Infallible though the Pope and all the Church of Rome truly so called should fail and perish Tell me I beseech you in particular What is that Church which from this and other places you conclude to be Infallible Pop. It is the Pope with the General Council as I have told you Prot. Then I pray you make sense of the verse for to me it is meer non-sense Timothy is here advised to behave himself rightly in the house of God which is the Church of God and the Pillar and Ground of Truth According to your opinion this is the sense of it That thou mightest know how to behave thy self in the Pope and a General Council I pray you tell me truly Was there a General Council then sitting Pop. No there was no General Council from that time till two or three hundred years after when the Councill of Nice was assembled Prot. Then it seems to me a most unreasonable thing to say that Paul directs Timothy how to behave himself in a General Council which was not then in being nor like to be and that he doth not direct him how to behave himself in that body the Church in which he then resided and ruled Besides I pray you where is the Pope or a Council called the House of God If they have any thing to do there they are the Governours the Stewards the Officers of the House but are never called the House of God but this name is alwayes ascribed to the multitude of Believers and Professors as Heb. 2. 5 6. where Moses whose place in the Church the Pope pretends to is not the House but the Servant the Officer of it so Heb. 10. 21. Having an High-Priest over the house of God so 1 Pet. 2. 5. Ye as lively stones are built up as a spiritual house And if you know any one place where it is otherwise used I pray speak if not as by your silence I see you do not all understanding men will conclude that neither Pope nor Council are concerned in this priviledge But besides let me further ask you Can you give me assurance that these words which is the ground and pillar of Truth imply Infallibility Pop. It is true the words are figurative and metaphorical but that is the meaning of them Prot. My old Friend can you advise me to venture my salvation upon a metaphor or that that is the true and only sense of the words Prove it and I am your Prisoner but it seemeth to me far otherwise God saith to Ieremy I have made thee an Iron Pillar Jer. 1. 18. Was Ieremy therefore Infallible Peradventure that was too mean a metal to amount to Infallibility but your Church is a brazen Pillar and so it seems by the impudence of your assertions I read in Eusebius That the Saints of Vienna and Lyons called Attalus the Martyr a pillar and ground of the Truth yet you will not allow him to be Infallible by which and divers other passages it is sufficiently evident that a Pillar in the Church is no more than a man that is well rooted and grounded and strong in the faith as he is a reed that is tossed to and fro with every winde of doctrine let me therefore hear if you have any better arguments Pop. Then John 16. 3. is an express promise When the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth and therefore our Chuch is infallible Prot. Tell me I pray you Is not this promise made to the Apostles only If so What is that to you If you say otherwise How do you make it appear that it concerns their Successours Pop. That appears by comparing another place with it John 14. 16. The Comforter shall abide with you for ever not surely in their persons for they were to die in a little time but in their Successours Prot. I expected a place which had said at the least that the Spirit Should lead them into all truth for ever but this is quite another thing you dare not say that every one with whom the Comforter abides is infallible but to forgive you this great mistake Tell me truly Is it then your opinion That all the Successors of each of the Apostles viz. all Bishops or all Ministers are infallible Pop. No in no wise for it is only S. Peter's Successours or the Pope who is infallible and others only so far as they depend upon him and cleave to him Prot. Then this Text is not for your turn for if it do extend to the Apostles Successors it extends either to all or none for sure I am this Text makes no difference Besides how do you prove that these words of the Spirits leading into all truth if they do reach further than the Apostles do imply Infallibility Then all Believers are infallible for they are all led by the Spirit Rom. 8. 14. Pop. True but here they are said to be led into all truth Prot. You know the words all and every are often taken in a limited sense as when the Gospel is to be preached to every creature Mark 16. 15. And you may as well conclude the omnisciency of all Believers from 1 Iohn 2. 20. You know all things and v. 27. The anointing teacheth you all things as the Infallibility of your Popes or Councils from that phrase and one Answer serves for both places viz. that they speak of all necessary truths But why do I hear nothing of Luke 22. 31. Simon Simon Satan hath desired to winnow you but I have prayed that thy faith fail not I have heard that Bellarmine useth this Argnment but I confess I thought they abused him Pop. It is true he doth use it and it is a solid one though you scorn it Prot. How do you know that it is meant of all Peter's Successours for there is not one word of them here But if I grant these were meant Do you then all believe that Peter's Successours are infallible Pop. I did before acknowledge that we are divided in that point Prot. Can you think to convince me with that argument that does not satisfie your own Brethren Moreover tell me I pray you What was the Faith of Peter which was struck at by the Devil and pray'd for by Christ Pop. The event shews that for the Devil tempted him and prevailed with him to deny his Master Prot. Did Peter deny Christ doctrinally and fall into the damnable error of disbelieving Christ to be the Messias or was it only an error or miscarriage of his tongue which spoke against his Conscience and Judgment Pop. Far be it from me to say that Peter did so damnably erre in his judgment I know no Catholick who saith so all do all agree that it was only an error of his tongue and conversation and practical denial of Christ. Prot. Very well Hence then I gather that Christ prayed for his practical not for his doctrinal Faith and that his grace of faith might not be utterly lost by his
