12. 6. that is years it being a very familiar thing to put dayes for years in Prophetical Writings But if the Church may be obscured for three years why not for thirty yea three hundred Did Christ in his supposed promise of perpetual Visibility in the Church make an exception for these three years I trow not And tell me I pray you should you live till that time when Antichrist shall prevail and your Religion no less than ours be obscure and invisible if any of the followers of Antichrist should dispute against you that yours was not the true Church because not visible Would you grant it Pop. God forbid I should be so wicked to deny my Mother and Church because of her Afflictions Prot. Then I see you your selves do not believe this to he a good argument and that you do not make perpetual visibility a necessary token of the true Church To this I add there is no need we should shew a constant succession of Protestant Churches ever since the Apostles dayes as you pretend is necessary the succession that you pretend in your Church is sufficient for ours and so long as we generally agree that your Church was a true Church till later years though wofully corrupted and our Predecessors continued in it till your wounds stunk and became incurable we need no other succession than yours but when your impiety came to the height then we visibly departed from you and have given such reasons for it as you will never be able to answer In the mean time let me hear what you have further to say Pop. For as much as all your Ministers confess our Church was once a true Church I pray you tell me how and when she did fall you cannot tell either the time when she fell or the manner how by Apostacy or Heresie or Schism if you can name your Authors Prot. This is a most unreasonable demand A friend of mine had the Plague last year and died of it I askt him when he was sick how and when he got it he said he knew not Shall I then conclude he had it not Shall I make Christ a lyar and dispute that there were no tares because they were sown when men slept Mat. 13. 25. and so could not know when or how they came Shall I believe no Heresie to be an Heresie unless I can shew how and when it came into the Church What if the Records of these things by the injury of time are lost and their original left in obscurity shall I therefore say it is now become no Heresie I beseech you answer me freely this question Suppose I could bring plain and strong evidences from the holy Scripture and from antient Tradition or the unanimous testimonies of the Antient Fathers that your Doctrine of Merits for instance is an Heresie your Doctrine of worshipping Images is Idolatry and that you are in divers particulars apostatized from that faith which the Scriptures and Fathers do own in this case Would you not confess that you are guilty of Idolatry Heresie and Apostasie Pop. If it were so and you could really bring as you falsely pretend you can but indeed cannot any such solid proofs I must and will confess it For all our Writers agree that although we must believe many things that are not contained in the Scripture yet we must believe nothing contrary to the Scriptures nor to the consent of the antient Fathers Prot. Very well hence then I gather that the only question between you and me is Whether we can evidently and solidly prove the particulars now mentioned which if we can do as I am satisfied our Ministers have done you are convicted in your own Conscience and will confess your self and your Church guilty of Heresie Idolatry and Apostasie whether I can tell the manner or time or Authors of this doctrine or no. Therefore leaving these frivolous and impertinent questions let me hear what you have to say more against our Religion and whereas your discourse I observe hath wholly run upon Generals I beseech you come to some particulars and shew me the falshood of the Doctrines of our Church But it doth not a little confirm me in my Religion that you confess as I shewed before most of our Doctrines to be true and grounded upon Scripture whereas yours are additions of your own devising Now if things be thus you shall not need to trouble your self about many particulars But if you please single out some of our principal Heresies as you call them and let me hear what evidences you can bring against them Pop. Your Heresies are very many but I shall mention one which may be instead of all and that is your rule of Faith and Iudge of Controversies which you make to be the Scripture only Prot I am glad you have fallen upon so material a point the deciding whereof may make other Disputes in great part useless Tell me then what you have to say against this Doctrine Pop. I will urge four Arguments against it 1. Scripture hath no authority over us but from the Church 2. You cannot know what Books are the holy Scriptures or part of it but by the Churches report 3. If neither of these were true yet Scripture is not a sufficient rule for your faith without Tradition 4. If it were sufficient yet it is so obscure that you cannot know the sense of it without the interpretation of the Church You see here is a fourfold cord which you will find is not easily broken Prot. Make these things good and I confess you do your work in a great measure Let me hear your Proofs Pop. For the first then I say that Scripture hath no authority over us but from the Church neither you nor I are bound to believe the Scripture to be the word of God nor can any man know it or prove it to be so but from the testimony of our Church concerning it Prot. I