Errours I shall comfort my self in this that I have delivered my own soul your blood be upon your own head for there it will assuredly fall and not upon the Priests only Mr. POOLE'S Dialogue A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A Popish Priest AND An English Protestant Pop. DEar Friend I am glad to meet with you after so long a separation for I remember we were brought up at the same School and I rejoyce in the opportunity of renewing our acquaintance I desire a little discourse with you to understand how it is with you in point of Religion Prot. I am of the Protestant reformed Religion Pop. I am heartily sorry for it in regard of our old intimacy but if you will give me leave I do not question but in a very little time to give you such reasons as will force you to leave those damnable Errors and to return to your antient Mother the Church of Rome Prot. With a very good will shall I yield my self to your Instruction I desire nothing more than true Information I know I have a Soul to save which is of infinite worth and I am not fond of damnation therefore if you give me better grounds than I have you shall not finde me obstinate but this I must tell you you must not put me off with fancies and bare affirmations but I shall expect solid proof of what you say from Scripture or Reason and now speak what you please Pop. First my dear Friend I must intreat you to consider that which your own Ministers teach you to wit That there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Catholick Church which is the Church of Rome Prot. That none is saved out of the true Catholick Church I grant for the Catholick Church includes all Believers in the world but a man may be saved that is no Member of the Roman nor of any particular Church for although you ingross to your selves the name of the Catholick Church nothing is more clear than that the Church of Rome is at best but a part of the Catholick Church and that a very unsound one too and there is a false Church in which salvation cannot ordinarily be had as well as a true Church out of which it cannot ordinarily be had and I have heard more to prove yours to be this false Church than I am able to answer or you either as I suppose therefore this being only a general and so an unconcluding Argument I desire you to come closer to the point Pop. Then I intreat you to consider the danger of your way and the safety of ours since all your Ministers confess That a Roman Catholick may be saved in his Religion but all our Church unanimously declare That you are damned if you live and dye in your Religion Prot. You call us Schismaticks but by this Argument you prove your selves to be so For I have oft heard it that in the very same manner those infamous Schismaticks the Donatists argued against St. Austin and the Catholick Church that he confessed Salvation was to be had in their Churches which they affirmed was not to be had in the Catholick Church and this very thing was by St. Austin and the Church of that age condemned as their great Schismatical Principle But let that pass To come to your Argument Remember the condition I made with you that you do not put me off with Fancies and bare Affirmations for I expect you shall make good every word you say Now here I find you under a great Mistake and though I have heard it most confidently delivered by divers of your Brethren yet you must give me leave to believe my own eyes and ears I read it in divers Books of our Learned English Divines and I have heard it from divers very able Scholars and Ministers That Popery in these times and places of light is to those that may see that light and will not not only dangerous but damnable nor do I pin my Faith upon their sleeves but they have given me not meer Affirmations as you do but such Arguments as I confess I cannot answer yet if you can I shall be ready to hearken to you Pop. It is easie to say in general that our Religion is dangerous or damnable but I beseech you shew me wherein which are those Doctrines and Practices of ours wherein the danger lies Prot. I will instance in few of many particulars First That Idolatry is a damnable sin your own Authors grant and Scripture expresly affirms Idolaters shall not inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. and Rev. 21. 8. 22. 15. And that your Church is guilty of Idolatry especially in the Worship of Images and of the Host or Consecrated Bread in the Sacrament is the Doctrine of all Protestant Churches and I shall prove it before you and I have done Secondly That the Worshippers of the Babylonish Beast Rev. 13. and 14. are in a damnable condition you all grant and it is affirmed by God himself Rev. 14. 8 9 10 11. And that Rome is that Babylon the most and Learnedest of your Doctors agree only some of them pretend it is Rome Heathen as it was and others that it is Rome Iewish as it shall be in the end of the world both which conceits are fully refuted by divers of our Authors Thirdly that it is highly dangerous to trust in Man and to trust in our own Righteousness sufficiently appears from Ier. 17. 5. Cursed is he that trusteth in Man and from that dreadful example of the Iews who going about to establish their own righteousness did not submit to and therefore lost the benefit of the righteousness of Faith Rom. 10. 3. and that you are guilty of this sin in trusting to Saints and to your own Merits shall appear in the following Discourse Fourthly It is dangerous to add to the Word of God and this your Church is not only deeply guilty of in adding their Traditions to be received with equal reverence to the holy Scriptures but obligeth all its Members to justifie those additions and thereby intitle them to the same plagues with themselves Fifthly to name no more it is highly dangerous to break any of Gods commands and to teach men so and to make the word of God of none effect by humane Traditions we know what woes Christ pronounceth against the Pharisees for these things And this your Church is deeply guilty of as in many other particulars so most eminently in this that you profess no men are obliged to receive the Scriptures as the word of God nor to believe any thing in it but for the testimony of your Church By this it apears that you have no reason to boast of the safeness of your way And as for your threats of Damnation to all that do not submit themselves to your Church and Pope however they may terrifie silly people yet toke it from me to prudent men it is rather an argument of
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
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
discern the true from the false Pop. I altogether approve of Bellarmin 's Rule which is this That saith he is a true Tradition which all former Doctors have successively in their several Ages acknowledged to come from the Apostles and by their Doctrine or Practices have approved and which the Universal Church owneth as such and the reason is because the Universal Church cannot erre Prot. I see all depends upon this Foundation that the Catholick Church in your sense cannot erre which having disproved I need not trouble my self further But to wave that How I pray you do you know what former Doctors have successively owned by word or practice I presume none of your Popes have so good a memory as to remember all that hath been said or done in former Ages though in my opinion when your inventions were upon the wheel and you did confer upon the Pope an infallible judgment you should have given him also an all-sufficient memory and then you had done your work Pop. No Sir we pretend no such thing but we know this from the Writings which the Doctors have left It is true Bellarmine mentions another rule which is the continual usage of the Church in all ages but to deal candidly with you I cannot know what their use was but by their Writings so all must come to that Prot. First then I note you forsake your cause and it seems a writing is now made a rule for your unwritten Traditions if it may be so let me beg your favourable opinion of the Apostles writings Besides those Writers which record these Traditions were they infallible Pop. No we do not hold any particular Writers Infallible especially not in matters of Fact such as reporting a Tradition or use of the Church undoubtedly is Prot. Then they might mistake false Traditions for true Besides how can I tell what the Antient Doctors did agree in since most of them never wrote and many of their writings are lost and yet all of them had equal liberty of voting in this case besides I have heard that divers of the Antient Fathers did report several things to be Apostolical Traditions which your Church now rejecteth as that Infants should receive the Communion and that Christ should reign on earth a thousand years and many others I am told also that your great Baronius writing concerning the Apostles professeth He despairs to find out the truth even in those matters which true Writers have recorded because there was nothing which remained sincere and incorrupted Is it so Pop. You shall find me ingenuous it is so Baronius saith it Anno 44. sect 42. Prot. Then truly I shall bid Tradition in your sense good night For as to your Traditions I see there is no certainty in them Shall I forsake the certain and acknowledged verity of the Scripture for such trash God forbid Again I pray you tell me doth not every wise man that makes any thing make it sufficient for its end If you build an house to live in will not you make it sufficient for that end If a man makes a Sword to cut with a Coat of Male to defend him c. is he not a fool if he doth not if he can make them sufficient for their end and use Pop. That must needs be granted Prot. And was not our Instruction and Salvation the end for which God wrote the Scripture Pop. How do you prove that it was Prot. God himself tells me so Iohn 20. 