places Pop. The sense is plain they signifie those things the Stars signifie the Angels and so for the rest Prot. Then certainly we have the advantage of you in this point for we take is for signifies as you confess it is commonly taken nor have the Jews as I have been assured by learned men any proper word for signifie as the Greeks and Lutines have but generally express it in this manner But you must take it if the Particle this denote the Bread as I shall plainly prove it doth for is converted into a sense which you cannot give one example of in all Scripture I see it was not without reason that you took the interpretation of Scripture into the Churches hands for if you had left it in Gods hands and left one Scripture to do that friendly office to expound another you had certainly lost an Article of your Faith And whereas you say that Christ would speak so as the Disciples might understand him that sufficiently shews that yours is not the true sense for they could never have understood it and would doubtless have been as much puzled then as all the World now is to apprehend that the body of Christ was contained under the species of Bread and Wine invisibly and undiscoverably after the manner of a Spirit to conceive of a body without bigness long without length broad without breadth broken whilest it remains whole all which you profess to believe This is to turn Christs plain speech into a bundle of Riddles and to call this the plain sense of the words which is as you see a heap of Figures is a greater figure than all the rest but they did well enough understand the words in our sense because they were well read in Scripture wherein as you grant that sense of the words is usual Pop. If we grant it is used so in other cases yet not in Sacramental Texts for there Christ would speak properly Prot. Yes It is usual even in the Sacraments Is not Circumcision called the Covenant This is my Covenant Gen. 17. 10. though proprerly it was not the Covenant but the Seal of it Rom. 4. 11. Is not the Lamb called the Lords Passeover Exod. 12. though all men knew it was not the Lamb nor the ceremony of eating it which was or could be properly the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites thus 1 Cor. 10. The Rock that followed the Israelites is Christ though it was so only Figuratively and Sacramentally Moreover I am told that divers of your own brethren acknowledge figures here Tapperus saith It is not inconvenient to admit of Tropes here provided they be such as do not exclude the true presence of Christs body And that the Bishop of Eureux owns three Figures in the words of this Sacrament and that Suarez Bellarmine and divers others confess as much Pop. It is true they do say so Prot. Besides you cannot think strange if there be Figures in the first part This is my Body since it is most apparent there are Figures in the last part This is the New Testament in my bloud Here are not one but divers Figures in it The Cup you grant is taken for the liquor in it there is one figure The Wine in the Cup is taken for the Bloud which was not in the Cup there is a strange figure indeed Logicians call it Non-sense This Cup or Wine or Bloud if you please is the New Testament or Covenant whereas it was only the Seal of the New Testament as is most manifest because it is called The Bloud of the New Testament and the New Testament in my Bloud Besides other strange figures which I shall have occasion to speak to by and by Here is figure upon figure and yet you have the impudence to reproach us for putting in but one figure which you confess to be very frequent Wonder O Heavens and judge O Earth whether these men do not strain at Gnats and swallow Camels And nothing doth more confirm the truth in this point than to consider into what absurdities this Doctrine hath forced you even to say that the Bloud of Christ is properly the Covenant or Testament And that there are two sorts of Christs Bloud the one in the Cup the other shed on the Cross And that the Bloud of Christ is shed in the Sacrament and yet never stirreth out of the veins Did ever God or man speak of such bloud-shed therefore for shame never charge us with understanding this Text figuratively But again let me ask you Will you affirm that these words This is my body are to be taken properly Doth your Church understand them so Pop. Yes surely or else we do ill to reproach you for taking them improperly Prot. The words are not true in a proper sense nor indeed do you understand them so Pop. Make that good and I must give up this cause for ever Prot. First for the word this it is most evident that it is meant of Bread It is impossible for words to express any thing more plainly than that by this is meant the Bread It is said expresly that Christ took Bread and brake it and gave it and said Take eat THIS is my Body Where this necessarily relates to that which Christ took and brake and gave After Christ came the Apostles and particularly Saint Paul and he expounds the mind of Christ and I hope you do not think he was so bad an Expositor that his Comment was harder than the Text and he tells us thrice in a breath that it is Bread 1 Cor. 11. 