pray tell me if you were to discourse with an Atheist who utterly denies the holy Scriptures and the Church too Could you not prove against him that the Scriptures are the Word of God Pop. God forbid but that I should be able to defend the truth of the Scriptures against any adversary whatsoever Prot. How then I pray you would you prove it Pop. I need not tell you the Arguments which in this case our Doctors use and I stand by them in it they alledge for the truth of the holy Scriptures the testimony of all ages and all sorts of persons the miracles wrought for it acknowledged even by the Enemies of it the martyrdom that so many thousands and many of them wise and learned men did run upon in the defence of them who living so near the time of the writing of them were best able do discern the truth and the wonderful power that goes along with them in convincing converting and comforting or terrifying sinners Prot. Do you believe these are solid Arguments
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
the command and usage of the Roman and universal Inquisition At best it seems I must not obey Christs command of searching the Scriptures unless the Bishop give me leave But I pray you tell me Do your people use to ask and the Bishops to give them leave to read the Bible Pop. I will not dissemble with you They do not And the truth is an approved Writer of ours Ledesima puts the question What if a man should come to the Bishop and desire liberty to read the Bible and that with a good intention to which he replies that the Bishop should answer him in the words of Christ Matt. 20. 20. Ye know not what ye ask and Indeed saith he and he saith it truly the root of this demand is an heretical disposition Prot. Then I perceive in this as well as in other things you are more careful to deceive people with pretences than to inform them But indeed you tell me no more than I had read or heard out of your own Authors It was the speech of your Pope Innocent That the Mountain which the Beasts must not touch is the high and holy Scriptures which the unlearned must not read and your Doctors commonly affirm that people must not be suffered to read the Scriptures because we must not give holy things to Dogs nor cast Pearls before swine My fourth General consideration against your Religion is this That it grosly contradicts the great designs and ends of the Christian Religion which all confess to be such as these the glorifying of God and his Son Jesus Christ and the humbling and abasing of men the beating down of all sin and the promoting of serious holiness Are not those the chief ends of Religion Pop. I do freely acknowledge they are and our Religion doth most answer these ends Prot. That you and I will now try And for the first Your Religion doth highly dishonour God sundry ways What can be a greater dishonour to God than to make the holy Scriptures which you confess to be the Word of God to depend upon the Testimony and Authority of your Pope or Church and to say that the Word of God is but a dead letter and hath no authority over us without their Interpretation and Approbation By which means malefactors for such all men are Rom. 3. 9 10. your Pope not excepted are made Judges of and superiour to that Law whereby they are condemned Tell me would not the French King take it for a great dishonour if any of his Subjects should say That his Edicts and Decrees had no Authority over his People without their approbation Pop. Yes doubtless he would Prot. Just so you deal with God and what can be a fouler dishonour to God than that which your great Stapleton affirmed and Gretser and others justified and your Church to this day have never disowned it That the Divinity of Christ and of God in respect of us depends upon the Authority of the Pope And what more dishonourable to God than what your great Champion Bellarmine saith That if the Pope should erre in forbidding Virtues which God hath commanded and commanding Vices which God hath forbidden And that he may so erre divers of your most famous and approved Authors confess the Church were bound to believe Vices to be good and Vertues bad unless she would sin against Conscience that is in plain terms the Pope is to be obeyed before God Again is it not highly dishonorable to God to give the Worship which is proper to God unto the Creature I confess the Prophet Isaiah hath convinced me of it Isa. 42 8. I am the Lord that is my Name and my glory will I not give to another neither my praise to graven Images Pop. I also am of the same mind but it is a scandal of your Ministers to say we give Gods honour to the Creature I know where about you are you mean it of Images whereas we worship them with a lower kind of Worship Prot. You worship them with such a kind of worship as neither Angels nor Saints durst receive Cornelius did not worship Peter with a Divine Worship as God for he knew he was but Gods Minister yet Peter durst not receive it It was an inferiour Worship which the Devil required of Christ for he acknowledges at the same time God to be his Superiour and the giver of that power he claimeth Luke 4. 