31. These things are written that you may believe that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing you might have life through his Name Pop. S. John speaks there of Miracles not of doctrines and so that is nothing to the purpose Prot. He speaks of Miracles which were done in confirmation of the Doctrine of Christ and so the Doctrine is not to be excluded besides I suppose you will not say that S. Iohn wrote the Doctrines of Christ for one end and the Miracles for another Moreover it plainly appears both that this was the end for which the Scripture was written and that it is sufficient for its end from that 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. he saith expresly The Scriptures are able to make a man of God wise unto salvation Pop. Well but if all these things be so yet since the Scripture is dark and doubtful and you can never apprehend the true meaning of it but from the Church you are never the nearer and the Scripture is not a convenient judge of Controversies Prot. Tell me I pray doth your Church understand the true meaning of the Scripture Pop. Yes doubtless because she hath the Spirit of God Prot. Then certainly she is most deeply guilty of uncharitableness or envy or cruelty to souls that she doth not put forth a clear and infallible Comment upon the whole Scripture but still suffers the whole world to live in contention about the true meaning of hundreds of Texts of Scripture Pop. She forbears that for reasons best known to her self But this is not much to the purpose Prot. Whereas you pretend your Church certainly knows the true sense of the Scripture and this Church you say is the Pope or a Council and if these be infallible you say they are so in their Decrees If this be so how comes it to pass that none do more grosly mistake and mis-apply Scripture than divers of your Popes and councils have done even in their Decrees and decretal Epistles which you reverence as the Gospel Your Pope Nicholas the first proves his Supremacy from that Text Arise Peter kill and eat small encouragement to us to become his sheep if he so use them and from hence that Peter drew to the shore his net full of Fishes your Pope Boniface the eighth proves it from Gen. 1. 1. In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth therefore the Pope hath power in Temporals and Spirituals and this saith he you must hold unless with the Manichees you hold two principles And your councils are not more happy Expositors The council of Lateran proves the Popes power from Psa. 72. which speaks of Solomon and Christ All Kings shall fall down before him The second council of Nice alledges these Scriptures for the Worship of Images that God created man in his own Image Gen. 1. Let me see thy countenance Cant. 2. No man when he hath lighted a Candle covereth it under a vessel Luk. 8. 16. In my opinion they spoke like a council expecting that the world should receive their Decrees not for any solidity of Argument that had been pedantick but meerly for the Churches Majesty and Authority Nay the jest is when their Adversaries had taken notice of these absurd impertinencies up steps Pater Noster Pope Adrian and he saith he will maintain it in spite of fate that they alledged them rightly and excellently So here we have a Pope and council joyning together and therefore undoubtedly infallible in these Expositions Nay
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
the falseness of your Religion For such will be apt to conclude that your Faith is not right because your uncharitableness is so notorious and monstrous in condemning all the world besides your selves and that too upon such frivolous pretences This argument therefore of yours hath little weight Let me hear what further you have to say against our Religion Pop. Then consider seriously of this that your Church confesses that she is Fallible and that you have no Infallible Iudge among you whereby Controversies may be ended but our Church is Infallible Prot. I confess now you speak home make this good That it is necessary the Church should be Infallible and that yours is so and I shall ease you of the trouble of further Arguments But I must ask you two Questions 1. What is the meaning of this Proposition and 2. How you will prove it For the first I ask you how you understand it What is this Church which you tell me is Infallible Are you agreed among your selves in that point To tell me of an Infallible Judge and not to give me infallible assurance who this Judge is is to deceive me with vain words and will no more end Controversies than to tell me there is an Infallible Judge in Heaven For where I pray you shall I finde your Infallible Judge Now I am in quest of him I intreat your counsel and direction Tell me then Is it the body of your Church and multitude of Catholicks that is your Infalible Judge Do you make your people the Judge of Controversies Pop. No For we all agreed the Government of the Church is Monarchical Prot. Are you then agreed that the Pope alone is the Infallible Judge speak the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth Pop. I will deal truly with you we are not all agreed in that point the French Catholicks generally deny it and divers of our eminent Doctors and Writers as Bellarmin confesses and among the rest a Pope Adrian by name denies it and even they that seem to be better minded towards the Pope acknowledge that it is no heresie to deny this and that divers good Catholicks deny it and that it is but a disputable point Prot. Is it then a General Council that is infallible Are you agreed in that deal truly and clearly with me Pop. Then I must confess we are not all agreed in that neither For the Pope will deny this and all the Iesuites and Italian Catholicks and others who ascribe this Infallibility to the Pope only Prot. Who then is this Infallible Judge Pop. The Pope and a General Council agreeing together Prot. Is there then at this time any General Council at Rome or elsewhere which doth agree with the Pope Pop. No but though there be no Council now in their persons yet there is in their writings and the Pope agreeing with them is infallible Prot. But I have been told that all your Doctors agree in this that no Writing can be a judge of Controversies If you deny this I should think the writing of God which you all acknowledge the Scripture to be might challenge this priviledge as well as the writings of any Council or men You all plead for the absolute necessity of a living Infallible Judge Pop. Though Catholicks are divided in the manner of expression yet all are agreed in this general Proposition That our Church is Infallible Prot. Call you this only a difference in manner of expression for one to say the Pope is Infallible another to say he is fallible for some of you to affirm the infallibility of Councils others utterly to deny it I beseech you remember I am inquiring after Particulars and therefore do not put me off with deceitful Generals who and where is the man or men to whom I must go to be infallibly resolved in all Controversies For if the King should tell his people he hath appointed a Judge to end all their civil Controversies this would be to no purpose unless he should tell who that Judge is So that till I hear you are agreed in this particular my doubts and perplexities must needs remain And then for the next point I ask you how you prove this Infallibility which you pretend to I must tell you since it is the very foundation of your Faith I expect very clear and undeniable Proofs I pray you bring me two or three of your strongest Arguments Pop. In this you speak reason and I shall comply with your desires I shall give you two or three plain and evident Scriptures to prove it 1. That of Mat. 16. 