or any other Christian that you have had such an uninterrupted Succession in your Church You must produce and it seems I must read all those many hundreds of great Volumes wherein such passages are mentioned In those you must shew me a perfect catalogue of the several names of those Popes and others who have without interruption succeeded one another ever since the Apostles days and this catalogue must be such that all your Authors are agreed in whereas I am told for certain they differ very much in their reports therein and are not so much as agreed among themselves who was Peter's next Successor whether Linus or Clemens or some other person they know not who and those Historians that report these things you must assure me that they were infallible which you do not pretend they were or else they might mistake the things themselves and mis-report them to me and I have heard and read that there have been divers interruptions and Schisms even in your Church one Pope set up against another and each pretending to be the true Pope and disannulling all the Acts of the other and that the Christian people were then wofully divided some cleaving to one others to another but it may be this was a mistake of our Ministers therefore tell me Was this true or no Pop. I confess it was true after the year of Christ 1300. there were several Popes at the same time one at Rome another at Avignon Prot. And how long did this difference last Pop. For about 50. years Prot. And is it true that I have heard that your great Baronius reports that for 150 years together the Popes were rather Apostates than Apostolicks and that they were thrust into the Papal Chair by the power of Harlots and the violences of the Princes of Tuscany Pop. I must be true to you Baronius doth say so at the year 897. Prot. Then never hence forward be so impudent to pretend to such a lawful clear and uninterrupted succession but blush that ever you mentioned it But besides I have heard that divers of our first reformed and reforming Ministers too were such as had received Ordination from and in the Church of Rome and from your Bishiops Is it true or is it not Pop. I will be ingenuous Our Doctors confess it but if your Ministers or some of them had a call from our Church yet they were only called to Preach not to overturn the world as they did and to undertake the Reformation of the whole Church Prot. You have said enough if they were called to the Ministry their Work and Office was to bear witness to the Truth and therefore to undeceive the world in those many Errors and Heresies which you had brought into the Church and Ministers are set for the defence of the Gospel they were therefore bound by their Office to edeavour the Reformation of the Church and salvation of Souls and as in a great Fire especially where the publick Officers neglect their Duty every man brings his Bucket to quench it so in that miserable estate into which you had brought the Church when the Pope and Bishops would not do their duty it was the duty of every Minister to endeavour and to stir up the Kings and Magistrates of the World to endeavour a Reformation Surely you cannot pretend to an higher priviledge than St. Paul and yet he gives all Ministers and Christians this leave and charge that if he himself should bring any other doctrine than what he had delivered any Minister though happily such a one as received his calling from him or Christian might not only forsake him but judge him accursed I shall only adde this our Ministers are in a very hard case I have discoursed with Anabaptists who have reasoned against our Ministers as no Ministers because they had their calling from Rome and now you will make them no Ministers because they had no Calling from Rome How shall they please you and them too But what have you further to say Pop. I have this further which is indeed unanswerable namely the horrible divisions of and in your Churches Here is Luther an and Calvinist Episcopal and Presbyterian Independent and Anabaptist and Quaker and Socinian and Familist and what not so that a man that would turn to your Church knows not which to turn to but our Church is one and entire at perfect unity in it self Prot. I pray you tell me in the first place are divisions a certain Argument to prove any Church not to be true Pop. I cannot say so for it is plain the Iewish Church in Christs time was full of Divisions there were Pharisees Sadduces Essenes c. And so was the Church of Corinth in St. Pauls time while some said I am of Paul others I of Apollo others I of Cephas and some denyed Pauls Ministry and Apostleship and some denyed the Resurrection Prot. Very well then you may blush to use such an Argument I am told that the old Heathens did use this very Argument against the Primitive Christians Pop. It is true they did Prot. What a shame is it that you are forced to defend your cause with such weapons as were used by the Pagans and wrested out of their hands by the Antient Fathers But besides you talk of our Divisions I pray you let me ask you will you allow me to father all the opinions of every Papist I read or talk with upon your Church Pop. No in no wise Let our Church speak for her self It is one great fault of your Ministers they catch up every particular Opinion of any Private Doctor and presently charge our Church with it though it be such as she hath condemned whereas they should judge of our Church only by her own Decrees and Councils Prot. Very well I desire only the same justice from you Do not father upon our Church those Opinions which she dislikes and abhors Socinians Quakers c. are yours rather than ours and joyn with you in abundance of your Doctrins Judge of our Churches by their publick Confessions and there also you would find that our divisions are generally inconsiderable being almost all about a Form of Government or oft-times but a manner of expression and none of them in fundamental Points But since you talk of Divisions let me ask you are all the Members of your Church of one mind I have been told otherwise We hear great talk every day of the difference between the Jansenists and the Jesuits and if we may believe either of them it is a Fundamental difference and such as concerns the very life of Religion I will not trouble you with other things But are you agreed in that which is the foundation of your unity I mean concerning the Supream Infallible Judge of Controversies I remember your self told me that some of you thought it was the Pope and others a Council And I have read that Popish Nations and Universities and Doctors are all together divided about
remission of punishment which is procured by indulgences in that case it is not inconvenient that the rich is in a better condition than the poor for there it is not said come and buy without money I confess that were a dangerous speech and would utterly undoe all the Church of Rome It is sufficient that Isaiah once said it and Christ again come and drink freely People should have been wise and taken them at their word for they are never like to hear it a third time Is this true Pop. They do indeed say so and the practice of our Church manifests to all the world that Indulgences are sold for money and the condition of the rich in that is better than the poor But what great matter is that as to the Pardon of Sin and eternal Life or Death both rich and poor are alike This difference is only as to the pains of Purgatory Prot. Is that nothing to you you speak against your own and all mens sense we see how highly men esteem to be freed from a painful though short disease here how much more to be freed from such pains as you all confess to be unspeakably more sharp and grievous than all the pains that ever were endured in this world It is so considerable a thing that I assure you it is to me matter of wonder if Christ and the Apostles had been of your minde how it came to pass so unluckily that the poor only should receive the Gospel whereas if the men of that Age had not been all Fools the rich would have been most forward to entertain it VII But to proceed My seventh Consideration against your Religion is taken from its great hazard and utter uncertainty According to the doctrine of your Church no man can be sure of his salvation without a revelation but he must go out of the world not knowing whether he goes Indeed there is nothing but hazard and uncertainty in your Religion I suppose you grant that all your Faith and consequently your salvation depends upon the infallible Authority of your