6. And yet that was the Worship which Christ saith God hath forbidden to be given to any Creature You are a valiant man that dare venture your immortal soul upon a nice School distinction I pray you do you not worship the Bread in the Sacrament with that worship which you call Latria which is proper to God Pop. We do so and that upon very good reason because it is not Bread but the very Body of Christ into which the Bread is turned Prot. But what if the Bread be not converted in Christs Body Is it not then an high dishonour to God and indeed damnable Idolatry Pop. Yes our Fisher the famous Martyr and Bishop of Rochester saith No man can doubt if there be nothing in the Eucharist but Bread that the whole Church hath been guilty of Idolatry for a long time and therefore must needs be damned but we are well assured that it is no longer Bread and yet I must add this If peradventure it should still remain Bread yet for as much as we believe it to be the Body of our Lord our ignorance I hope would excuse us from Idolatry and God would not impute it to us Prot. Tell me I beseech you Will all kind of ignorance excuse a man Pop. No certainly There is a wilful and affected ignorance which because it is against clear light will not excuse Prot. Tell me farther Did this excuse the Iews from their sin of crucifying Christ and the damnation due to it that they did it ignorantly Act. 3. 17. Pop. No because they shut their eyes against the plain light and clear evidence of that truth that Christ was the Messias Prot. No less do you in the doctrine of the Sacrament for they had no greater evidences against them than Sense and Reason and Scripture all which you reject as I shall prove by Gods help And as your Religion dishonours God so doth it also highly dishonour Jesus Christ whom he hath sent who is expresly called the one Mediatour 1 Tim. 2. 5. But you have conferred that honour upon many others Saints and Angels Pop. True there is but one chief Mediatour but there may be other secondary Mediatours Prot. In like manner to that which the Apostle there saith there is but one God it might be said there are other secondary gods and so we might introduce the Heathen gods into the Church It is the great Prerogative of Jesus Christ that he is the Redeemer of the World yet your Bellarmine was not afraid to communicate this honour to
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
of the Churches Rev. 1. 20. the seven heads are seven Mountains Rev. 17. 9. So Christ saith I AM the way the door c. So Zach. 5. 7 8. This woman is wickedness and a thousand such expressions How do you understand these places Pop. The sense is plain they signifie those things the Stars signifie the Angels and so for the rest Prot. Then certainly we have the advantage of you in this point for we take is for signifies as you confess it is commonly taken nor have the Jews as I have been assured by learned men any proper word for signifie as the Greeks and Lutines have but generally express it in this manner But you must take it if the Particle this denote the Bread as I shall plainly prove it doth for is converted into a sense which you cannot give one example of in all Scripture I see it was not without reason that you took the interpretation of Scripture into the Churches hands for if you had left it in Gods hands and left one Scripture to do that friendly office to expound another you had certainly lost an Article of your Faith And whereas you say that Christ would speak so as the Disciples might understand him that sufficiently shews that yours is not the true sense for they could never have understood it and would doubtless have been as much puzled then as all the World now is to apprehend that the body of Christ was contained under the species of Bread and Wine invisibly and undiscoverably after the manner of a Spirit to conceive of a body without bigness long without length broad without breadth broken whilest it remains whole all which you profess to believe This is to turn Christs plain speech into a bundle of Riddles and to call this the plain sense of the words which is as you see a heap of Figures is a greater figure than all the rest but they did well enough understand the words in our sense because they were well read in Scripture wherein as you grant that sense of the words is usual Pop. If we grant it is used so in other cases yet not in Sacramental Texts for there Christ would speak properly Prot. Yes It is usual even in the Sacraments Is not Circumcision called the Covenant This is my Covenant Gen. 17. 10. though proprerly it was not the Covenant but the Seal of it Rom. 4. 11. Is not the Lamb called the Lords Passeover Exod. 12. though all men knew it was not the Lamb nor the ceremony of eating it which was or could be properly the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites thus 1 Cor. 10. The Rock that followed the Israelites is Christ though it was so only Figuratively and Sacramentally Moreover I am told that divers of your own brethren acknowledge figures here Tapperus saith It is not inconvenient to admit of Tropes here provided they be such as do not exclude the true presence of Christs body And that the Bishop of Eureux owns three Figures in the words of this Sacrament and that Suarez Bellarmine and divers others confess as much Pop. It is true they do say so Prot. Besides you cannot think strange if there be Figures in the first part This is my Body since it is most apparent there are Figures in the last part This is the New Testament in my bloud Here are not one but divers Figures in it The Cup you grant is taken for the liquor in it there is one figure The Wine in the Cup is taken for the Bloud which was not in the Cup there is a strange figure indeed Logicians call it Non-sense This Cup or Wine or Bloud if you please is the New Testament or Covenant whereas it was only the Seal of the New Testament as is most manifest because it is called The Bloud of the New Testament and the New Testament