18. Hence I thus argue The Church is said to be built upon St. Peter he is the Rock spoken of and this Rock doth together with S. Peter include his Successours and the Church built upon this Rock that is united to and built upon the Pope is infallible for it is said The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Prot. Not one of all these things is true 1. It is more probable that not Peter's Person but his Doctrine or his Confession concerning Christ which now he made is the Rock upon which the Church is built Scripture is its own best Interpreter It is not Peter but Christ which is the foundation of the Church as he is called Isa. 28. 16. compared with 1 Pet. 2. 6 7 8. It is expresly 1 Cor. 3. 11. Other foundation can no man lay but that that is laid which is Iesus Christ and this is the more considerable because he speaks against those that made the Apostles foundations one saying I am of Paul another I of Apollos I of Cephas And if this were spoken of Peter no more is said of him here than is said of all the Prophets and Apostles Ephes. 2. 20. Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets And besides if by this Text Peter had been made supreme and Infallible Head of the Church and Judge of all Controversies no Man in his wits can believe that St. Paul would have treated him so irreverently to speak the least as he doth Galat. 2. which is more considerable because then Christ was dead and Peter in the actual exercise of his Headship and Government and if we may believe you publickly and universally owned for such that he would have equalled himself with him as he doth Verse 7. The Gospel of the Vncircumcision was committed to me as the Gospel of the Circumcision to Peter And that he would have spoken promiscuously of Iames Cephas and Iohn that they all seemed to be pillars Ver. 9. and not a word of Peters being the rock and foundation and that he would have withstood St. Peter to his face as he did Verse 11. 2. If this were meant of Peter yet this is nothing to his Successours You must first prove that St. Peter had a Successour in that supposed universal Headship which will be very hard to perswade any understanding Man for 1. That authority
fall so that if this Text and Prayer reach to your Popes it should rather secure them from damnable Apostacies in practice which you confess many of them fell into and died in then from Heresies of which this Text speaks not at all But have you no other Arguments Pop. Yes there is one more which were sufficient if there were no other and that is from Gods Providence It is unbecoming the wisdom of God to leave his Church without a guide or infallible Iudge by which means there would be no end of Controversies and since you do not pretend to have any such in your Church it must be in ours or else there is none in the world Prot. I had thought you would have only taught me but now it seems you will teach God how to govern the World It should seem to me that God was not of your mind he did not think fit to end all Controversies but to permit that there should be Heresies 1 Cor. 11. 19. And if God in his wisdom thought an Infallible Judge necessary certainly that same Wisdom would have named the place person or persons where people should have found this Infallibility Was it ever known since the beginning of the world that any Prince constituted Judges in his Kingdom not so much as giving notice to his people who they were to whom they must resort for Justice this God hath not done for you do not pretend a particular place which settles this infallible Judge at Rome but only some general and fallacious Arguments as I have proved and besides it is so far from being evident that your selves are not agreed about it but some seek for this infallible judgement in the Pope others in a General Council and these do as fiercely dispute one against another in this point as you do against us in many others and therefore it is much more rational for me to conclude thus God hath not nominated and appointed such an infallible Judge in the Church therefore there is none and it is not fit there should be one than sawcily to undertake to be the Counsellor of the Almighty and to tell him what is fit to be done and then conclude that it is done In short For Controversies about Fundamental and necessary things God hath provided sufficient meanes for the ending of them having clearly enough determined them in his Word for the satisfaction of all that are diligent and humble and teachable And for Controversies of lesser moment there is no necessity of having them ended nor would they be much prejudicial to the peace of the world and the Church if men would learn to give any allowance for the infirmities of humane nature and exercise that great and necessary duty of Charity and mutual forbearance But since this is all you can say upon this particular I pray you let me hear what other Arguments you have against our Church and Doctrine Pop. Then another Argument against your Church and way is taken from the Novelty of it As for our Religion it hath had possession in the world ever since the Apostles days but you are of Yesterday and know nothing your Religion is an upstart Religion never heard of in the world till Luthers days Prot. First let me ask you this Question If you had lived in the days of Christ or of the Apostles or of the Primitive Fathers what would you have Answered for your self you know better than I that this was the very Argument which Iews and Heathens urged against the Christians then they charged Christ with not walking after the Traditions of the Elders Matth. 7. 5. And the Athenians said to Paul May we know what this new Doctrine is Act. 17. 19. And the Pharisees had Antiquity on their side being zealous for the Traditions of the Fathers Gal. 1. 14. And though it be true that the Apostles had the first Antiquity for them delivering nothing but what for substance was in Moses and the Prophets Act. 26. 22. which also is our case yet the immediate and latter antiquity was against them and for divers ages together these Doctrines had been in great measure obscured and unknown What then would you have Answered to a Iew or a Heathen objecting this Novelty to you Learn from Christ who when the Iews pleaded for the continuance of their old practice in the matter of Divorces he accounted it sufficient confutation that from the beginning it was not so Mat. 19. 7. And to all the pretences of the Pharisees from antiquity he opposeth this one thing Search the Scriptures John 5. 39. So you dispute against us with the arguments which the Pharisees used against Christ and we answer you as He answered them Besides let me ask you this Question If I could clearly prove to you all the points of our Faith and disprove the points of yours from the Holy Scriptures tell me Would you then acknowledge the truth of the Protestant Religion notwithstanding all this pretended Novelty Pop. Yes certainly for we all confess the truth of all that is contained in the holy Scriptures Prot. Hence then it follows undeniably that the main thing that you and I must look to in our faith is that it be agreeable to the holy Scriptures and if ours be so as I am fully perswaded it is and yours the contrary neither antiquity is any argument for you nor Novelty against us Besides when you charge our Church with Novelty I suppose you mean that our Doctrines are new Pop. I do so Prot. Then you cannot justly charge us with Novelty for 1. You confess the Antiquity and verity of most of our Fundamental Doctrines and your selves do approve them only you make additions of your own to them you own all the Scriptures in our Bible only you add the Apocrypha you acknowledge Scripture the rule of Faith only you add Tradition we believe all the Articles of the Apostles Creed the belief whereof the Antient Fathers thought sufficient to Salvation And the Doctrine of the four first General Councils as you do also You own our Doctrine of Christs satisfaction and Justification by Christ and Faith only you add your own works and satisfaction Our two Sacraments you approve only you add five more Our Doctrine of the two states of Men in heaven and Hell you own only you add Purgatory You own Christ for your Mediatour and Prayers to God through him only you add other Mediatours Our worship of God you own only you add Images These are the principal points of our Religion and dare you now say that our Doctrines are new 2. Many of your ablest Doctors confess that divers of the peculiar Doctrines of your Church are new and unknown to the Antient Fathers and it is most evident and undeniable concerning Indulgences Purgatory Communion in one kind Worship in a strange tongue the receiving some of your Apocryphal books Transubstantiation especially as an Article of Faith the Popes Infallibility Worship of Images