26. As oft as you eat this Bread and whosoever shall eat this Bread and so let him eat of that Bread And again 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ And the participation of the Sacrament is called breaking of Bread Acts 2. 46. 20. 7. which your Authors undertand of the Sacrament and besides this whatever it is is broken as it follows but you dare not say Christs Body is broken Now then since it is most evident that this is meant of the Bread I hope you will not say this is properly Christs Body Pop. No We are not so absurd to say this Bread is Christs body for that is false and against common sense as Bellarmine well saith Prot. What then do you mean by the word this Pop. By This I understand neither the Bread nor Christs Body but in general this substance which is contained under this species Prot. What do you mean by that I pray you tell me Do you believe that there are any more substances under those species besides the Bread first and afterward the
living Creature Prot. Then Iohn at Rome may walk towards London and Iohn at London may walk toward Rome and so they may meet shall I say one the other and you may be sure it will be a merry meeting It were worth enquiry how long they will be e're they come together Then again at Rome all the parts of Iohn may be excessively hot and at London excessively cold and at Paris neither hot nor cold This is beyond all the Romances that ever were devised Besides Iohn may be sorely wounded at Rome and yet at London he may sleep in a whole skin Iohn may be feasting at Rome and fasting at London in the same moment I might be infinite in reckoning the horrid absurdities of this Doctrine he that can believe these things will stick at nothing Pop. You talk at this rate because you measure God by your selves whereas he can do more than you or I can think Prot. There are some things which it is no dishonour to God to say he cannot do them because they are either sinful so God cannot lie or absolutely impossible God himself cannot make a man to be alive and dead at the same time God cannot make the whole to be less than a part of it he cannot make three to be more than threescore he cannot make a Son to beget his Father he cannot make the same man to be born at two several times as your Authors confess and therefore in like manner he cannot make the same body to be in two several places for this is not one jot less impossible than the other Pop. These indeed are great difficulties to humane reason but reason is not to be believed against Scripture Prot. True but this is your hard hap this Doctrine of yours is against Scripture as well as Reason and indeed against many Articles of Religion And first it is against the Scripture in as much as it is highly dishonourable to Christ whose honour is the great design of the Scripture What a foul dishonour is it to him to subject him to the will of every Mass Priest who when he pleaseth can command him down into the Bread What a dishonour is it that the very Body of Christ may be eaten by Rats or Worms and may be cast up by Vomit and the like as your Aquinas affirms And that your Church in her Missals hath put this amongst other directions that if worms or Rats have eaten Christ Body they must be burned and if any man vomit it up it must be eaten again or burned or made a Relick and yet this is no more than your Doctrine will force you to own for if you will believe Christs words in one place as well as in another he assureth us that whatsoever without exception entreth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast forth into the draught Matth. 15. 17. Pop. This is no more dishonourable to Christ than that the Fleas might such his Blood when he was upon earth Prot. You mistake wofully for though in the dayes of his flesh it was no dishonor to him and it was necessary for us that he suffered so many indignities and died and was crucified yet now that he is risen from the dead he dies no more Rom. 6. and it is a dishonour to him to be crucified again and to be brought back to those reproaches which he long since left and all this to no purpose and without any profit to us as I shewed Again the Scripture approveth and useth this argument that a body cannot be in two places at once it is the Angels argument He is not here for he is risen Mat. 28. 6. sufficiently implying that he could not be here and there too or must we say that the Angels argument is weak or deceitful that yours may be strong and true Pop. He meant he was not there visibly Prot. It seems if a man being sought after should hide himself with you in some corner or hole in your room and the pursuers should ask for him you could answer with good Conscience He is not here because he is invisible Our Blessed Saviour every where makes these two opposite his being in the world and going to heaven Joh. 13. 1. The hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father It seems you could have taught him the art of going thither and keeping here too I promise you I durst not venture to buy an Estate of any of you for it seems you could tell how to sell it to me and keep it to your selves You may remember once you and I made our selves merry with a passage that one used in a speech that since he could not give content neither by going nor staying hereafter he would neither go nor stay It seems you have as good a faculty as he had for you know how a man may both go from a place and stay in it at the same time I know not what can be more plain if you did not shut your eyes Christ saith expresly me you have not alwayes that is here Mat. 26. 