in my Bloud Besides other strange figures which I shall have occasion to speak to by and by Here is figure upon figure and yet you have the impudence to reproach us for putting in but one figure which you confess to be very frequent Wonder O Heavens and judge O Earth whether these men do not strain at Gnats and swallow Camels And nothing doth more confirm the truth in this point than to consider into what absurdities this Doctrine hath forced you even to say that the Bloud of Christ is properly the Covenant or Testament And that there are two sorts of Christs Bloud the one in the Cup the other shed on the Cross And that the Bloud of Christ is shed in the Sacrament and yet never stirreth out of the veins Did ever God or man speak of such bloud-shed therefore for shame never charge us with understanding this Text figuratively But again let me ask you Will you affirm that these words This is my body are to be taken properly Doth your Church understand them so Pop. Yes surely or else we do ill to reproach you for taking them improperly Prot. The words are not true in a proper sense nor indeed do you understand them so Pop. Make that good and I must give up this cause for ever Prot. First for the word this it is most evident that it is meant of Bread It is impossible for words to express any thing more plainly than that by this is meant the Bread It is said expresly that Christ took Bread and brake it and gave it and said Take eat THIS is my Body Where this necessarily relates to that which Christ took and brake and gave After Christ came the Apostles and particularly Saint Paul and he expounds the mind of Christ and I hope you do not think he was so bad an Expositor that his Comment was harder than the Text and he tells us thrice in a breath that it is Bread 1 Cor. 11. 26. As oft as you eat this Bread and whosoever shall eat this Bread and so let him eat of that Bread And again 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ And the participation of the Sacrament is called breaking of Bread Acts 2. 46. 20. 7. which your Authors undertand of the Sacrament and besides this whatever it is is broken as it follows but you dare not say Christs Body is broken Now then since it is most evident that this is meant of the Bread I hope you will not say this is properly Christs Body Pop. No We are not so absurd to say this Bread is Christs body for that is false and against common sense as Bellarmine well saith Prot. What then do you mean by the word this Pop. By This I understand neither the Bread nor Christs Body but in general this substance which is contained under this species Prot. What do you mean by that I pray you tell me Do you believe that there are any more substances under those species besides the Bread first and afterward the
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
such special opportunities of knowing the judgement of the antient Church both Iewish and Christian Besides I am informed that the famous Bishop of Sardis Melito a man of great judgment and venerable holiness as your Sixtus Senensis saith did take a journey to the Eastern Churches where the Apostles principally preached to find out the true Canon of the Scripture and returned with the same Canon that we own but for the Apochrypha brought home a Non est inventus And moreover that divers of your greatest Champions do confess that a great number of the Antient Fathers were of our opinion among which themselves reckon Melito Origen Athanasius Eusebius Ruffinus Hierom and Amphilocius so say Canus and Bellarmine and Andradius and in the General Sixtus Senensis confesseth that the Antient Fathers were of our opinion Are these things so Pop. I will not deny the truth it is so but you must know that other Fathers were of another minde as Clemens Cyprian and Ambrose and especially St. Austin and the Council of Carthage Prot. The Fathers of our opinion were both far more numerous and such as lived nearest the Apostolical Times and Churches The Council of Laodicea was more antient than that of Carthage and therefore of greater Authority and besides the sixth Council of Constantinople doth expresly confirm all the Decrees of the Council of Laodicea among which this was one and the Council of Carthage too doth not your work For in their Catalogue there is both more than you own to wit the third Book of Esdras although they call it the second as the Greeks did and less too for they shut out Baruch and the Maccabees But besides all this I am told that very many of your most eminent Doctors have disowned these Books which we reject as the Parisian Divines and Cardinal Ximenius with the Complutensian University and Aquinas and Lyra and Pagnim and many others Is it so Pop. I confess this is true Prot. Then I am sure this may satisfie any rational man concerning the Testimony of the Antient Church and for the next point viz. their agreement with the Canonical Books I think it is plain enough that they do grosly contradict them and the truth too that fact of Simeon and Levi which good Iacob acted by Gods Spirit detesteth Iudith commends Chap. 9. Tobit is said to have lived 202. years Chap. 14. whereas if he said true he must have lived twice as long for he saith he was taken captive by Salmanasser Chap. 1. and 2. and 14. and when he was about to die he saith the time was near for the return of the Israelites from their Captivity and the re-building of the Temple which was burn'd If the Books of the Maccabees say true Antiochus his soul had a lease of his body for three lives and he was killed thrice over I commend the Author he was resolved to make sure work of him 1. He dies at Babylon in his bed 1 Mac. 2. 