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 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
that do not please you they refer themselves to the Fathers for the first six hundred years till your abominations had leavened the world according to what was foretold Rev. 13. 8. II. My second consideration is this You do not only decline the Scriptures judgment but you infinitely disparage and vilifie it I meet with several passages quoted out of your Authors to that purpose Pop. Possibly you may out of some inconsiderable ones but not out of any of note and name in our Church Prot. Yes out of your prime Authors I read that Cardinal Hosius in his Advertisement to King Sigismund hath this expression If they that is the Hereticks say It is written that is the voice of the Devil speaking in his members But that it is below a Cardinal to read the Bible he would have found the words also in Christs mouth I read that Costerus calls the Scripture by way of contempt Paper and Parchment God saith he would noâ— have his Church by which always understand the Papists themselves now depend upon Paper and Parchment as Moses made the carnal Israelites And again That which is written in the heart of the Church doth by many degrees excel the Scriptures First because that was written by the finger of God but this by the Apostles as if the Writings of the Apostles were only a device of man I read that Cardinal Pool writing to Henry the Eighth saith thus What an absurd thing is this that thou dost attribute more authority to the Scripture than to the Church since the Scripture hath no authority but for the decree of the Church He means the Roman Church I see we are highly concerned to please your Church else we are like to have no Scriptures I read that Pighius saith The Apostles did never intend to subject our faith to their writings but rather their writings to our faith And afterward he saith The Scriptures are as one said not more pleasantly than truly a nose of wax which suffers it self to be drawn hither or thither as a man pleaseth I read that your Bullenger saith The Scripture is the Daughter the Church the Mother which gives being and sufficiency to her she begets No wonder then the Church makes bold with the Scripture to add or alter or dispense with it We all know the Mother may correct the Daughter I confess when I read those passages produced by our Writers I suspected they wronged them Are these things true Pop. I acknowledge it and it is a vain thing for me to deny it for the Books and those passages in them are extant under their own hands And I must confess these Authors are as considerable and approved as any we have But you ought to put a favourable sense upon them Prot. I would not strain them nor make them worse than they are Take them as you will they are abominable expressions and to me a great evidence that the Scripture is no friend to your Church And I conclude this to be one accomplishment of what Christ hath said Every one that doth evil hateth the light neither cometh to the light lest his deeds should be reproved John 3. 20. And if this be the spirit by which your Church is guided I am sure it is not the Spirit of God and of Truth for that teacheth men reverence and love to the Scriptures You seem to do like Herod who being convinced that he was not of the Royal race of the Iews did burn their Genealogies and Records that his false pretences might not be confuted by them And just so do you endeavour to do by the Scriptures III. My third Consideration against your Religion is this That your Cause is such as dares not abide tryal This is the honour and happiness of our Religion We are allowed to examine all that our Ministers say and we have a Rule which we may peruse to try them by viz. the holy Scriptures which you dare not suffer your people to read And this I take to be a secret confession of your guilt and I am told your Alphonsus de Castro saith That from the reading of the Scripture all Heresies come Pop. I think your experience hath justified that expression You see what you get by the reading of the Scriptures even this that you are crumbled into a thousand Sects Prot. Our Saviour was not of your mind for he thought not acquaintance with but ignorance of the Scriptures was the cause of Error Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures Mat. 22. 29. Nor did he only allow but command the Iews to search the Scriptures without any fear of this inconvenience Iohn 5. 39. Had S. Paul been of your mind he would not have commended but reproved the Beraans for searching the Scriptures and examining his Doctrine by them Act. 17. 11. If any of your people should do as the Beraeans did they would be sent to the Inquisition I do not deny but too many make a bad use of the Scripture and wrest it to wicked purposes which is to me no better an argument than this Wine makes many men drunk therefore no Wine must be sold. The Doctrine of Free Grace was abused by thousands as we read therefore S. Paul did ill in preaching of it The light of the Sun hurts sore eyes therefore Solomon was mistaken when he said It is a pleasant thing to behold the Sun But since you speak of this I pray you let me ask you one question Were not most of the Heresies that ever were in the Church brought in by learned men Pop. I cannot deny that for it is notoriously known Prot. Then you shut up the wrong door for it seems it is not the unlearned mans reading but the learned mans perverting the Scripture which is the true cause and fountain of Heresies And besides you must not do evil that good may come out of it nor defraud people of their greatest treasure nor keep them from their duty for fear of some inconveniencies This is to make your selves wiser than God Pop. But indeed you slander us in this point We do not absolutely forbid reading of the Scriptures The Council of Trent allows it provided you can get the Bishops leave Prot It is true that Council pretends to give some such liberty but they take away with one hand what they gave with the other for in their Index of forbidden Books they have this passage Since experience sheweth that the promiscuous reading of the Bible brings more evil than good therefore if any man shall dare to read or have a Bible without license from the Bishop or Inquisitor he shall not be capable of absolution unless he part with his Bible But in truth this pretended License is but an handsome blind For in that very place there is this Observation added to that Rule That the power of giving such Licenses of reading or keeping the vulgar Bibles is taken away from such Bishops and Inquisitors by
in the species of Bread and Wine and the Bread and Wine are destroyed Prot. Call you this a destruction for one to remove from one place to another or to cease to be where he was before this is ridiculous and yet this fantastical and mock-destruction is all which you can bring instead of that real destruction which you confess necessary to the very essence of a Sacrifice And as for the Bread and Wine they were destroyed by Transubstantiation not by the Oblation or Sacrifice which comes after it And now having mentioned that let us discourse concerning your Doctrine of Transubstantiation And first tell me what is the Doctrine of your Church Pop. That the Council of Trent will inform you which declareth that by Consecration the whole substance of the Bread and Wine is converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of Christ Prot. How is it possible for the Bread to be converted into Christs Body which was made already before the Bread That Christ could turn Water into Wine was possible but that he should turn that Water into such Wine as was in being before that change this is impossible but let that go My next question is if a Christian did actually receive Christs Body and Blood tell me what profit hath he by it I cannot believe that God would work so many Miracles as you affirm he doth in this Sacrament to no purpose Scripture and Reason tells me and your Council of Trent confesseth that the Sacrament is a feast for my Soul and not for my Body Is it not so Now what is my Soul the better for eating the very Body of Christ When the woman cryed out to our Saviour Blessed is the womb that thee Christ replies Yea rather Blessed are they that hear Gods Words and do it nevertheless if you can solidly prove it I will receive it therefore bring forth your Principal Arguments for it Pop. I will do so and our Church proves this