11. Besides your doctrine destroyes the truth of Christs Humane Nature I read of Christ that he was in all points like unto us sin only excepted his Body was like ours and therefore it is impossible it should be in a thousand several places at once as you pretend it is this turns Christs Body into a Spirit nay indeed you make his body more spiritual than a Spirit for a Spirit cannot be in several places divided from it self The soul of man if it be entire both in the whole and in every part of the body yet it is not divided from it self nor from its body nor can it be in two several bodies at the same time as all confess and much less can it be in ten thousand bodies at once as by your Argument undoubtedly it may When ever an Angel comes to earth he leaves heaven and so this every way destroyes the truth of Christs Humane body Pop. Much of what you say was true of Christs Body in the dayes of his infirmity but when he was risen from the dead then he received a Spiritual Body as it is said ours shall be at the resurrection 1 Cor. 15. Prot. To this I answer First that you ascribe these monstrous properties to Christs Body before its Resurrection for you say The Flesh and Bloud of Christ were really in the Sacrament which the Disciples received while Christ lived Secondly Christs Resurrection though it heightned the perfections yet it did not alter the Nature and Properties of his Body nor give it the being of a Spirit for after he was risen he proves that he was no Spirit by this Argument Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have Luke 24. 39. By this it appears that your Doctrine destroys the Truth of Christs Humanity at least it destroys the main evidence of it
no less than murder all your people by robbing them of that which is necessary to their life Pop. Not so for as I shall shew you you have the blood in the body or bread Prot. If it be so yet my taking it in that manner cannot be called a drinking it unless you will say that every man that eats rawish meat may be said to drink the blood which he eats in it but further I think we have as great right to the cup as your Priests we have Christs do this and you pretend no more in short we have both the legacy and command of Christ fortified with this strong reason this cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins whereby it sufficiently appears that the signe belongs to all that have interest in the thing and are capable of discerning the Lords body and this command of Christ is express and positive Mat. 26. Drink ye ALL of it it is remarkable that he doth not say eat ye all though they were to do so but drink ye all of it as foreseeing the sacriledge of your Church what can you say to this Pop. First I say here is no command but an institution only Prot. I understand no subtilties but if you say this was no command of drinking then it was no command of eating to say take eat and so the Sacrament is not commanded but people may receive or refuse it as they please and Christs do this is no more than do as you list for my part I shall never know when Christ commands any thing if this be not a command for no command can run in more express words Pop. If this be a command it concerns only Priests for such the Apostles were and they only were present Prot. Since it is evident that eating and drinking belong to the same persons if the one be restrained to the Apostles so is the other and because you confess the eating belongs to the people by vertue of this precept Eat of it by the same reason also doth the drinking reach to them also by vertue of that precept Drink of it Besides the Apostles though they were Ministers yet in this act they were in the peoples stead and Christ was the Minister or dispenser of the Sacrament and they only the receivers of it at this time Besides as they were Ministers he bad them do this that is take and distribute bread and wine to the people as he had to them If Ministers be under any command of administring and giving the Sacrament certainly it is here for no command can be more express and if they are commanded to give the bread to the people they are commanded to give the wine also for here is no difference at all Adde to this that St. Paul hath put this out of doubt and he expounds this of and applies it to the people for thus he writes to all the Corinthians Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup 1 Cor. 11. 