in the case of Abraham's offering up Isaac and the Israelites spoiling the Aegyptians of their Jewels yet I need no other answer but this I directly deny that here is any contradiction at all For our question is not about the making of Images whether by Gods order or Mans but about the worshipping of them And albeit there were such Images made yet they were not made to be worshipped as I before proved nor was there any danger the people should worship them because they were not admitted to see them But I pray you answer me this one question I am told that divers of your own Authors confess that the Jews indeed were though Christians are not forbidden the use of Images by this command Is it so Pop. These indeed are the words of our famous Vasquez after he hath mentioned divers Authors for the contrary opinion There are saith he other Authors neither fewer nor inferiour to them who are of the contrary opinion which to me alwayes seemed most probable to wit that all the use of Images is here forbidden to the Jews and for this he quotes many of our approved Authors and Salmeron saith no less Prot. And you need say no more for then all these Authors thought your distinction of Image and Idol frivolous and that the word Pâ—sel is meant of any Images and not of Idols only as you foolishly distinguish and so your principal refuge is lost and you are convicted Idolaters and then if you repent not you know where your portion will be Go now and brag of the safeness of your Religion I see how little it is that you can say for your Worship of the Dead Saints and their Images let me hear whether you have any better Arguments for your Prayers for the Dead and Purgatory Pop. I am glad you mention that since all your Divines do agree that Prayer for the Dead was the practice of the Antient Church and Fathers Prot. If that be true it is not sufficient for your purpose for I am fully satisfied that the Fathers were not infallible and your own greatest Doctors think so too But Besides I am told that their Prayers for the dead were quite of another nature than yours and for other purposes and they were grounded upon some private opinions of theirs which you disown for they prayed not only for those whom you suppose to be in Purgatory but for those who you confess many of them never did come there they pray for all the Saints from the righteous Abel to this day they pray for all their Ancestors Patriarchs Prophets and Martyrs as I have heard it in some of their Liturgies Is it so Pop. It is so Prot. I pray you tell me what do you pray for the Dead Pop. We pray that God would deliver them from those dreadful pains of Purgatory Prot. Then if there be no Purgatory the foundation of your Prayers for the dead is gone Pop. I grant it Prot. Then let us discourse of the most fundamental point as we have hitherto done the rest will fall of course Therefore First I pray tell me your opinion concerning Purgatory Pop. Our Doctrine in brief is this That though God freely gives to all that are truly penitent forgiveness of their sins and freedom from eternal death yet since they have much venial sin and corruption in them in which oft-times they die therefore it is necessary that they should for the expiation of those sins and for the satisfaction of Gods Justice either do or suffer such Penances Fastings Prayers c. as are enjoyned them here or where those are not sufficient suffer the pains of Purgatorie Prot. I understand your Doctrine now let me hear two of your strongest Arguments to prove it I hear that Bellarmin threatens us that whosoever doth not believe Purgatory shall be tormented in Hell Is it true Pop. He doth say so and I am of his mind Prot. Then I hope you have very clear Arguments for it because you lay so great a stress upon it But first I have heard that this Doctrine of Purgatory is confessed by divers of your own Brethren to be but a new Doctrine Is it so Pop. I will not dissemble with you several of our Doctors have unadvisedly blurted out such expressions as these our famous English Martyr Fisher Bishop of Rochester confesseth That Purgatory was for a long time unknown and either never or very seldom mentioned among the Antient Fathers and Alphonsus de Castro saith That many things are known to us of which the Antient Writers were altogether ignorant and amongst them he reckons Purgatory which saith he the Greek Writers mentioned not and even to this day it is not believed by the Greek Church Prot. I suppose you do not think all these Antient Fathers were damned Pop. No God forbid for many of them were glorious Confessors and Martyrs Prot. Then I see Bellarmines threats are not very formidable But to let this pass How do you prove this Doctrine Pop. From plain Scripture 1. From Mat. 12. 32. Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world neither in the world to come Which clearly implies that some sins not forgiven in this world are forgiven in the next and that must be in Purgatory Prot. I pray you tell me what sins are they which are forgiven in Purgatory Pop. Not great and mortal but small and venial sins as we all agree Prot. Is not blasphemy against the Son of Man a mortal sin Pop. Yes doubtless But what of that Prot. If this Text proves the pardon of any sins it proves the pardon of that sin no less than others because the sin against the Holy Ghost is here spoken of as the only sin which is unpardonable in both worlds Besides Christ speaks thus in opposition to a corrupt opinion which I have heard now is and then was rife among the Jews to wit that divers of their sins were pardoned after this life and that this was one of their antient Prayers Let my death be the expiation of all my sins for they thought the sufferings of this life and death the last of them did free them from the punishments of the other life And I have heard that it was one of their sayings That every Israelite hath a part in the future life Are these things so Pop. To deal freely with you This is not only true but it is one of our Arguments for Purgatory that Jason the Cyrenian who lived long before Christs time expresly affirms that it is profitable to pray for the dead that their sins may be pardoned 2 Mac. 12. Prot. I think that is impertinently alledged for Purgatory for the sin those men died in was a mortal sin as you confess and therefore not pardonable in Purgatory But I thank you for this for now I am satisfied that it was an antient opinion among the Iews and so Christ had just
the council of Trent it self when one would expect they should have grown wiser though not better prove the unequal power of Popes Bishops and Priests from Rom. 13. 1. The powers that be are ordained of God that is digested into order I hope ere you have done you will put forth an entire Comment upon the whole Bible which I assure you will be the rarest book that ever saw the light But further I desire to know of you how your Church comes to have this true and certain sense of Scripture hath she it by Revelation or Inspiration Pop. No we pretend to no such thing but she comes to know it by the diligent use of means by prayer by reading and comparing Scripture by consulting ancient Interpreters Analogy of Faith the coherence c. and even the Pope himself when he set forth his Translation of the Bible He professes to all the world that he did it in the very same manner and by the same helps that other Translators do that is by advising with learned Men and consulting Antient Copies and the like Prot. Very good Then I pray you tell me why a Protestant Minister being oft times both a learneder and better man than the Pope may not as certainly hit upon the true sense of the Scripture as the Pope himself Pop. The reason is plain because the Pope is guided by the infallible assistance of Gods Spirit Prot. You ought not to rant at this height until you have solidly answered what our Divines have wrote against this Infallibility And I heard before the woful weakness of your arguments for it is to me the vainest thing in the world to pretend a promise of the Spirit of God infallibly to guide such men as if the Scripture be true have not the Spirit of Christ in them being as you confess many of your Popes and Bishops were sensual not having the Spirit and having apparently no other spirit in them but the spirit of the world the spirit that lusteth to envy and all wickedness But since you pretend the Scripture is so dark I pray you tell me what was the end for which God designed the Scripture Sure I think it was for our understanding my Bible tells me that whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning Rom. 15. 4 But if you say true it seems God meant only to put forth riddles Gods Law was designed by him for a light and that even to the simple Psal. 19. 7 8 9. and 119 105. And in a word the Gospel is so clear that Saint Paul pronounceth it is hid from none but them that perish 2 Cor. 4. 3 4. And Saint Luke wrote his Gospel that Theophilus and with him other Christians might know the certainty of those things wherein they had been instructed Luke 1. 4. and generally every discreet man that writes a Book writes it so as it may be understood especially if it be for the benefit of the ignorant as well as the learned which the Scripture assuredly was Tell me then I pray you why should God write his mind so darkly and doubtfully as you know whose Oracles are said to be delivered was it because God could not write plainer and wanted the gift of utterance or because he would not Pop. Notwithstanding all this it is certain the Scripture is full of obscure places Prot. I do not deny this but those things which are obscurely delivered in one place are more clearly delivered in another and those dark places generally are about Prophecies and such other things the knowledge of which is not necessary to salvation But for necessaries the Scripture is plain and I am told that divers of your Authors acknowledge so much Is that true Pop. I confess Costerus hath this expression that things which are necessary to be known by all Christians are plainly and clearly delivered in the writings of the Apostles and some others of our Doctors say as much * See nullity of Rom. faith chap. 7. sect 4. Prot. It could be nothing but the evidence of the truth which forced such an acknowledgment from its greatest Adversaries therefore let this go and let me hear what further you have to say against our Religion Pop. I find you are an obstinate Heretick and setled upon the lees and therefore it will be needless to discourse further with you if any thing could have convinced you surely the Arguments I have offered would have done it for I assure you I have pickt out the strength and marrow of the Catholick