point especially from two places of Scripture John 6. and the words of Institution I begin with the sixth Chapter of John where our Saviour oft tells us that the Bread which he gives is his flesh c. Prot. I have heard that divers of your learned Doctors confess this Chapter speaks not of the Sacrament Is it so Pop. I will not dissemble with you That was the opinion of Biel Cardinal Cusanus Cajetan and Tapperus and divers others Prot. Certainly This Argument is not likely to convince a Protestant which could not satisfie your own ablest Schollars But I will not press that farther Tell me then do you judge that Christ speaks here of a bodily eating and drinking of his very Flesh and Blood Pop. We do so Prot. I confess some of the Antient were of your mind I mean the Jews But with submission I am rather of Christs Opinion who plainly destroys that gross and carnal sense telling them it is the Spirit that quickneth the Flesh profits nothing vers 63. Again doth not Christ press this as a necessary and present duty upon all the Jews that then heard him Pop. That must be granted Prot. Then certainly Christ speaks not of the Sacrament which was not then instituted and therefore they could not partake of it I demand further is this Sacrament of such efficacy that all that receive it are saved and of such necessity that all that do not take it are damned Pop. No our Church utterly condemns both those Opinions Port But this eating of Christs Flesh is such that Christ saith all that eat it are saved v. 24. and all that do not eat it are damned v. 53. Therefore surely he speaks not of a Sacramental eating besides the whole Laity are utterly undone if your sense of this Chapter be true for I find that drinking of Christs Blood is no less necessary to life eternal than eating of his Flesh and therefore woe to them to whom you do not allow to drink of the Cup in the Sacrament I am told this objection is so considerable that it forced divers of your Doctors sore against their will to forsake this Argument and therefore this will not do your work but I presume you have better Arguments Pop. We have so I shall urge but one which is of its self sufficient from the plain words of Institution This is my Body Methinks the very hearing of them read should convince you if you would take the words in their plain and proper sense and not devise I know not what Figures and Tropes Prot. If it were true that Christ did turn the Bread into his Body by saying these words This is my Body yet how doth it follow that the Priest by reciting these words worketh the same effect any more than a Priest every time he reads those words Let there be light doth make light because God did make it by those words or than he raiseth a dead man every time he reads those words of Christ Lazarus come forth Moreover I have heard that divers of your most learned Doctors confess that this place doth not nor indeed any other place of Scripture prove Transubstantiation I have heard three Cardinals named viz. Cajetan and our Bishop of Rochester and Cameracensis and divers famous Schoolmen as Scotus and Biel of whom this is known and Durandus and Ocham and Melchior Canus and Vasquez and the great Cardinal Perron professeth that he believes Transubstantiation not by vertue of any necessary consequence or reason alledged by their Doctors but by the words of Christ as they are expounded by Tradition and Bellarmin himself confesseth This opinion is not improbable Methinks so many learned mens forsaking this Argument who doubtless would have been right glad if it had been solid and imployed all their wits to search out the strength of it is to me a convincing evidence of its weakness and vanity as also of the badness of your Cause that can find no better Argument yet I am willing to hear what you can say Pop. This then I say that these words This is my Body are to be taken in their proper and not in a figurative sense for surely Christ would speak plainly to the understanding of his Disciples especially when he was so near his Death and making his last Will and Testament and instituting the Sacrament in such cases men use to speek plainly Prot. I readily grant that Christ did speak plainly and intelligibly But tell me is not that plain enough when we take the words as they are commonly used in Scripture Pop. I must needs grant that but this is not the Present case Prot. But it is for we can give you scores of instances as you very well know where the word Is is so taken nor is any thing more frequent in Scripture the seven kine and so the seven ears of corn are seven years Gen. 4. 12 18. the Stars are the Angels
of the Churches Rev. 1. 20. the seven heads are seven Mountains Rev. 17. 9. So Christ saith I AM the way the door c. So Zach. 5. 7 8. This woman is wickedness and a thousand such expressions How do you understand these places Pop. The sense is plain they signifie those things the Stars signifie the Angels and so for the rest Prot. Then certainly we have the advantage of you in this point for we take is for signifies as you confess it is commonly taken nor have the Jews as I have been assured by learned men any proper word for signifie as the Greeks and Lutines have but generally express it in this manner But you must take it if the Particle this denote the Bread as I shall plainly prove it doth for is converted into a sense which you cannot give one example of in all Scripture I see it was not without reason that you took the interpretation of Scripture into the Churches hands for if you had left it in Gods hands and left one Scripture to do that friendly office to expound another you had certainly lost an Article of your Faith And whereas you say that Christ would speak so as the Disciples might understand him that sufficiently shews that yours is not the true sense for they could never have understood it and would doubtless have been as much puzled then as all the World now is to apprehend that the body of Christ was contained under the species of Bread and Wine invisibly and undiscoverably after the manner of a Spirit to conceive of a body without bigness long without length broad without breadth broken whilest it remains whole all which you profess to believe This is to turn Christs plain speech into a bundle of Riddles and to call this the plain sense of the words which is as you see a heap of Figures is a greater figure than all the rest but they did well enough understand the words in our sense because they were well read in Scripture wherein as you grant that sense of the words is usual Pop. If we grant it is used so in other cases yet not in Sacramental Texts for there Christ would speak properly Prot. Yes It is usual even in the Sacraments Is not Circumcision called the Covenant This is my Covenant Gen. 17. 10. though proprerly it was not the Covenant but the Seal of it Rom. 4. 11. Is not the Lamb called the Lords Passeover Exod. 12. though all men knew it was not the Lamb nor the ceremony of eating it which was or could be properly the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites thus 1 Cor. 10. The Rock that followed the Israelites is Christ though it was so only Figuratively and Sacramentally Moreover I am told that divers of your own brethren acknowledge figures here Tapperus saith It is not inconvenient to admit of Tropes here provided they be such as do not exclude the true presence of Christs body And that the Bishop of Eureux owns three Figures in the words of this Sacrament and that Suarez Bellarmine and divers others confess as much Pop. It is true they do say so Prot. Besides you cannot think strange if there be Figures in the first part This is my Body since it is most apparent there are Figures in the last part This is the New Testament in my bloud Here are not one but divers Figures in it The Cup you grant is taken for the liquor in it there is one figure The Wine in the Cup is taken for the Bloud which was not in the Cup there is a strange figure indeed Logicians call it Non-sense This Cup or Wine or Bloud if you please is the New Testament or Covenant whereas it was only the Seal of the New Testament as is most manifest because it is called The Bloud of the New Testament and the New Testament in my Bloud Besides other strange figures which I shall have occasion to speak to by and by Here is figure upon figure and yet you have the impudence to reproach us for putting in but one figure which you confess to be very frequent Wonder O Heavens and judge O Earth whether these men do not strain at Gnats and swallow Camels And nothing doth more confirm the truth in this point than to consider into what absurdities this Doctrine hath forced you even to say that the Bloud of Christ is properly the Covenant or Testament And that there are two sorts of Christs Bloud the one in the Cup the other shed on the Cross And that the Bloud of Christ is shed in the Sacrament and yet never stirreth out of the veins Did ever God or man speak of such bloud-shed therefore for shame never charge us with understanding this Text figuratively But again let me ask you Will you affirm that these words This is my body are to be taken properly Doth your Church understand them so Pop. Yes surely or else we do ill to reproach you for taking them improperly Prot. The words are not true in a proper sense nor indeed do you understand them so Pop. Make that good and I must give up this cause for ever Prot. First for the word this it is most evident that it is meant of Bread It is impossible for words to express any thing more plainly than that by this is meant the Bread It is said expresly that Christ took Bread and brake it and gave it and said Take eat THIS is my Body Where this necessarily relates to that which Christ took and brake and gave After Christ came the Apostles and particularly Saint Paul and he expounds the mind of Christ and I hope you do not think he was so bad an Expositor that his Comment was harder than the Text and he tells us thrice in a breath that it is Bread 1 Cor. 11. 