Church Pop. That is most certain Prot. Are you then infallibly certain that your Church is infallible or do you only probably believe it Pop. I am but a private Priest and therefore cannot pretend to Infallibility but I am fully satisfied in it that the Church is infallible in it self Prot. Then I see you pretend to no more certainty than I have for I know and you grant that the Scripture is infallible in it self and I know its infallibility as certainly as you know the infallibility of your Church But I pray you tell me what is your opinion I know your are divided but where do you place the infallibility or where do you lay the foundation of your Faith Pop. To deal freely with you I place it in the Pope who when he determines things out of his Chair is infallible for S. Peter who was supream Head of the Church left the Pope his Successour Prot. Then it seems your Faith doth wholly depend on these things that Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome and died there and that he left the Pope his successour in his supream and infallible Authority Pop. It doth so Prot. How then are you infallibly assured of the truth of these things which are all matters of Fact Pop. Because they are affirmed by so many of the Ancient Fathers and Writers Prot. Were those Fathers or Writers infallible persons Pop. No. Prot. Then might they and so may you be mistaken in that point and so indeed you have nothing but a meer conjecture for the foundation of your Faith But again are you infallibly sure that Saint Peters intention was to leave his Infallibility to the Pope For I do not read that S. Peter left it in his last wil. I tell you true it is strange to me that St. Peter should write two Catholick Epistles and as I observed before not leave one word concerning this matter For my part I shall alwayes rather question the Popes Authority than S. Peters fidelity or discretion in omitting so Fundamental a Point when he put in many of far less concernment But further I demand How are you assured that St. Peter intended to leave his power and did actually leave it to his Successors Pop. By the unanimous consent of the Ancient Fathers Prot. I wonder at your confidence that you dare affirm a thing which our Authors have so clearly proved to be false But suppose it were so that the Fathers had said it tell me are the Fathers infallible at least are they so in their reports of matter of Fact Pop. No we confess that it is only the Pope or Council that are infallible not the Fathers to be true to you even the Pope himself is not infallible in his Reports of matters of Fact Prot. Then you have nothing but a meer conjecture or historical Report delivered by men liable to mistake for the great foundation of your Faith Yet once more have you any greater or better certainty for your Faith than the Pope himself Pop. God forbid I should be so impudâ—nt or wicked to say so for my Faith depends upon his certainty Prot. Very well How I beseech you is the Pope assured what is it that makes him infallibly certain of his own Infallibility Is he assured of 〈◊〉 Revelatâ—on Pop. No as I have told you oft we pretend to no such things Prot. How then Pop. By the Spirit of God which guides him into all truth Prot. How is he assured that the Spirit of God guides him Pop. By the promises God hath made to him I need not repeat them they are known already Thou are Peter c. Simon Simon I have prayed that thy Faith fail not c. Prot. I have already shewn how absurdly these Texts are alledged But I beseech you how is the Pope infallibly assured that this is the true meaning of those Texts You confess it is not by inspiration Pop. He knows that by considering and comparing Scripture with Scripture and by consulting the Fathers and Prayer Diligence and Obedience c. Prot. All these things are very good but any other man may use these means as well as the Pope and hath as full promises from God as any the Pope pretends to as Ioh. 7. 17. If any man will do his will he shal know of the doctrine whether it be of God and the Spirit of Truth is promised to all that ask it Luke 11. 13. So if this be all you have to say God deliver my soul from such a desperate Religion wherein all the certainty of its Faith depends upon his infallibility that is not certain of his own infallibility But I need say no more of this It is to me an undeniable argument that there is no certainty at all in this foundation because as you confess so many hundreds of your ablest Schollars do utterly reject it But once more in my opinion you run
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
denying of the reading of Scriptures to the people and others And will you yet brag of the Antiquity of your Religion 3. These Doctrines wherein we differ from you have been not only proved from Scripture but from the plain testimony of Antient Fathers as I think none can doubt that laying aside prejudices shall read what our Iewel and Morton and Field and others have written How then can you have the confidence to charge us with Novelty Pop. Your Church is new in this respect that although some others before you might own some of your Doctrines there was no Church that owned all your Doctrines both positive and negative Prot. That is not necessary I hope every alteration of Doctrines of less moment doth not make the Church new if it doth it is most certain that your Church is new also for nothing can be more plain than that the Catholick Church nay even your own Church of Rome did not antiently in former ages hold all these Doctrines which now she owns as your own greatest Authors confess this is sufficient that the Church of God in most former ages hath owned all our Substantial Doctrines But what have you further to say Pop. It is sufficient against you that your Church is Schismatical and you are all guilty of Schism in departing from the true Catholick Church which is but one and that is the Roman Prot. I desire to know of you Whether in no case a man may separate from the Church whereof he was a member without Schism Pop. Yes certainly if there be sufficient cause for it for the Apostles did separate from the Church of the Jews after Christs death and the Orthodox separated from the Arrian Churches and all Communion with them yet none ever charged them with Schism Prot. Since you mention that instance I pray you tell me Why they separated from the Arrians Pop. Because they held this Heresie That Christ was a Creature and not the true God Prot. Very well hence then I conclude That if your Church do hold any Heresie and require all her members to own it too it is no Schism for us to separate from you Pop. That must needs be granted but this is but a slander of yours for our Church holds no such Heresies Prot. Your Church doth not hold one but many dangerous Errours and Heresies as I do not doubt to manifest e're you and I part And if you please we will leave the present Argumeut to this issue if I do not prove your Church guilty of Heresie and the imposition of it too I am content you should charge us with Schism if I do you shall mention it no more Pop. You speak reason let it rest there Prot. Besides methinks you deal barbarously with us you drive us out from you by your tyranny and then you blame us for departing as if Sarah had call'd Hagar a Schismatick for going out of Abraham's family from which she forced her Tell me I pray you if the case be so that I must depart from the Roman Church or from God What must I do Pop. The case is plain you must rather depart from that Church Prot. This is the case If I do not depart from your Church she will force me to live in many mortal sins I must believe a hundred lies I must worship the Cross and Relicks and Images which God commands me under pain of his highest displeasure not to worship I must worship the Sacrament with divine worship which I am assured is no other for substance than bread for your Church is not content to hold these opinions but she enjoyns these practices to all her members And if things be thus I think you will not have the confidence any more to charge us with Schism for obeying the command of God to come out of Babylon since you force all your members to partake with you in your sins Rev. 18. 