Cause in the Points we have discoursed And since I see you turn a deaf ear to my counsel I shall give you over as incorrigible Prot. You see I have heard you with great patience and given you all the freedom you could desire now I have one request to you that you would allow me the same priviledge with patience to hear and if you can answer what I shall object against your Religion Pop. With a very good will I 'le meet you here to morrow at this time so at present adieu The SECOND CONFERENCE Prot. WEll met Sir I see you are as good as your word and I hope you will allow me as much freedom and patience as I did you Pop. I shall willingly do it therefore speak freely and so will I and if truth be on your side let it prevail Prot. I shall divide my discourse into two Parts 1. Some General Considerations which indeed do very much set me against your Religion 2. I shall examine the grounds of your Principal Points of Doctrine for to meddle with all will be needless If your Pillars fall the rest cannot stand For the first there are several weighty Considerations against your Religion I shall give you them in order The first General Consideration is this 1. That your Church declines all Judgment but her own and makes her self Judge in her own Cause you do not allow Scripture to be Judge nor the Antient Fathers for all your talk of Antiquity nor indeed any but your selves the Pope or a Council of your own and your Church it seems must determine whether she be a true Church or no and whether she be pure or corrupted or whether she be Infallible or no Is this so Pop. I confess this is our Doctrine and I think grounded upon Reason Prot. You speak against the common sense of all men In all Controversies or Differences between men and men we generally suspect that party who will submit to no judgment but his own and he who is willing to refer himself to any third indifferent party is generally presumed to have the best cause and thâ—s is our case Protestants do not make themselves and their own Church the only Judge though they might as justly and reasonably do it as you but they are very willing to submit to other Judges they refer themselves to be judged by the Scripture which is acknowledged to be a most indifferent Judge If
against those who affirmed that Christ had only a phantastical Body namely that he was seen and felt and heard for you say sense is not to be believed Again you destroy the truth of Christs ascension into Heaven For Christ is not ascended if he hath not left the world for these two are joyned together Ioh. 16. 28. I leave the world and go to the Father but if you say true he hath not left the world but is here in every Sacrament nothing can be more plain than that Christ did visibly and locally leave this world when he went up into heaven Acts 1. 9 10. that being once there the heavens must receive or contain him until the time of the restitution of all things Acts 3. 21. and that at the last day he shall come visibly and locally from heaven 2 Thess. 1. 7. but that he should come down a thousand times in a day at the command of every Mass-Priest is such a dream as the Scripture speaks not one syllable of nor can any rational man believe it Moreover your Doctrine destroys the very Essence of a Sacrament which consists of two parts an outward element or sign and the inward grace signified by it and this I am told your Doctors acknowledge I shall forbear mentioning further particulars these are more than enough to shew the falseness of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation In the next place pray let me hear what you have to say for your great Article of praying to Saints But first I am told divers of your own Authors confess it is not necessary to pray to Saints but only convenient Is it so Pop. It is true and I must confess the Council of Trent do only say it is good and profitable Prot. Then sure I will never run the hazard of committing Idolatry for an unnecessary work But I am further told that your great Scholar and Wit Perron confesseth That he found no footsteps of this praying to Saints either in Scripture or in the Fathers before the four first Councils which was some hundreds of years after Christ. He confessed likewise to Isaac Casaubone as he told our Bishop Andrews that he himself never prayed to Saints but only as he went in Procession that is for form sake Andr. in Opusc. Posthuma and that Salmâ—ron and Cotton and Eccius say as much in effect viz. That there is no command for this in either Testament Is it so Pop. It is true and Bellarmine confesseth That the Saints began to be worshipt not so much by any Law as by Custome Prot. Methinks these two Considerations should startle you that it is both unnecessary and uncommanded I perceive I am not like to hear Scripture Arguments in this point Pop. Some of our Authors do urge some Scriptures but you tie me up to use but few and those the best Arguments and therefore I will rather urge other Considerations 1. Humility and Discretion adviseth us to this duty for I suppose if you have any request to the King you do not sawcily rush into his presence but make use of some of his Courtiers Prot. But tell me I pray you If a King not only allows but commands all his Subjects to call upon him in the day of trouble to come to him freely and upon all occasions to pour out their complaints to him not doubting but he will receive and answer them and this King were always at perfect leisure to hear their requests and the oftner they come to him the welcomer they are and he appoints his own Son the Master of the Requests from time to time to receive all the Petitions of his Subjects and both the King and the Prince are ten thousand times more compassionate than the Courtiers would you not in this case account him a fool and somewhat else too that should spend his time in petitioning this and the other inferiour Courtier to gain access to the King Pop. I cannot deny that Prot. Then your Church hath need to make use of that counsel James 1. 