26. As oft as you eat this Bread and whosoever shall eat this Bread and so let him eat of that Bread And again 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ And the participation of the Sacrament is called breaking of Bread Acts 2. 46. 20. 7. which your Authors undertand of the Sacrament and besides this whatever it is is broken as it follows but you dare not say Christs Body is broken Now then since it is most evident that this is meant of the Bread I hope you will not say this is properly Christs Body Pop. No We are not so absurd to say this Bread is Christs body for that is false and against common sense as Bellarmine well saith Prot. What then do you mean by the word this Pop. By This I understand neither the Bread nor Christs Body but in general this substance which is contained under this species Prot. What do you mean by that I pray you tell me Do you believe that there are any more substances under those species besides the Bread first and afterward the
commands and exhortations to repentance there are in Scripture not one which either commands this auricular confession to a Priest or declares the necessity of it produce one place and I yield there are many instances of Iohn the Baptist and Christ and the Apostles either actual giving or in Gods Name proposing and offering remission of sins upon the conditions prescribed in the Gospel among which not one of them requires this auricular confession Bring one instance to the point and I yield Pop. I will give you two instances Matt. 3. 6. The Pharisees were baptized confessing their sins and the conjurers confessed their sins Act. 19. 18. Prot. These places do both speak of publick confession and in case of scandalous sins which we acknowledge to be a duty but what is this to auricular confession will you never speak to the purpose besides these places cannot be meant of auricular confession for that was not then instituted as your council of Trent confesseth Well I see you can bring neither instance of this confession nor precept for it and therefore I am sure there is no sin in the neglect of it for where there is no law there is no transgression Rom. 4. 15. 2. Your doctrine makes that insufficient for pardon and salvation which God makes sufficient The great God assureth us That he that confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall find mercy Prov. 28. 13. Pop. That makes against you for you sâ—e there is confession required Prot. And no doubt it is a mans duty to make confession to God and in case of wrong unto men and sometimes to a Minister also as in case of doubt or trouble of conscience but this is nothing to auricular confession nor can the text mean that sor you grant it was not as yet instituted God declares that if the wicked for sake his evil way and thoughts and turn unto God he shall have mercy Isa. 55. 7. so Isa. 1. 16. 17 18. so Act. 16. 31. S. Paul in Gods name promiseth believe on the Lord Iesus and thou shalt be saved Thus Ro. 10. 13. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved And who dares say that he that doth all these things shall not be saved unless he confess to a Priest since God never spake such a word What is it to add to Gods word if this be not The terms upon which Christ offered promised salvation are Repent and believe Pop. Auricular confession is a part of repentance Prot. When Christ preached that doctrine it was no part of repentance for you confess it was not then instituted your Council of Trent determines that it was instituted by Christ after his resurrection And you will find it hard to perswade any rational man that repentance wanted a necessary part before Christs resurrection or that it was of one kind before it and quite another after it But I will not waste more time about so vain a fancy for my part I rest upon Christs gracious promises to repenting and believing Sinners By Gods grace I will endeavour to do these things and I doubt not but he will make good his words whether you will or no let God be true and every man a lyar But possibly you have better arguments for Absolutions and Indulgences Produce them but first let me hear what your doctrine in this point is Pop. I will give you this in brief together with the rise and ground of it We believe first That there are divers Saints who have not only merit for themselves but a great deal to spare and all their merits are put into one treasury Secondly That these merits are appliable to others so as God will pardon Thomas for example for Iohns merit Thirdly That God hath put this treasure into the Churches that is the Popes hands and from him into the hands of all Priests who have a power to apply these merits as they see fit Prot. There is nothing sound and solid in this whole discourse first I have proved that there is no Purgatory there is your foundation of indulgences gone next I hope ere we part to shew that there is no such thing as merit in good works which is another of your foundations Next that any mans merits except Christs may be applied to another I pray you inform me for I have learned quite otherwise I read that every one shall bear his own burden Gal. 6. 6. Every one shall receive according to what HE hath done in his body 2 Cor. 5. 10. The wise Virgins differed from you they thought they had oyl little enough for themselves and none at all to spare Mat. 25. 9. So if you are Virgins it seems you are none of that sort If you can prove this conceit of yours do Pop. I will give you a clear place Col. 1. 24. S. Paul saith I now rejoyce in my sufferings for you and fill up that which is behind or that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake which is the Church Prot. First tell me do you think any thing was lacking or defective in Christs sufferings Pop. No You use to charge us with that opinion but falsly Prot. It is well you grant thus much but if you denied it a cloud of plain Scriptures would force you to grant it which tells us that by one offering Christ perfected for ever them that are sanctified Heb. 10. 14. and that he is able to save to the uttermost Heb. 7. 25. By sufferings of Christ then we must understand the sufferings of Christ mystical or Christ in his members which are usually so called when Christ had done suffering in his person he left it as a legacy to his members that they should suffer with him and for him and St. Paul bore his share in these sufferings and for the last clause of his suffering for the Church The phrase it is true is ambiguous and sometimes indeed it signifies to satisfie Gods justice for another but in this sense St. Paul rejects it with indignation 1 Cor. 1. 13. was Paul crucified for you But it is not always thus taken for St. Paul saith he suffered for Christ 2 Cor. 12. 10. not surely to satisfie for him There is therefore another sense and that is he suffered for the Churches edification establishment and so indeed he elsewhere explains himself Phil. 1. 12. and I am told that your own brethren understand it thus and your Bellarmin confesseth the words may be thus expounded but only saith the words may conveniently receive this sense which is as much as to say if you will be courteous you may grant him the Argument but if you do not he cannot prove it But admit there be such a treasury of Merits for others as you pretended how prove you that your Priests are made Judges and invested with such a power of distributing those Merits and giving Absolutions as you challenge Pop.