4. Besides all this let me ask you upon what account you charge us with Schism Pop. For departing from the Catholick Church and from your Mother Church of Rome and from the Pope whose Subjects once you were Prot. If then I can prove that we are not departed from the Catholick Church nor from our Mother Church nor from any of that subjection we owe to the Pope I hope you will acquit us from Schism Pop. That I cannot deny Prot. Then this danger is over For 1. We never did depart from the Catholick Church which is not your particular Roman Church as you most ridiculously call it but the whole multitude of Believers and Christians in the world Nay the truth is you are the Schismaticks in renouncing all Communion with all the Christian Churches in the world except your own which are equal to yours in number and many of them far superiour in true piety Next we do not own you for our Mother Ierusalem which is above not Babylon that is beneath is the Mother of us all If we grant now you are a true Church yet you are but a sister Church Pop. You forget that you received the Gospel from our hands Prot. Suppose we did really so Doth that give you authority over us If it did not Rome but Ierusalem should be the Mother Church from whom you also received the Gospel This you deny which shews that you do not believe your own Argument to be good And for the Popes Universal and Infallible Authority which he pretends over all Christians I have diligently read your Arguments for it and I freely profess to you I find your pretences both from Scripture and Fathers so weak and frivolous that I durst commend it to any understanding and disinterested person as a most likely means to convince him of the vanity and falseness of that Doctrine that he would peruse any of your best Authors and the very sight of the weakness and impertinency of your Arguments would abundantly satisfie him of the badness of your cause Pop. You have no Ministers because you have no uninterrupted succession from the Apostles as we have and therefore you have on Church and therefore no Salvation Prot. I observe you take the same course that the Adversaries of the Gospel ever did who when they could not reprove the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles they quarrelled with them for want of a Calling as you may see Iohn 1. 25. Mat. 21. 23. Act. 4. 7. But the good Christians of that time took another course and examined not so much the Call of the persons as the truth of the Doctrine Act. 8. 17. It seems to me a secret confession of your guilt and the Error of your Doctrine that you are so careful to turn off mens eyes from that to a far meaner point But tell me Do you believe that such an uninterrupted Succession of Ministers from the Apostles is absolutely necessary to the being of a Church Pop. Yes verily or else this Argument signifies nothing Prot. How then can you convince me
it and for the Pope I have heard that Bellarmin reckons up the several opinions and amongst others that the Pope if he be without a general Council may be an Heretick and teach Heresie and this saith he is the opinion of divers Papists and is determined by a Pope himself Adrian the 6th by name in his question about Confirmation Is this true or is Bellarmin bely'd Pop. It is true Bellarmin doth say so much and moreover that this opinion is not heretical and is tolerated by the Church but withall he tells you that he is of another opinion which is also the common opinion Prot. However that is sufficient for my purpose This one difference among you being far more considerable than all those points wherein Protestants differ among themselves for though they differ in other and lesser things they all agree in this great means of Union that they own the Holy Scriptures to be the Iudge or more properly the Rule of Controversies and therefore if you please let this pass and let me hear what further you have to say against us or for your selves Pop. This further I say the true Church must needs remain visible perpetually to the end of the world such our Church hath been whereas yours was invisible and as I said before unheard of in the world till Luthers dayes Prot. I do not well understand you Do you think the Church must needs be visible at all times to the whole world Pop. I cannot say so for she was not always visible to many great and famous parts of the world as China and America it may suffice that she is visible in some Kingdom or part of the world and that she remains so in all ages Prot. Then the Church may remain invisible to the greatest part of the world and so your argument reacheth but a small part of the world How I pray you must the Church be always visible Pop. There must be in all ages in some eminent place a great company of Christians visibly united together in the worship of God in one body and Congregation and governed by their successive Pastors under the Pope Prot. Very well now I know your mind and first I deny that it is necessary for the true Church to be so visible in all ages Do you prove it Pop. That I shall easily prove from those many and glorious promises made to the Church the Church is called a great Mountain and said to be exalted above other mountains Isa. 2. She is a City set upon a hill that cannot be hid Mat. 5. Christ hath promised to be with her to the end of the world Mat. 28. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her Christs Kingdom is an everlasting Kingdom Psal. 88. Dan. 2. A few invisible and dispersed Christians cannot make a Kingdom Prot. Your proofs are impertinent Isa. 2. doth prove that the Church under the New Testament should be glorious that is spiritually and prevalent so it was and we trust will be but he saith not the Church should always continue in that condition which is the point that you should prove Mat. 5. If it speak of the Church Christ only tells us what the Church then was not that it should always remain such besides he speaks of their duty not their condition and Mat. 28. proves that Christ will be with his Church but not so as that it shall always be illustrious and united in a great body this neither that nor any of your other Texts prove nor can you But suppose that Christ had made such a promise that his Church should be visible in all Ages in a considerable body How do you prove that our Church hath not been so visible in all ages Pop. If you affirm that it hath been visible in all Ages you are bound to produce a Catalogue of your Churches in all successive Ages Prot. That is not necessary neither If I did positively affirm that our Church had been visible in such manner in all Ages then I confess I am bound to prove it But if I leave it in doubt as a