5 If any man want wisdom let him ask it of God they rather choose to ask it of Saints and that is the reason they go without it Most plain it is this is the very case and such a King God in all points is and infinitely better than all this and such a Master of Requests Christ is but for the humility you talk of I think therein you do prudently for I remember the worship of Angels came in under a shew of humility Col. 2. 18. and the door being once opened it was discreetly done to bring in the worship of Saints there too let me hear what else you can say Pop. We use to pray to living Saints why not as well to departed and glorified Saints S. Paul writes to the Thessalonians Pray for us Col. 4. 3. Prot. Surely Scripture makes a sufficient difference You meet with very many Commands and Examples of Prayers or Addresses to the living not one to the dead Besides you know the living hear your Prayers you know nothing that the dead do so Besides I trow you do not pray to the living in such manner as you do to the dead you do not religiously worship the living and about that all our question is Did St. Paul invocate the Colossians because he desired their Prayers Can you say any thing more Pop. The Saints in Glory pray for us and therefore we may pray unto them Prot. Will you affirm that I may and ought to worship and pray unto all those that pray for me Pop. No Then our Churches practice would condemn me for we grant that the Fathers in their Limbus did and so those in Purgatory do pray for us and so do all the Living Saints upon Earth yet we do not allow Prayers unto them Prot. Then your argument is lost from their Intercession to your Invocation Pop. Let me hear if you have any better Arguments against this practice Prot. You shall 1. Since all grant that Prayer is a part of Gods Worship then your praying to Saints is directly contrary to Gods command Deut. 6. 13. Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Pop. We do not worship the Saints as God with the highest kinde of Worship which is proper to God but only with an inferiour kind of Religious Worship and therefore do not transgress this command Prot. The Devil himself did not require the highest worship as I shewed before yet Christ thought that inferiour worship a breach of that law Nor did those Angel-worshippers mentioned Col. 2. worship the Angels as God with the highest worship for they were either Jews or Judaizing Christians both of which never pretend to equalize the Angels with God but judged them far inferiour to God and worshipped them accordingly yet nevertheless are they condemned by S. Paul for giving divine Honour to the Creature Next this praying to Saints is an high dishonour to Jesus
Tell me I pray you do you not hold that there are two kinds of Religious Worship namely absolute which you give to God or the Saints and relative which you give to their Images Pop. I must own it Prot. Then it is horrible impudence to say you do not give worship to the Images since you give one of these two kinds unto them and unto them only besides if all you say were true this would not acquit you from Idolatry for your Church professeth and commandeth the Worship of the Images of Saints as well as of God and Christ and since it is Idolatry to give Divine Honour to any creature as I before proved you are no less guilty in giving it to the Saints themselves than to their Images and so you are double-dy'd Idolaters My second Argument is taken from the second Commandment Thou shalt not make any graven Image But first I pray you tell me true hath your Church left out this second Commandment in divers of her Breviaries and Offices of Prayer or do our Ministers slander them I hear that In the Hours of our Lady Printed at Paris An 1611. The Commandments of the first Table are set down in these words and no other 1. Commandment I am the Lord thy God thou shalt not have nor worship any other God but me 2. Commandment Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain 3. Commandment Remember to keep holy the Sabbath Day and Feasts And that the Council of Ausburg Ann. 1548. delivering the Commandments in Dutch for the People leave out the mention of Images and that their cheat might not be discovered that the people might have their full number they make use of the mistake of one of the Fathers and divide the last Command into two against Sense and Reason and the practice of the whole ancient Church Are these things so Pop. It is true it is left out in some of our Books but we leave it in in all Bibles and divers of our Catechisms Prot. Very well I see you had wit in your anger I commend your discretion that you did not your work so grosly that all the world should cry shame of you But that you blotted it out in any is an evidence of your guilt but what say you to this Argument Pop. Then my first answer is That this Command was peculiar to the Iews who were most prone to Idolatry Prot. This is not true It sufficiently appears that the Gentiles were under the obligation of this Law from those punishments which God inflicted upon them for their transgression or breach of it by Idolatry Rom. 1. But where there is no Law there is no transgression Besides Christ tell us He came not to destroy the Law the Moral Law but to fulfil it Mat. 5. 