no less than murder all your people by robbing them of that which is necessary to their life Pop. Not so for as I shall shew you you have the blood in the body or bread Prot. If it be so yet my taking it in that manner cannot be called a drinking it unless you will say that every man that eats rawish meat may be said to drink the blood which he eats in it but further I think we have as great right to the cup as your Priests we have Christs do this and you pretend no more in short we have both the legacy and command of Christ fortified with this strong reason this cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins whereby it sufficiently appears that the signe belongs to all that have interest in the thing and are capable of discerning the Lords body and this command of Christ is express and positive Mat. 26. Drink ye ALL of it it is remarkable that he doth not say eat ye all though they were to do so but drink ye all of it as foreseeing the sacriledge of your Church what can you say to this Pop. First I say here is no command but an institution only Prot. I understand no subtilties but if you say this was no command of drinking then it was no command of eating to say take eat and so the Sacrament is not commanded but people may receive or refuse it as they please and Christs do this is no more than do as you list for my part I shall never know when Christ commands any thing if this be not a command for no command can run in more express words Pop. If this be a command it concerns only Priests for such the Apostles were and they only were present Prot. Since it is evident that eating and drinking belong to the same persons if the one be restrained to the Apostles so is the other and because you confess the eating belongs to the people by vertue of this precept Eat of it by the same reason also doth the drinking reach to them also by vertue of that precept Drink of it Besides the Apostles though they were Ministers yet in this act they were in the peoples stead and Christ was the Minister or dispenser of the Sacrament and they only the receivers of it at this time Besides as they were Ministers he bad them do this that is take and distribute bread and wine to the people as he had to them If Ministers be under any command of administring and giving the Sacrament certainly it is here for no command can be more express and if they are commanded to give the bread to the people they are commanded to give the wine also for here is no difference at all Adde to this that St. Paul hath put this out of doubt and he expounds this of and applies it to the people for thus he writes to all the Corinthians Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup 1 Cor. 11. 28. in four verses together viz. 26 27 28 29. eating and drinking are inseparably joyned together which you have so wickedly divided If it be a Command Let a man examine himself which none will deny then it is a Command which immediately follows so let him eat this Bread and drink this Cup. Pop. It doth not appear that there is an absolute command of drinking but only that as oft as they do drink it they should drink it in remembrance of Christ. Prot. If this be so then here is no command for the Priest either to Consecrate the Cup or to Receive it And further then here is no command for his Consecrating or receiving the Bread neither for there is no more than a Do this and that is for the Wine as well as for the Bread Pop. Here is a difference for he saith of the Body simply Do this in remembrance of me but of the Cup This do ye as oft as you drink it Prot. If you lay any stress upon these words as oft as you do it I beseech you make use of your eyes and you shall read that it is said of the Bread as well as of the Cup Vers. 26. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup. Well I am sorry to see that you dare oppose such plain Scripture upon such pitiful pretences But I pray you let me ask you I have been told that your famous Council of Censtance in their Canon for the receiving the Sacrament in one kind have these expressions Although Christ did Minister this Sacrament undâ—r the forms of Bread and Wine And although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds Yet they make a Canon that it shall be received under one kinde only Is this so Pop. It is true they are the very words of the Council Prot. This was a wise Council indeed wiser than Christ and all his Apostles but I should think we are on the safest side having Christ and all the Primitive Churches for our patterns and by this I see what to judge of your glorious pretences that yours is the Antient and Apostolical Faith and ours forsooth but a new Religion But I pray let me hear what you have to say for this fact of yours in taking away the Cup I see Scripture is against you and the Antient Church at least so far that for 1400. years together the people might drink of the Cup if they would as I am told your Becanus confesseth Pop. You are greatly mistaken we have Scripture for us we have examples there of receiving the Sacrament in one kind Acts 2. 42. They continued in the Apostles Doctrine and breaking of Bread and Acts 20. 17. They came together to break Bread Prot. It is usual to express an whole Feast by this one thing Christ went into the Pharisees house to eat bread Luk. 14. 2. I suppose you think it was not a dry feast Ioseph's Brethren sat to eat Gen. 37. 25. so Act. 27. 35. Paul and the rest took bread and eat it yet none doubts but they had drink with it Besides here is as much said of the People as of the Ministers drinking of the Cup that is neither is here mentioned and if the silence concerning the Cup be a good Argument it proves that neither did partake of it if it be not then both might partake of it But what have you more to say Pop. You need not be troubled so much at the loss of the Cup since the blood is contained in the Bread that is in the Body by concomitancy Prot. This is in effect to tell Christ the Cup was a superfluous device Besides we are commanded to drink the Cup If I should dip bread in drink and eat it no man will say I drink the bread Again this destroys the main end of the Sacrament which is to shew forth Christs
death and the shedding of his blood and this was the reason why Christ appointed the Bread and Wine apart as the fittest means to bring to our memories the pouring of his blood out of his body for us and as God would have us to remember the thing so he commanded us to use this sign of drinking the Cup. Pop. But there are many weighty reasons why it is not fit you should partake of the Cup. Prot. I dare not forsake plain Scripture for any subtil pretences of Humane Reason but let me hear them Pop. 1. In some Countries Wine is not to be had 2. Some there are who have an antipathy against Wine and cannot drink any 3. There is great danger of spilling the Wine which is the Blood of Christ. Prot. Are these your weighty Reasons I see the Reason and Religion of Rome are both of a Complexion But I pray you how came it to pass that Christ and his Apostles and all the Primitive Christians for so many hundreds of years should prescribe and use the Cup notwithstanding those reasons surely if these reasons are strong now they were so 1660. years ago Wine was as scarce then as now it is in some Countries abstemious persons were then as well as now the Wine might be spilled then as much as now But they feared none of these things either they were all stupid that did not see these things or your Church is audacious that dare in effect teach Christ and his Apostles what they should have done It might peradventure be added that in such places where Wine cannot be had or for some persons who cannot drink Wine some other thing proportionable to it may be allowed but if it might not or if in such special cases they were confined to one kind I am sure it is a ridiculous consequence that because they must be content with the Bread that cannot drink of the Cup therefore they that can shall go without it and because it may be omitted where it cannot be had therefore it shall be omitted where it may be enjoyed And for the danger of spilling of the Wine there is also danger in dropping some of the Bread and so that should be denied By this Argument also the Priest should not meddle with the Wine for he may spill it but indeed such phantastical Reasons as these deserve no Answer they make me almost sick to hear them There is only one point more I would be informed in what you can pretend for it and that is That your Publick Prayers are performed in a Language unknown to most of your people Pop. What have you to say against it Prot. What can be said more plainly and fully against it by us than what S. Paul saith 1 Cor. 14. there I find some who having the Gift of speaking with divers Languages did use it without interpreting them in the Publick Assembly those the Apostle informs that there is a better gift and more desirable than that of Tongues namely Prophesie and he useth divers reasons which are so many undeniable Arguments against your Latine Prayers He tells them it is their duty to manage Publick Worship so as the Church may be edified verse 4 5 12. I hope you will not deny this Pop. None can deny that Prot. Well then he tells us that what is spoken in an unknown Language doth not edifie the Church vers 4 11 12 14. 