thing which for ought you or I know might be true or false he that affirms it was not so is bound to make it good and if I deny your Proposition by all Laws of dispute you must prove it I will shew by an instance how unconvincing your argument is There are several Prophesies and Promises in Scripture the execution whereof is not recorded there nor any where else suppose an Atheist comes to you and offers this Argument against the Scripture If the Scripture be true and the Word of God then all its Prophesies and Promises were accomplisht but there are several Prophesies and Promises there which never were accomplished within the time appointed therefore it is not true What would you answer Pop. I would deny this Proposition viz. That there are any such Prophesies or Promises there which were not accomplisht Prot. Suppose then he urge it thus If they were accomplisht then you must shew when and how they were accomplisht either in Scripture or other Stories if you cannot I shall conclude they never were accomplisht Pop. I should tell him That he is obliged to shew they were not accomplisht not I to shew that they were accomplisht I should tell him that they might be accomplisht though the accomplishment of them were never put into any writing and being but an Historical Tradition might easily be lost or if it were put into writing that also might be lost by the injury of time as thousands of other Books have been so that no prudent man will believe this mad Proposition That nothing was done in former Ages that was not mentioned in the Records which we have But if it were possible that some particular things were not recorded or wâ—re lost yet it is probable that so eminent and publick a matter as a Succession of Churches should lie hid Prot. I confess it is not so probable that a large and glorious Church should so lie hid but since it was sufficient for the making good of Christs promise of being ever with his Church if there were some few Congregations and Ministers though scattered in divers places that these should not be recorded is not at all strange nor improbable to any one who considers 1. How many matters of far greater note are recorded only in some single Author which if he had been lost and that he was as lyable to as they that were lost the memory of those things had perished with him 2. How wofully dark and ignorant some ages of the Church were as you all confess wherein there was not much reading but to be sure there was little or no writing and that little that was written was written by men of the times who would not do their Enemies that honour or right to put them into their Histories 3. If any did mention such things it is not at all improbable that such Book or
Books wherein they were recorded might either be lost by the injury of time as thousands of other Books were which was much more easie before Printing was found out or suppressed by the tyranny of your Predecessors who made it their business as Israels enemies of old that the name and remembrance of true Christians might be blotted out of the earth So then if Christ did indeed promise the perpetual visibility of his Church I will conclude he made it good though History be silent in the point nor will I conclude it was not done because it is not recorded But I pray you let me further ask you Is it true that I am told that in the former ages there were many Christians and Ministers whom your Church did persecute and burn for Hereticks Pop. That cannot be denyed Prot. This shews there were not wanting even in former ages some that testified against your corruptions and this was a sign they were the true Church whose office it is to contend for the Faith delivered to the Saints for these things were not done in a corner I am told that your great Bellarmine when is was objected against him that the Church was obscure in St. Hilaries dayes answers that though the true Church may be obscure by multitude of Scandals yet even then it is visible in its strongest members as then it was in Athanasius Hilary Eusebius and two or three more whom he mentions whence I gather that some few eminent Preachers and Professors of the Truth are sufficient to keep up this Visibility I remember I have read in the History of the Waldenses who though your Predecessors branded them with odious names and opinions yet do sufficiently appear to have been a company of Orthodox and serious Christians and indeed true Protestants these began about 500 Years ago saith your Genebrard and your Reinerius who was one of their cruel Butchers otherwise called Inquisitors writeth thus of them This Sect saith he is the most pernicious of all others for three causes 1. Because it is of long continuance some say that it hath endured from the time of Silvester others from the time of the Apostles The 2. is because it is more general for there is almost no Land in which this Sect doth not creep 3. That whereas all others by the immanity of their blasphemies against God do make men abhor them these having a great shew of godliness because they do live justly before men and believe all things well of God and all the Articles which are contained in the Creed only the Church of Rome they do blaspheme and hate Behold here out of your own mouths a plain Confutation of your Objection and a testimony of the perpetuity amplitude visibility and sanctity of our Church for it is sufficiently known that our Church and Doctrine is for substance the same with theirs Now tell me I pray you if this History of them had been lost and no other mention of them made in other Records Had it been a truth for you to affirm that there never were any such men and Churches in that time Pop. No surely for the recording of things in History doth not make them true nor the silence of Histories about true Occurrences make them false Prot. Then there might be the like Companies and Congregations in former ages for ought you or I know nor can you argue from the defect of an History to the denial of the thing And all this I say not as if there were no Records which mention our Church in former Ages for as I said before it is sufficiently evident that all our material Doctrines have been constantly and successively owned by a considerable number of persons in several Ages but only that you may see there is a flaw in the very foundation of your Argument Moreover I finde in Scripture several instances of such times when the Church was as much obscured and invisible as ever our Church was as when Israel was in Egypt so oft-times under the Judges Iudg. 2. 3. and so under divers of the Kings as Ahab when Elijab complained he was left alone and the 7000. which were reserved though known to God were invisible to the prophet and under Ahaz and Manasseh and so in the Babylonish captivity and so under Antiochus read at my desire 2 Chr. 15. 3. 28. 24. 29. 6 7. 33. 3 4. so in the New Testament how obscure and in a manner invisible was the Christian Church for a season Nay let me add this perpetual visibility and splendour is so far from being a note of the true Church that on the contrary it is rather a sign that yours is not the true Church as appears thus Christ hath foretold the obscurity and smallness of his Church in some after ages he tells us that there shall be a general Apostasie and defection from the faith 2 Thess. 2. 