17. Belike you are not of his mind and dare you say the Jews as soon they believed in Christ were discharged from this command and allowed to worship the Images which that command forbad Pop. I will not say so but I have a second Answer The thing prohibited here is not Images which are representations of real things as you falsly render it but Idols which are the Images of false gods which are not and never were in the world Prot. The Text its self is full against you for the Images there prohibited are not said to be the Images of the false gods of the Heathens whereof many never had any being but the Images of any thing in heaven or earth c. Moreover divers of the Heathen gods were men whom they deified I hope their Pictures were Pictures of real things yet these are Idols Pop. Though they really were Men yet their pictures were made to represent them as gods and such they were not really and therefore were Idols Prot. The learned Heathens knew as well as you and I do that Iupiter and Mars and Mercury and the rest were meer Men and they smiled at the ignorance of their Vulgar that thought otherwise only they thought of them just as you do of the Saints that the great God had put some of his honour upon them and therefore they might worship them you cannot be so silly to think the learned Heathens thought Augustus was a god really when he was dead yet their worship of his Image was Idolatry And they that worshipped the Image of Caligula while he lived were not so sottish to take him for a god whom they knew to be a foolish and wicked man yet I hope you will not excuse them from Idolatry But further as the Jews did universally understand this to be a prohibition of all manner of Images so all the Prophets and Christ and the Apostles were so far from reproving them which they would have done if it had been an Error that they every where strengthen them in this opinion by declaiming against all worship of Images without any distinction And tell me I pray you if any Jew had at that time made for instance an Image of the Sun not looking on it as God but as a glorious creature of God and therefore fit to be religiously worshipped as you think of the Saints and Angels and had bowed down to it and worshipped it Do you think he had not broken this Law Pop. I dare not deny but he had broken it Prot. Yet this had been no Idol but an Image according to your sense of it Besides I find that all manner of Images are forbidden Lev. 26. 1. howsoever to me you seem to venture your salvation upon a nice point for the Hebrew word is neither Image nor Idol but Pesel as a Divine told me and this I understand is diversly translated some render it an Image others an Idol Now you ventrue your soul upon it that the last is the only true Translation which is a dreadful hazard because it is otherwise rendred not only by Protestants but by the most and best ancient interpreters even those whom your Vulgar Translation very oft follows in other places These render it not an Idol but a graven Image and the Seventy Interpreters I am assured po promiscuously render the word sometimes an Idol sometimes a graven Image Nay more than this that it may appear how desperately our cause is I am informed your own Vulgar Translation from which you are obliged not to swerve doth frequently render it not Idol but a graven Image Sculptile particularly in Exod 20. 4. Levit. 26. 1. and Deut. 4. 16 25. and 5. 8. Are these things so Pop. I cannot deny it for the Authors themselves would confute me But one thing I have to say you must understand one Scripture so as to agree with another Now I find God himself allows and prescribes some Images as those of the Cherubims either then he contradicts himself or he doth not forbid all Images but Idols only Prot. Though I might say God may make an exception to some of his Laws when no man can as
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
as well as their English which may be good counsel for many of them that have so little to spare But seriously can you or any rational man think these reasons of sufficient weight to oppose against that great Scripture rule of Edification and the express words and plain arguments of St. Paul God deliver me from such a besotting Religion Besides what I have said I shall leave this with you at parting that you do not only oppose Scripture but also that Antient Church which you pretend to reverence and to follow her steps and your practice is contrary to the Church in all antient times The Prayers of the Iews in publick were alwayes made in the Hebrew tongue and in that Tongue God gave them those forms of Prayer and blessing which were then used Numb 6. 