2. Yet again the Apostle commands that if any do speak in an unknown Tongue it must be interpreted vers 27. you disobey this command 3. He argues that Publick Prayers are so to be made by the Minister that the People may say Amen v. 16. And he also tells us that no man can say Amen to that which he doth not understand vers 15. so the Apostle stops all your starting holes Pop. The very word men is Hebrew Prot. You dispute not only against me but against the Apostle himself but Amen though an Hebrew word is by common use sufficiently known to us all to express our consent to his Prayers and confidence that God will hear them 4. Yet again he argues that strange Tongues are designed only for the Conviction of Unbelievers not to be used be Believers amongst themselves unless interpreted v. 22. What can or dare you say against such clear places Pop. S. Paul speaks not of the ordinary service of the Church but of extraordinary Hymnes and Songs Prot. That is false he speaks of the ordinary service of the Church though at that time there was something extraordinary in it and besides his reasons reach to all times and services ordinary or extraordinary must we not look to the Edification of the Church in the one as well as the other Must not the people say Amen in one as well as the other Let me hear therefore what you have to say for your selves Pop. Preaching ought to be in a known language for the end of that is the peoples Edification but Prayers are made to God Prot. Though they are made to God yet they are made by the Church who are to joyn in those Prayers and to signifie their consent by saying Amen which requires their understanding And moreover that Chapter speaks as expresly of Praying as it doth of Prophesying in the Church Surely the people went not to Church to sit there like senseless Images but to offer up a reasonable service and to tender their Prayers and Praises unto God by the mouth of the Minister as they did Act. 4. 24 They lift up their voice with one accord And if we pray with you we must understand else we cannot pray in faith as it is our duty to do and we shall fall into their error to ask we know not what Pop. You need not concern your self about that you may rely upon the wisdom and fidelity of the Church who takes care that your prayers be right Prot. I confess there is this great encouragement for it that your Church it seems is wiser than St. Paul but as a friend I advise you to give this Counsel of relying upon your Church to the Indians or some remote places for they that know her will never trust her For my part my Saviours words make me cautious If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the ditch If I had no other argument of your Churches Fallibility and Apostacy this one point were a sufficient evidence of them both But what have you more to say Pop. I will give you then a Scripture instance The Priests prayed in the Temple when the People waited without Luke 1. 21. Prot. What is this to the purpose I do not read that the Priest prayed at all but only went in to offer Incense but if he did pray he did it alone not with and before the people as your prayers are you might as well plead thu Those Priests said nothing at all and therefore your Priests need only make a dumb shew and may serve their Latin
and therefore he knew of no sufferings in the invisible world unless happily you will say that S. Paul's Travels were in another road into the third heavens and so he was ignorant of Purgatory Lazarus received his evil things in this life Luk. 16. 25. But now he is comforted therefore surely not in Purgatory If our earthly house of this Tabernacle be dissolved we have an house in Heaven saith S. Paul 2 Cor. 5. 1. We are no longer absent from the Lord than present in the Body saith S. Paul 2 Cor. 5 6 7 8. The Prophet assures us that when righteous men die they enter into peace they rest in their beds Isa. 57. 1 2. I tell you their beds are very hard and the Prophets mistake was very great if they be frying in the flames of Purgatory The Beggar died and it follows immediately he was carried by Angels into Abrahams bosom I cannot think these Angels mistook their way the Theif was to be with Christ that day in Paradise Luke 23. 43. Pop. The Thief was a kind of Martyr and so had that priviledge Prot. His death was so far from being a Martyrdom that it was a just punishment for his evil deeds as he confesseth v. 41. But because some of your Martyrs as you call them were indeed Malefactors therefore to salve their honour you make this Malefactor a Martyr I will give you but one place more of many and that is Rev. 14. 13. Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord from henceforth that they may rest from their labours A place so clear that I am told a famous Doctor of your own and one of the Sorbon-Colledge Picherellus by name did ingenuously confess St. Iohn had in these few words put out the fire of Purgatory And I am perswaded you would have been ashamed to have kindled it again but that by this craft you get all your living I think I need say no more to this point let us now go to another We have discoursed of Purgatory Now if you please let us discourse of the ways whereby you pretend to free men from it which is by Absolutions and Indulgencies and that which is necessary thereunto to wit Auricular Confession Pop. It is well you mention that for I assure you it is a matter of salvation and damnation our Council of Trent hath determined that it is by divine right necessary and as attrition alone which is a grief for sin arising only from a fear of hell will save a man where confession to a Priest follows so all the repentance in the world will never save him without this Confession to a Priest viz. actual where it may be had or in desire when it cannot be actually had Prot. Since you lay so much stress upon it I expect suitable evidence for it But first I pray you inform me what your Doctrine is in this point Pop. I will give you that in the words of the Council of Trent as near as I can they say That every Christian is bound under pain of damnation to confess to a Priest all his mortal sins which after diligent examination he can possibly remember yea even his most secret sins his very thoughts yea and all the Circumstances of them which are of any moment Prot. Now let me hear your strongest Arguments to prove this Pop. You shall Our two great Arguments are these First Priests are by God made Iudges and intrusted with power of the Keys for the Remission of Sins but no Iudges can exercise judicature unless they know and understand the cause and the Priest must know all the particular sins and their circumstances by the mans own confession or else he knows not whether to bind or loose him to forgive or to condemn him This is the Argument upon which the Council of Trent builds their Decree Prot. Tell me I pray you Is it necessary to Salvation to confess every particular mortal sin What if a man unavoidably forget some of them Pop. In that case we confess they may be pardoned without it and it may suffice to say with David Cleanse thy servant from secret sins Prot. Now your Argument is quite lost For it seems in this case which may be in many hundreds of sins especially in a person of bad memory your Judge can pass sentence without knowing the particular Cause and therefore such knowledge is not necessary to his giving Absolution Moreover tell me I pray you may not a Priest absolve him from his sins whom Christ hath absolved Pop. Yes doubtless Prot. And is not every Priest bound to believe that Christ hath absolved every person that is truly penitent Pop. There is no question of that Prot. Suppose a sinner hath visibly forsaken all his wicked wayes and company and lives a very holy life before he comes to the Priest and the Priest is certainly informed of this Is not the Priest bound in that case to believe he is truly penitent Pop. I should be most uncharitable if I should deny that Prot Then he may without any more ado upon his desire absolve him because it appears that Christ hath absolved him It is not at all necessary to a Priest to this purpose to know whether a man be a greater or a less sinner since the grace of God is offered unto great as well as little sinners and therefore seeing this is your strong argument and that learned Council could find no better I see your cause is very low and bad but I suppose you have some other Argument for it Pop. There is so and that is Jam. 5. 16. Confess your faults one to another Prot. Is this your strong argument here is not a word of the Priest nor of Confession to him but only to our fellow Christians this confession is mutual and it will as well prove that the Priest is bound to confess his sins to the People as that the People are bound to confess to the Priest the very next words are Pray one for another what are we bound to pray only for the Priest It is one thing that sets me against your Religion to consider what pitiful arguments you rely upon I am assured your own brethren confess the weakness of this argument as Vasquez and Cajetan and Caenus but it seems you have no better The weakness of your arguments for it might save me the labour of mine against it therefore I shall only offer to your thoughts these two considerations 1. Your doctrine makes that necessary to salvation which God hath not made necessary There is no command of God or Christ for it as your eminent Doctors acknowledge and it sufficiently appears from the vanity of your proofs for it you confess it was not necessary in the old Testament and yet there was as much need and use of it then as now and Christ hath made the condition of his Church not more but less burthensome than it was before Many