6. then he is stoned in the Temple of Nanea 2 Mac. 1. Lastly he dyes in the Mountains by a fall out of his Chariot 2 Maccab. 9. And the fine fetches of your Authors to reconcile these gross contradictions put me in mind of a story we heard at School if you remember of a Gentleman that told this lye That he shot a Deer at one shot through his right ear and left hinder leg and you know how hard his man was put to it to help his Master out but I will not launch forth into the Sea of untruths and absurdities that are contained in those Books these may suffice to shew you that we do not without warrant reject them but howsoever it is sufficient for my purpose that you grant that my Bible as the Word of God and these Books in it Canonical and I can know this without the Churches Authority Pop. Do not make too much haste if I do grant that these Books in the Original Language are the Word of God yet yours is but a Translation Prot. Is it rightly translated for the substance or is it not What Bible is that which you have Pop. A Latin Bible Prot. Is that the Word of God and rightly translated Pop. Yes the Council of Trent hath decreed so Prot. Then I pray you let us try this Experiment do you pick out any 20. verses in several parts of the Bible and turn them into English out of your Bible Pop. The motion is fair I will do it Prot. I do not finde any substantial difference in all these places between your Translation and mine the difference is wholly in words not at all in sense so now I thank you for this occasion for I have heard some of your Priests ranting highly against our Translation and now I see they have no cause for it Pop. If all this were over yet the Scripture is not a sufficient Rule to guide you to Heaven of it self without Tradition Prot. Why so I beseech you Pop. Because you are also commanded there to hold the Tradition true in your Bible to 2 Thes. 2. 15. Hold the Traditions which ye have been taught whether by Word or Epistle Prot. How do you prove that he speaks of such Traditions as were not written in the Scripture Pop. Because he so plainly distinguisheth between what he taught them by word and what he taught them by Epistle or Writing Prot. That may be true that he speaks of some things of which he had not written to them and yet they might be written by him to others or by others at least after that time but besides notwithstanding this distinction between Word and Epistle divers of your own Authors affirm that Tradition is perfect and that St. Paul taught all things necessary by word of mouth and why may not I as well say that he taught all by Epistle But I pray you What do you mean by these Traditions Pop. I mean all the Traditions which either he or any other Apostles did deliver all these you are bound to receive Prot. I will not quarrel with you for that bring me solid proofs of any of your unwritten Traditions that they did indeed come from the Apostles I promise you I will joyfully receive them But I pray you what are these Traditions you speak of Pop. Such as these the Doctrine of Purgatory Invocation of Saints of the Popes Supremacy of the single life of Priests of the Fasts of the Church private Masses Worship of Images c. Prot. And do you think that all that did not believe and receive these Traditions shall be damned Pop. No by no means for then I should condemn many of the Holy Fathers and Martyrs who differed from us at least in some of these Points Prot. Then it is not necessary to salvation to receive these Traditions and the Scripture may be sufficient without them But further These unwritten Traditions you talk of I beseech you how came you to discover them and
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
living Creature Prot. Then Iohn at Rome may walk towards London and Iohn at London may walk toward Rome and so they may meet shall I say one the other and you may be sure it will be a merry meeting It were worth enquiry how long they will be e're they come together Then again at Rome all the parts of Iohn may be excessively hot and at London excessively cold and at Paris neither hot nor cold This is beyond all the Romances that ever were devised Besides Iohn may be sorely wounded at Rome and yet at London he may sleep in a whole skin Iohn may be feasting at Rome and fasting at London in the same moment I might be infinite in reckoning the horrid absurdities of this Doctrine he that can believe these things will stick at nothing Pop. You talk at this rate because you measure God by your selves whereas he can do more than you or I can think Prot. There are some things which it is no dishonour to God to say he cannot do them because they are either sinful so God cannot lie or absolutely impossible God himself cannot make a man to be alive and dead at the same time God cannot make the whole to be less than a part of it he cannot make three to be more than threescore he cannot make a Son to beget his Father he cannot make the same man to be born at two several times as your Authors confess and therefore in like manner he cannot make the same body to be in two several places for this is not one jot less impossible than the other Pop. These indeed are great difficulties to humane reason but reason is not to be believed against Scripture Prot. True but this is your hard hap this Doctrine of yours is against Scripture as well as Reason and indeed against many Articles of Religion And first it is against the Scripture