10. God gave the gift of Languages to that end that the Apostles might establish the Worship of God in every Nation in their own Language And I am told that Origen reports this to be the practice of the Church in this time as well as his own Judgment That every one did pray to God in his own dialect Greeks in Greek and Latines in Latin c. Besides I am told that your own Authors Lyra Aquinas and Harding and others confess this was the practice of the antient Church and that one of your own Councils that of Lateran in the year 1215. did make this order that Whereas in many places there were mixed people of divers Languages and customs the Bishops should take care to provide fit men that should perform divine Service amongst them according to this difference of Rites and Languages Moreover that your great Cardinal Cajetan confesseth that Prayers ought to be in a known tongue Are these things so Pop. I cannot deny it Their Books are extant Prot. Then by this I see how far your Church is not only from Infallibility but from common honesty that dare pretend they hold nothing But what hath been by constant Tradition conveyed to them from the Apostles times until this day And by this I shall judge of all your other brags of Antiquity in your Doctrine So I see you are obstinate and incorrigible and therefore I shall trouble my self no further to talk with you FINIS * Concil Trident. †See my Nullity of Romish Faith Chap. 2. Sect. 4. * De Pontifice l. 4. c. 2. * Cressy in Exomolog In the Appendix Chap. 4. num 7. Holden de Resolutione fidei l. 2. c. 1. * Lib. 5. Cap. 1. * See Potter and Chillingworth * De Pontific l. 4. c. 2. * De Eccl siâ militante l. 3. c. 16. †Chron. l. 4. * De Pontif. l. 3. c. 7. Denique quod * De verbo Dei l. 1. c. 10. Itaque non dicimus * See Nullity of Rom. faith ch 2. †Hist. l. 310. b Contra Appionem lib. 1. c In Annot. adversus Cajet de libris Maccab. d Enchir. c. de scrip de num lib. e In Scholiis ad Epist. 116. Hieronymi f De Verbo Dei l. 1. c. 10. In principio g Loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 11. * Rainoldus in his Praelections concerning the Apocryphal Books proves this out of their own words see Praelect 40 41 42 43. * See Rainoldus Spanhem de libris Apocryphis * De Tradit cap. 9. * Of which see Nulliâ—y Append. p. 92. * Sixtus the Fifth Pope tells us in his Preface to his Translation of the Bible that He pickt out of the Cardinals and almost out of all Nations a Colledge of most learnned men who advised him in that work They saith he consulted and I chose that which was best And he adds these remarkable words It is most evident that there is no surer nor stronger Argument than the comparing of ancient and approved Copies And he tells us that he carefully corrected it with his own hands And then the Pope imposeth this Translation upon all the world to be followed without adding or diminishing or altering under pain of Excommunication And yet that you may see how they abuse the peoples credulity to make them believe the Popes Infallibility which themselves do not in earnest believe About two years after comes Clement the Eighth and he puts forth another Edition and Translation of the Bible differing from and contrary to the former Edition in two thousand places as Doctor James hath proved by producing the places as they are in both Editions And which is more than all this in the Preface to his last Bible of Clement the Eighth we have these words Receive Christian Reader this old and vulgar Edition of the Scripture corrected with all possible diligence which though in respect of humane weakness it be hard to affirm that it is every way compleat yet it is not to be doubted but it is more pure and corrected than all that hath gone before it I think this were sufficient evidence if there were no other how great a cheat it is that you pretend the Pope to be the infallible Interpreter of Scripture For here we have one of those infallibles directly contradicting and overturning the other and besides instead of that Divine or after a sort divine infallibility which you ascribe to the Pope we have here a publick acknowledgment of his imbecillity nor dare he affirm his work to be perfect which it must needs have been if he had been infallibly guided in it as you pretend he was nor would he have said so if he had believed his own infallibiliy * In his Bellum Papale and defence of it a De expresso Dei Verbo a Enchiridion cap. 1. b De primatu Romanae Ecclesiae fol 92. c Eccles. Hierarch lib. 2. cap. 2. d Ibid. l. 3. c. 3. fol. 103. * Contra haereses l. 5. c. 6. * In fine Concil Trident. Reg. 4. * De Sacris vernaculis * Cap. cum ex injuncta Extra de haeres * Triplicatio contra Whitak c. 17. * See Nullity †De Pont. l. 4. c. 5. * Roffensis contra Oecolampadiam c. 2. fol. 3. * De indulgentiis cap. 4. sub finem * See Nullity Chap 5. * Greg. de Valentiâ a Diligenter nota quod eujusmodi gratia non dantur pauperibus quia non sunt ideo non possunt consolari Taxa Cancellariae Apostolicae Tit. De Matrimoniali b Nam Indulgentiae fiunt ad relevandam indigentiam Ecclesiae quae non relevatur per solam voluntatem dandi sed per datum De Potestate Papoe quest 30. art 3. c Quantum ad remissionem poenae quae acquiritur per indulgentiam in tali causa non est inconveniens quod dives sit melioris conditionis quâm pauper Ibi enim non dicitur Venite emite sine pecuniâ Ibid. * Maulin Reinolds against Hart and others * Ses. 22. cap. 9. Can. 2 3 * De Missâ l. 6. 1. 12. Sextum * In part 3.