28. in four verses together viz. 26 27 28 29. eating and drinking are inseparably joyned together which you have so wickedly divided If it be a Command Let a man examine himself which none will deny then it is a Command which immediately follows so let him eat this Bread and drink this Cup. Pop. It doth not appear that there is an absolute command of drinking but only that as oft as they do drink it they should drink it in remembrance of Christ. Prot. If this be so then here is no command for the Priest either to Consecrate the Cup or to Receive it And further then here is no command for his Consecrating or receiving the Bread neither for there is no more than a Do this and that is for the Wine as well as for the Bread Pop. Here is a difference for he saith of the Body simply Do this in remembrance of me but of the Cup This do ye as oft as you drink it Prot. If you lay any stress upon these words as oft as you do it I beseech you make use of your eyes and you shall read that it is said of the Bread as well as of the Cup Vers. 26. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup. Well I am sorry to see that you dare oppose such plain Scripture upon such pitiful pretences But I pray you let me ask you I have been told that your famous Council of Censtance in their Canon for the receiving the Sacrament in one kind have these expressions Although Christ did Minister this Sacrament undâ—r the forms of Bread and Wine And although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds Yet they make a Canon that it shall be received under one kinde only Is this so Pop. It is true they are the very words of the Council Prot. This was a wise Council indeed wiser than Christ and all his Apostles but I should think we are on the safest side having Christ and all the Primitive Churches for our patterns and by this I see what to judge of your glorious pretences that yours is the Antient and Apostolical Faith and ours forsooth but a new Religion But I pray let me hear what you have to say for this fact of yours in taking away the Cup I see Scripture is against you and the Antient Church at least so far that for 1400. years together the people might drink of the Cup if they would as I am told your Becanus confesseth Pop. You are greatly mistaken we have Scripture for us we have examples there of receiving the Sacrament in one kind Acts 2. 42. They continued in the Apostles Doctrine and breaking of Bread and Acts 20. 17. They came together to break Bread Prot. It is usual to express an whole Feast by this one thing Christ went into the Pharisees house to eat bread Luk. 14. 2. I suppose you think it was not a dry feast Ioseph's Brethren sat to eat Gen. 37. 25. so Act. 27. 35. Paul and the rest took bread and eat it yet none doubts but they had drink with it Besides here is as much said of the People as of the Ministers drinking of the Cup that is neither is here mentioned and if the silence concerning the Cup be a good Argument it proves that neither did partake of it if it be not then both might partake of it But what have you more to say Pop. You need not be troubled so much at the loss of the Cup since the blood is contained in the Bread that is in the Body by concomitancy Prot. This is in effect to tell Christ the Cup was a superfluous device Besides we are commanded to drink the Cup If I should dip bread in drink and eat it no man will say I drink the bread Again this destroys the main end of the Sacrament which is to shew forth Christs
death and the shedding of his blood and this was the reason why Christ appointed the Bread and Wine apart as the fittest means to bring to our memories the pouring of his blood out of his body for us and as God would have us to remember the thing so he commanded us to use this sign of drinking the Cup. Pop. But there are many weighty reasons why it is not fit you should partake of the Cup. Prot. I dare not forsake plain Scripture for any subtil pretences of Humane Reason but let me hear them Pop. 1. In some Countries Wine is not to be had 2. Some there are who have an antipathy against Wine and cannot drink any 3. There is great danger of spilling the Wine which is the Blood of Christ. Prot. Are these your weighty Reasons I see the Reason and Religion of Rome are both of a Complexion But I pray you how came it to pass that Christ and his Apostles and all the Primitive Christians for so many hundreds of years should prescribe and use the Cup notwithstanding those reasons surely if these reasons are strong now they were so 1660. years ago Wine was as scarce then as now it is in some Countries abstemious persons were then as well as now the Wine might be spilled then as much as now But they feared none of these things either they were all stupid that did not see these things or your Church is audacious that dare in effect teach Christ and his Apostles what they should have done It might peradventure be added that in such places where Wine cannot be had or for some persons who cannot drink Wine some other thing proportionable to it may be allowed but if it might not or if in such special cases they were confined to one kind I am sure it is a ridiculous consequence that because they must be content with the Bread that cannot drink of the Cup therefore they that can shall go without it and because it may be omitted where it cannot be had therefore it shall be omitted where it may be enjoyed And for the danger of spilling of the Wine there is also danger in dropping some of the Bread and so that should be denied By this Argument also the Priest should not meddle with the Wine for he may spill it but indeed such phantastical Reasons as these deserve no Answer they make me almost sick to hear them There is