in as much as it is highly dishonourable to Christ whose honour is the great design of the Scripture What a foul dishonour is it to him to subject him to the will of every Mass Priest who when he pleaseth can command him down into the Bread What a dishonour is it that the very Body of Christ may be eaten by Rats or Worms and may be cast up by Vomit and the like as your Aquinas affirms And that your Church in her Missals hath put this amongst other directions that if worms or Rats have eaten Christ Body they must be burned and if any man vomit it up it must be eaten again or burned or made a Relick and yet this is no more than your Doctrine will force you to own for if you will believe Christs words in one place as well as in another he assureth us that whatsoever without exception entreth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast forth into the draught Matth. 15. 17. Pop. This is no more dishonourable to Christ than that the Fleas might such his Blood when he was upon earth Prot. You mistake wofully for though in the dayes of his flesh it was no dishonor to him and it was necessary for us that he suffered so many indignities and died and was crucified yet now that he is risen from the dead he dies no more Rom. 6. and it is a dishonour to him to be crucified again and to be brought back to those reproaches which he long since left and all this to no purpose and without any profit to us as I shewed Again the Scripture approveth and useth this argument that a body cannot be in two places at once it is the Angels argument He is not here for he is risen Mat. 28. 6. sufficiently implying that he could not be here and there too or must we say that the Angels argument is weak or deceitful that yours may be strong and true Pop. He meant he was not there visibly Prot. It seems if a man being sought after should hide himself with you in some corner or hole in your room and the pursuers should ask for him you could answer with good Conscience He is not here because he is invisible Our Blessed Saviour every where makes these two opposite his being in the world and going to heaven Joh. 13. 1. The hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father It seems you could have taught him the art of going thither and keeping here too I promise you I durst not venture to buy an Estate of any of you for it seems you could tell how to sell it to me and keep it to your selves You may remember once you and I made our selves merry with a passage that one used in a speech that since he could not give content neither by going nor staying hereafter he would neither go nor stay It seems you have as good a faculty as he had for you know how a man may both go from a place and stay in it at the same time I know not what can be more plain if you did not shut your eyes Christ saith expresly me you have not alwayes that is here Mat. 26. 11. Besides your doctrine destroyes the truth of Christs Humane Nature I read of Christ that he was in all points like unto us sin only excepted his Body was like ours and therefore it is impossible it should be in a thousand several places at once as you pretend it is this turns Christs Body into a Spirit nay indeed you make his body more spiritual than a Spirit for a Spirit cannot be in several places divided from it self The soul of man if it be entire both in the whole and in every part of the body yet it is not divided from it self nor from its body nor can it be in two several bodies at the same time as all confess and much less can it be in ten thousand bodies at once as by your Argument undoubtedly it may When ever an Angel comes to earth he leaves heaven and so this every way destroyes the truth of Christs Humane body Pop. Much of what you say was true of Christs Body in the dayes of his infirmity but when he was risen from the dead then he received a Spiritual Body as it is said ours shall be at the resurrection 1 Cor. 15. Prot. To this I answer First that you ascribe these monstrous properties to Christs Body before its Resurrection for you say The Flesh and Bloud of Christ were really in the Sacrament which the Disciples received while Christ lived Secondly Christs Resurrection though it heightned the perfections yet it did not alter the Nature and Properties of his Body nor give it the being of a Spirit for after he was risen he proves that he was no Spirit by this Argument Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have Luke 24. 39. By this it appears that your Doctrine destroys the Truth of Christs Humanity at least it destroys the main evidence of it
of sin of God and of his Law that can so judge of such an horrid evil as Sin Scripture fully condemns this Doctrine It tells me that the wages of sin all sin without any difference is death even that death which is opposite to eternal life Rom. 6. 23. that He that shall break the least of Gods commands and teach men so though peradventure he do it ignorantly and so according to your opinion it is a venial sin shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven that is he shall have no portion there It tells me Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. And he speaks of that curse which Christ underwent for us and redeemed us from It tells me that for every idle word that men shall speak they shall give an account thereof in the Day of Iudgment and by such words if not repented of they shall be condemned Mat. 12. 