1 Tim. 4. I read of a woman Rev. 12. and she is forced to flee into the Wilderness and I am told your own Expositors agree with us that this is the Church which flees from Antichrist into the Wilderness and secret places withdrawing her self from persecution Is this true Pop. I must confess our Authers do tâ—ke it so Prot. Then it seems you do not believe your selves when you plead the necessity of perpetual visibility and splendour for here you acknowledge her obscurity and really this place and discourse of yours does very much confirm me that that obscurity which you object against us is an argument that ours is the true Church though according to this Prediction the Pope this Antichrist did drive our Predecessors into the Wilderness I read of a Beast rising out of the Sea Revel 13. which your own Authors Menochius Tirinus and almost all Expositors as Riberus saith acknowledge to be Antichrist and this Beast all the Inhabitants of the World do worship except those whose names are written in the Book of life verse 8. that is excepting only the invisible Church if any Church be visible and glorious at that time it must be the false and Antichristian Church and now I speak of that I have heard that you your selves confess that in the time of Antichrist the Church shall be obscure and all publick Worship in the Churches of Christians shall be forbidden and cease Is it so Pop. It is true it shall be so i. e. during the time of Antichrists reign as Bellarmine acknowledgeth but that is only for a short moment for three years and a half which is all the time that Antichrist shall reign Prot. I thank you for this for now you have exceedingly confirmed me in the truth of my Religion for since you grant that the Church shall be obscured durings Antichrist reign I am very well assured that your opinion of the Triennial reign of Antichrist is but a meer dream and that he was to reign in the Church for many hundred of years for 1260 dayes Rev. 11. 3.
and that the Atheist ought to yield to them Pop. Yes doubtless for every man is bound to receive the truth especially when it is so proposed and proved to him Prot. It seems then by this when you list you can prove the Scripture to be the Word of God without taking in the Churches Authority I hope you will allow me the same benefit But again let me ask you your Church that you talk of which believes the Scripture to be the Word of God Doth she believe it to be the Word of God upon solid grounds or no Pop. Yes doubtless our Church is not so irrational as to believe without grounds nor do we pretend Revelation but she believes it upon solid Arguments Prot. I wish you would give me a list of their Arguments But whatever they be that are sufficient to convince your Church why should they not be sufficient to convince any private man Popish or Protestant or Atheist And therefore there is no need of the Churches testimony Or will you say the Church hath no other sufficient reason to believe the Scriptures but her own testimony that is she believes because she will believe Pop. God forbid that I should disparage the Church or give Atheists that occasion to scoff at the Stripture Prot. Then I also may be satisfied without the Churches testimony that the Scriptures are the Word of God and I am so by such Arguments as your self mentioned but really I cannot but smile to see what cunning sophisters you are how you play at fast and loose The same Arguments for the Scriptures are strong and undeniable when you talk with an Atheist and are all of a sudden become weak as water when a Protestant brings them Pop. But if you can prove in the General That the Scriptures are the Word of God yet you cannnot without the Churches Authority tell what Books of Scripture or which are Canonical and so you are never the nearer Prot. Here also I must ask you again How doth your Church know which Books are Scripture and Canonical doth she know this by Revelation Pop. No we leave such fancies to your Church Prot. How then doth she know this and why doth she determine it Is it with reason or without it Pop. With reason doubtless being induced to believe and determine it upon clear and undoubted Evidences Prot. I pray you tell me what are those Evidences upon which she goes Pop. I will be true to you our great Bellarmine mentions these three The Church saith he knows and declares a Canonical Book 1. From the testimonies of the Antients 2. From its likeness and agreement with other Books 3. From the common sense and taste of Christian people Prot. Since a private man especially one that besides learning and experience hath the Spirit of God to guide him which is that anointing given to all Believers which teaches them all things 1 Joh. 2. 27. may examine and apprehend these things as well as the Pope himself and better too considering what kind of creatures divers of your Popes are confest to have been he may therefore know without the Churches Authority what Books are indeed Canonical but I pray you tell me Do not you acknowledge those books to be the Word of God which we do that are in this Bible Pop. I must be true to you we do own every Book you have there but you should receive the Books which you call Apocryphal so that indeed your Bible is not compleat for you believe but a part of the written Word of God which I must tell you is of dangerous consequence Prot. If these Books be a part of Gods Word I confess we are guilty of a great sin in taking away from Gods Word and if they be not you are no less guilty in adding to it so that the only question is Whether these Books be a part of the holy Scripture or no Now that if you please we will try Bellarmines rules Pop. The motion is fair and reasonable Prot. First then for the judgment of the Antient Church let us try that I know you hold the Churches judgment infallible especially in matters of this moment and I suppose you think the Iewish Church was infallible before Christ as the Christian Church now is Pop. We do so and the Infallibility of the Iewish Church and High Priest Deut. 17. is one of our principal Arguments for the Infallibility of our Church Prot. Then only these Books of the old Testament were Canonical which the Jewish Church did own Pop. That must necessarily follow Prot. Then your cause is lost for it is certain the Jews rejected these Apocryphal Books which you receive and they reckoned only 22. Iosephus his words acknowledged for his by Eusebius are most express for us The Iews have only 22 Books to which they deservedly give credit which contains things written from the beginning of the World to the times of Artaxerxes other things were written afterward so the Apocryphal Books are granted to have been but they are not of the same credit with the former because There was no certain succession of Prophets and I am told divers of your learned Authors confess it as Catharinus Costerus Marianus Victor and Bellarmine himself whose words are these All those Books which the Protestants do not receive the Iews also did not receive and this is more considerable because to the Iews were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. And neither Christ nor his Apostles did accuse them of breach of trust in this matter Moreover I am told and surely in all reason it must needs be true that the Canonical Books of the Iewish Church were written in the Iewish or Hebrew language whereas these were written in Greek only Are these things so Pop. What is true I will acknowledge It is so The Jewish Church indeed did not receive them nor yet did they reject them as our Canus well answers Prot. Either that Church did believe them to be Canonical or they did not if they did then they lived in a mortal sin against Conscience in not receiving them if they did not they were of our opinion Pop. Well what soever the Jewish Church did I am sure the Antient Christians and Fathers did receive these Books as a part of the Canonical Scriptures Prot. I doubt I shall take you tardy there too I am told that the Council of Laodicea in the year of our Lord 364. drew up a Catalogue of the Books of the Scripture in which as in ours the Apocryphal Books are rejected Pop. It is true they did not receive them nor yet reject them Prot. If they did not receive them that undeniably shews that they did not believe them to be Canonical and yet they diligently scanned the point and the Books had then been extant some hundred of years and they were far more likely to know the truth than we at this distance having then