only one point more I would be informed in what you can pretend for it and that is That your Publick Prayers are performed in a Language unknown to most of your people Pop. What have you to say against it Prot. What can be said more plainly and fully against it by us than what S. Paul saith 1 Cor. 14. there I find some who having the Gift of speaking with divers Languages did use it without interpreting them in the Publick Assembly those the Apostle informs that there is a better gift and more desirable than that of Tongues namely Prophesie and he useth divers reasons which are so many undeniable Arguments against your Latine Prayers He tells them it is their duty to manage Publick Worship so as the Church may be edified verse 4 5 12. I hope you will not deny this Pop. None can deny that Prot. Well then he tells us that what is spoken in an unknown Language doth not edifie the Church vers 4 11 12 14. 2. Yet again the Apostle commands that if any do speak in an unknown Tongue it must be interpreted vers 27. you disobey this command 3. He argues that Publick Prayers are so to be made by the Minister that the People may say Amen v. 16. And he also tells us that no man can say Amen to that which he doth not understand vers 15. so the Apostle stops all your starting holes Pop. The very word men is Hebrew Prot. You dispute not only against me but against the Apostle himself but Amen though an Hebrew word is by common use sufficiently known to us all to express our consent to his Prayers and confidence that God will hear them 4. Yet again he argues that strange Tongues are designed only for the Conviction of Unbelievers not to be used be Believers amongst themselves unless interpreted v. 22. What can or dare you say against such clear places Pop. S. Paul speaks not of the ordinary service of the Church but of extraordinary Hymnes and Songs Prot. That is false he speaks of the ordinary service of the Church though at that time there was something extraordinary in it and besides his reasons reach to all times and services ordinary or extraordinary must we not look to the Edification of the Church in the one as well as the other Must not the people say Amen in one as well as the other Let me hear therefore what you have to say for your selves Pop. Preaching ought to be in a known language for the end of that is the peoples Edification but Prayers are made to God Prot. Though they are made to God yet they are made by the Church who are to joyn in those Prayers and to signifie their consent by saying Amen which requires their understanding And moreover that Chapter speaks as expresly of Praying as it doth of Prophesying in the Church Surely the people went not to Church to sit there like senseless Images but to offer up a reasonable service and to tender their Prayers and Praises unto God by the mouth of the Minister as they did Act. 4. 24 They lift up their voice with one accord And if we pray with you we must understand else we cannot pray in faith as it is our duty to do and we shall fall into their error to ask we know not what Pop. You need not concern your self about that you may rely upon the wisdom and fidelity of the Church who takes care that your prayers be right Prot. I confess there is this great encouragement for it that your Church it seems is wiser than St. Paul but as a friend I advise you to give this Counsel of relying upon your Church to the Indians or some remote places for they that know her will never trust her For my part my Saviours words make me cautious If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch If I had no other argument of your Churches Fallibility and Apostacy this one point were a sufficient evidence of them both But what have you more to say Pop. I will give you then a Scripture instance The Priests prayed in the Temple when the People waited without Luke 1. 21. Prot. What is this to the purpose I do not read that the Priest prayed at all but only went in to offer Incense but if he did pray he did it alone not with and before the people as your prayers are you might as well plead thu Those Priests said nothing at all and therefore your Priests need only make a dumb shew and may serve their Latin
it is Gods grace which gives them all their worth and meetness for Heaven Coloss. 1. 12. it is impudence to pretend to merit from God by it If yet you will boast of your own worth and merit answer the Apostles question at your leasure 1 Cor. 4. 7. For who maketh thee to differ from another and 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 If you can baffle your conscience now you will find it an hard question to answer at the last day Pop. But eternal life is given them by Gods justice 2 Thess. 4. 6. 1 Tim. 4. 7 8. Prot. This word also doth not prove any merit for Gods Justice is oft-times taken improperly I read 1 Iohn 1. 9. If we confess our sins he is just and faithful to forgive them yet justification is not merited as you confess but is an act of meer grace being justified freely by his grace c. Rom. 3. 24 28. thus 2 Pet. 1. 