36 37. So now your foundation and one of the Pillars of Purgatory is gone And as for your other fansie that Christ did not satisfie for our temporal punishments I pray you tell me did not Christ suffer temporal afflictions Pop. Yes doubtless the whole Gospel is full of such sufferings Prot. Surely all that Christ suffered he suffered for us both in our stead and for our good He was cut off not for himself but for our sins Dan. 9. 25. It was for our sakes that he bare that temporal part of the curse to be hanged on a Tree and all that pain and shame was but a temporal punishment Gal. 3. 13. I read Isa. 53. that Christ bore our griefs and carried our sorrows v. 4. which was not only accomplished in this that he bare the guilt of our sins as S. Peter expounds it 1 Pet. 2. 24. but also in this that he delivered them from sicknesses and temporal afflictions as St. Matthew expounds it Mat. 8. 16 17. and both these consist well together since Christ removed both sin the cause and affliction the effect of it Pop. If Christ had satisfied for our temporal punishments then Believers should be free from all pains and loss and death which it is apparent they are not and therefore notwithstanding the fulness of Christs satisfaction they may be liable to pains in Purgatory as well as in this life Prot. To this I answer three things First Your inference from the pains of this life to the torments of Purgatory is weak and false I may and must believe that God afflicts his people here because Scripture and Experience put it out of doubt But that Cod will punish his people in Purgatory after this life no Scripture affirms You that can multiply your instances of the sufferings of Believers in this life and can tell us of Adam and David and Solomon and many others have not to this day been able though often urged to produce one instance of the sufferings of any one Believer after this life which one consideration is sufficient to overthrow this Argument in the judgement of any indifferent man Secondly There is not the same reason for the sufferings of believers here and those which you suppose in Purgatory nor are they of the same nature The present sufferings of Believers are necessary 1 Pet. 1. 6. You are in heaviness if need be both for Believers themselves to subdue the Flesh which in this life is potent and altogether needs such a curb By this shall the iniquity of Iacob be purged Isa. 27. 9. and to prevent their eternal damnation 1 Cor. 11. 32. as also for the terror and caution of other offenders So that albeit Christ hath fully paid the debt yet it is upon other accounts convenient that they should smart and suffer here But there is no such necessity nor use of Purgatory sufferings neither for Believers themselves since there is no mortification of corruption after this life no temptations to sin there no improvement of grace no fear of eternal damnation nor for example and warning to others For their fellow-sufferers in Purgatory you do not pretend they are at all edified by their sufferings and men here they neither see nor know any thing of these pains nor hath God revealed any thing concerning them but when God makes any examples to others he sets them in the view of others or at least acquaints them fully therewith as he did with Hell torments to this end It were a senslesâ— thing to hang up a man in Iamaica for the terror of those that live in England Besides the sufferings of Believers here do come from the love and faithfulness of God Heb. 12. 6. Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth Psal. 119. 75. In faithfulness thou hast afflicted me Accordingly good men have looked upon them as choice mercies Psal. 97. 12. Blessed is the man whom thou chastnest and Psal. 119. 67. It was good for me that I was afflicted and the denial of afflictions is threatned as a grievous punishment Is. 1. 5. Hos. 4. 14. 17. But now the sufferings of Purgatory are in all points contrary they are purely vindictive and the effects of meer wrath nor do you esteem those sufferings a mercy and your happiness but freedom from them And therefore your Argument from the pains of this life to those in Purgatory is foolish and absurd Thirdly Believers suffering here do not at all derogate from the fulness of our Redemption by Christ because as I have shewed admitting that to be compleat yet they are necessary for other purposes But your Purgatory sufferings do by communicating at least some part of his proper work to your selves You profess they wash away part of your sins which is Christs peculiar honor He washed us from our sins in his own blood Rev. 1. 5. You make them a part of the curse of the Law from which and not only from a part of it Christ hath redeemed us himself being made a curse for us Gal. 3. 13. You make them a real satisfaction in part to Gods justice which is not satisfied by all that Christ did or suffered without them And in a word you make men in part their own Redeemers and Saviours I hope by this you see how weakly you reason from present troubles to Purgatory torments and that notwithstanding your objection my first Argument stands good agâ—inst Purgatory My second Argument is this that the Scripture every where speaks of the state of Believers immediately after death as happy and blessed and that all the sufferings of Believers are confined to this life and of this we have many expressions and examples too in Scripture and not one to the contrary The sufferings of this present time saith S. Paul are not worthy to be compared with the glory Rom. 8. 18. He knew no other sufferings the afflictions of Believers are light and but for a moment and they too are in things that are seen 2 Cor. 4. 17 18.