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
commands and exhortations to repentance there are in Scripture not one which either commands this auricular confession to a Priest or declares the necessity of it produce one place and I yield there are many instances of Iohn the Baptist and Christ and the Apostles either actual giving or in Gods Name proposing and offering remission of sins upon the conditions prescribed in the Gospel among which not one of them requires this auricular confession Bring one instance to the point and I yield Pop. I will give you two instances Matt. 3. 6. The Pharisees were baptized confessing their sins and the conjurers confessed their sins Act. 19. 18. Prot. These places do both speak of publick confession and in case of scandalous sins which we acknowledge to be a duty but what is this to auricular confession will you never speak to the purpose besides these places cannot be meant of auricular confession for that was not then instituted as your council of Trent confesseth Well I see you can bring neither instance of this confession nor precept for it and therefore I am sure there is no sin in the neglect of it for where there is no law there is no transgression Rom. 4. 15. 2. Your doctrine makes that insufficient for pardon and salvation which God makes sufficient The great God assureth us That he that confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall find mercy Prov. 28. 13. Pop. That makes against you for you sâ—e there is confession required Prot. And no doubt it is a mans duty to make confession to God and in case of wrong unto men and sometimes to a Minister also as in case of doubt or trouble of conscience but this is nothing to auricular confession nor can the text mean that sor you grant it was not as yet instituted God declares that if the wicked for sake his evil way and thoughts and turn unto God he shall have mercy Isa. 55. 7. so Isa. 1. 16. 17 18. so Act. 16. 31. S. Paul in Gods name promiseth believe on the Lord Iesus and thou shalt be saved Thus Ro. 10. 13. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved And who dares say that he that doth all these things shall not be saved unless he confess to a Priest since God never spake such a word What is it to add to Gods word if this be not The terms upon which Christ offered promised salvation are Repent and believe Pop. Auricular confession is a part of repentance Prot. When Christ preached that doctrine it was no part of repentance for you confess it was not then instituted your Council of Trent determines that it was instituted by Christ after his resurrection And you will find it hard to perswade any rational man that repentance wanted a necessary part before Christs resurrection or that it was of one kind before it and quite another after it But I will not waste more time about so vain a fancy for my part I rest upon Christs gracious promises to repenting and believing Sinners By Gods grace I will endeavour to do these things and I doubt not but he will make good his words whether you will or no let God be true and every man a lyar But possibly you have better arguments for Absolutions and Indulgences Produce them but first let me hear what your doctrine in this point is Pop. I will give you this in brief together with the rise and ground of it We believe first That there are divers Saints who have not only merit for themselves but a great deal to spare and all their merits are put into one treasury Secondly That these merits are appliable to others so as God will pardon Thomas for example for Iohns merit Thirdly That God hath put this treasure into the Churches that is the Popes hands and from him into the hands of all Priests who have a power to apply these merits as they see fit Prot. There is nothing sound and solid in this whole discourse first I have proved that there is no Purgatory there is your foundation of indulgences gone next I hope ere we part to shew that there is no such thing as merit in good works which is another of your foundations Next that any mans merits except Christs may be applied to another I pray you inform me for I have learned quite otherwise I read that every one shall bear his own burden Gal. 6. 6. Every one shall receive according to what HE hath done in his body 2 Cor. 5. 10. The wise Virgins differed from you they thought they had oyl little enough for themselves and none at all to spare Mat. 25. 9. So if you are Virgins it seems you are none of that sort If you can prove this conceit of yours do Pop. I will give you a clear place Col. 1. 24. S. Paul saith I now rejoyce in my sufferings for you and fill up that which is behind or that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake which is the Church Prot. First tell me do you think any thing was lacking or defective in Christs sufferings Pop. No You use to charge us with that opinion but falsly Prot. It is well you grant thus much but if you denied it a cloud of plain Scriptures would force you to grant it which tells us that by one offering Christ perfected for ever them that are sanctified Heb. 10. 14. and that he is able to save to the uttermost Heb. 7. 25. By sufferings of Christ then we must understand the sufferings of Christ mystical or Christ in his members which are usually so called when Christ had done suffering in his person he left it as a legacy to his members that they should suffer with him and for him and St. Paul bore his share in these sufferings and for the last clause of his suffering for the Church The phrase it is true is ambiguous and sometimes indeed it signifies to satisfie Gods justice for another but in this sense St. Paul rejects it with indignation 1 Cor. 1. 13. was Paul crucified for you But it is not always thus taken for St. Paul saith he suffered for Christ 2 Cor. 12. 10. not surely to satisfie for him There is therefore another sense and that is he suffered for the Churches edification establishment and so indeed he elsewhere explains himself Phil. 1. 12. and I am told that your own brethren understand it thus and your Bellarmin confesseth the words may be thus expounded but only saith the words may conveniently receive this sense which is as much as to say if you will be courteous you may grant him the Argument but if you do not he cannot prove it But admit there be such a treasury of Merits for others as you pretended how prove you that your Priests are made Judges and invested with such a power of distributing those Merits and giving Absolutions as you challenge Pop.