1. we are said to obtain precious faith through the righteousness of God and yet faith is the gift of God and you confess that is given without merit for you grant none but justified persons can merit therefore in such places justice is taken either for equity and the congruity of it with Gods nature or word or for the faithfulness of God or the like Pop. Since you despise my arguments let me hear if you have better against the merit of good works Prot. You shall and methinks that one place Luke 17. 10. should convince you when ye shall have done all these things which are commanded you say we are unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to do Pop. Christ doth not affirm they are unprofitable but only bids them say they are unprofitable and teaches them to be humble Prot. Very well then you think Christ taught them to think one thing and say another that is he taught them the art of lying and that to God Pop. I answer further that without Gods grace men are unprofitable they only can merit that are in the state of grace as our Church holds Prot. Doth not your Conscience tell you the Apostles whom Christ commands to say thus were in the state of grace Pop. Though a man cannot profit God he may profit himself Prot. If he cannot profit God he cannot properly merit any thing from God for that implies a proportion between giving and receiving Pop. It is true we are unprofitable by our selves in regard of Gods absolute Soveraignty but not unprofitable in regard of Gods gracious Covenant Prot. It is ridiculous to say that is merit properly which depends on Gods meer grace and besides the Pharisees themselves whose errour Christ there strikes at were never so vain or absurd to think that they could be profitable to God in any other sense than what you affirm Pop. Let me hear your other Argument Prot. The nature of merit shews the impossibility of it in men It is evident that to merit these amongst other ingredients are required First that the work be not due already doth any man deserve an estate for that money whereby he payes an old debt Secondly That the work be our own you do not think a noble mans Almoner merits by distributing his Masters Alms. Thirdly that it be profitable to him of whom he merits Fourthly That the work be perfect for that action which needs a pardon certainly cannot deserve a reward Fifthly That it be suitable to the reward if I present my Prince with an Horse and he requites me with a Lordship who but a Horse would pretend this was merited Pop. I must acknowledge most of these things are true but this doth not concern our works Prot. That we will now examine and first all the works now we can do for God are deserved by him It fills me with horrour to hear men pretending to merit of that God who as they profess created them and every day upholds their souls in life and redeemed them and is so infinitely before hand with them every way Tell me dare you say that God doth not deserve that you should do the utmost you can for his service and glory Pop. I will not say so Prot. Then it is impudence to pretend merit from God besides the good works we do are not properly our own but Gods Faith is the gift of Gâ—d Ephes. 2. 8. Phil. 1. 29. So is Repentance Acts 11. 18. 5. 31. and in general every good and perfect gift is from God Jam. 1. 17. Pop. The first grace is from God but that I use it right that is from my self and thereby it is that I merit Prot. St. Paul was not of your mind what good work is there but it lies either in willing or doing yet both these God works in us Phil. 2. 13. not only the power of believing but the act too and suffering also is the gift of God Phil. 1. 29. and St. Pauls abundant labours in the Gospel which certainly amounted to merit if there were ever such a thing in the world and which if any thing was his own act yet he dare not take to himself I laboured yet not I but the grace of God which was with me 1 Cor. 15. 10. No less evident is it that our works cannot profit God Psal. 16. 4. Iob 22. 3. 35. 7 as also our best works are so far from meriting that they need a pardon for the infirmities accompanying them by reason of which the best of Saints have been afraid of the severe judgments of God even upon their best works so was Iob and David and Paul And lastly it is so evident that our works are not proportionable to the reward that Bellarmin hath a Chapter upon this head to prove that good works are rewarded above their desert and therefore it is an intollerable arrogance to affirm that divers of the Saints have not only merit enough to purchase eternal life but a great deal to spare for the relief of others To let this point pass now I would willingly be informed of two things which concern us Lay-people in an especial manner First Why you defraud us of the Cup. Secondly Why you order Prayer to be made in a language that many nay most of us do not understand For the first you rob us of one half of the Sacrament viz. of the Cup what can you say to acquit your selves from sacriledge Pop. Let me hear what right you have to it Prot. First I remember you disputed for Transubstantiation out of Iohn 6. which you said spoke of the Sacrament now if you say true there is a passage in it verse 53 except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you if this be spoken of the Sacrament as you say it is and the wine be really his blood then you do