Our great Argument is John 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained Answer me this Argument and I will yield up this Cause Prot. What Argument do you draw from these words Pop. Hence it appears that Ministers are made judges and intrusted with full power and authority of binding and loosing so as Christ doth not loose or forgive a sinner by himself but only by the Priest as Bellarmin saith And to speak properly as our most learned Vasquez affirmeth God doth not properly loose a sinner but only approves of the Priests loosing of him Prot. Now in my opinion it were good manners to make the Priest come after God and not to make God depend upon the Priest It seems then if the Priest should grow surly or envious and deny me a Pardon Christ cannot help me for he hath given the power out of his hands So you make the Priest the Judge and God only the Approver The Lord rebuke this spirit of Blasphemy Again nothing is more familiar in Scripture than for Gods Ministers to be said to do that which they do only authoritatively declare that God will do Thus God saith to Ieremy I have set thee over Kingdoms to root out and pull down and destroy that is by declaring that God would do it In like manner Gods Ministers are said to bind and loose because they have from God authority to declare a Sinner to be bound by his Sins or loosed from them which if they declare truly and according to Gods word God in heaven doth and will make it good As for this Text it saith nothing but this that every one whom they bind or loose that is proceeding according to their rule which is always to be understood shall be bound or loosed in heaven but it doth not say that no man is bound or loosed but they whom the Priest bindeth and looseth But besides if all these things were granted how doth this Text prove that the Priest or Pope can absolve or release any souls out of Purgatory if there were such a place I pray you tell me can the Pope binde any soul and keep him in Purgatory Pop. No we do not pretend to that Prot. Then he cannot loose a soul neither out of Purgatory for I am sure binding and loosing are of the same extent But upon second thoughts I must own your discretion for the binding of souls in Purgatory was an invidious and unprofitable work and would have bound up mens hearts and purses It is only the loosing of them out which opens their purse strings tends to the edification of the Church that is the Pope and Priests as they always understand that word In sober sadness it is enough to make any serious Christian abhor your Church that your Pope should not be content to usurp a power over the whole visible world but that he should extend his Authority to the other world even to Purgatory In my opinion he had done more wisely to have extended his empire to Hell for there are many of his Predecessours so far as can be judged by any mans life whom he might have appointed his Deputies but there is never a Pope in Purgatory for they who can release others at pleasure will certainly deliver themselves But now I speak of that I pray you tell me if it be true that I have heard that the Pope when he dies receives Absolution from his Confessor and that after his death the Cardinals give him Absolution and give order for the singing of abundance of Masses Pop. It is true I was at Rome when the last Pope died and it was so then and our Books justifie it Prot. I am much pleased with your ingenuity so the Pope gives the Priest a power to pardon himself methinks he might save the charges of a Confessor it were enough to say I absolve my self But tell me do you say Masses for any that are in Heaven or in Hell Pop. No we utterly disclaim that Prot. Then I perceive the Pope goes into Purgatory I see your Popes are not self-seeking men as they are slandered to be that help so many thousands out of Purgatory and leave themselves in But really this is to me a convincing Argument that you do not believe your selves but deceive poor silly people against your Consciences For else you might be assured the Pope would never come into Purgatory for you say he can keep himself out and no man doubts of his will to do it Besides your Doctrine usurps upon God's Prerogative I had thought it was only my Father in Heaven to whom I should have prayed Forgive us our Trespasses Now it seems we must pray so to one of these Padre's upon earth You make Subjects the supream Judges of all Offences committed against their Soveraign and your Priests sit as Umpires between God and the Sinner and determine what Satisfaction God shall have and what Penance the Sinner shall undergo Methinks they are brave fellows and I now see it was not without ground that Father Cotton bragged That he could do any thing when he had his God in his hand that was the Sacrament and his King upon his knees in Confession I think you will bring Christ upon his knees too for it seems you have resolved that he shall stand to your Priests Arbitration I might add to this that you leave the souls of people to endless perplexities you confess that Indulgences profit not If a man be not in the state of grace which you say a man cannot certainly know or if a man have not made a free and full Confession after sufficient examination and who knows when he hath done these things sufficiently or if the Priest do not intend to pardon him and who knows another mans intentions and yet you would have me so desperate to venture my soul upon such sandy foundations that your selves are afraid and ashamed of But to leave this I perceive that this and divers of your other Doctrines are grounded upon that of the merit of good works which because I judge a very pernicious and dangerous Doctrine let me hear what you can say for it but first let me understand your Doctrine for I have heard some of you cry out that our Divines slandered them and profess that they did not hold Merit strictly but cast the honour of all upon Christ and the grace of God therefore I pray you inform me Pop. I will be plain and candid with you I do not like such Artifices The Council of Trent in plain terms affirms That our good works do truly merit increase of grace and eternal life and our famous Bellarmiue disputes and proves That good works do not only merit in respect of Gods gracious Covenant but in regard of the worthiness of the works themselves and that eternal life is not only due from Gods liberality but from his just judgment