in the case of Abraham's offering up Isaac and the Israelites spoiling the Aegyptians of their Jewels yet I need no other answer but this I directly deny that here is any contradiction at all For our question is not about the making of Images whether by Gods order or Mans but about the worshipping of them And albeit there were such Images made yet they were not made to be worshipped as I before proved nor was there any danger the people should worship them because they were not admitted to see them But I pray you answer me this one question I am told that divers of your own Authors confess that the Jews indeed were though Christians are not forbidden the use of Images by this command Is it so Pop. These indeed are the words of our famous Vasquez after he hath mentioned divers Authors for the contrary opinion There are saith he other Authors neither fewer nor inferiour to them who are of the contrary opinion which to me alwayes seemed most probable to wit that all the use of Images is here forbidden to the Jews and for this he quotes many of our approved Authors and Salmeron saith no less Prot. And you need say no more for then all these Authors thought your distinction of Image and Idol frivolous and that the word Pâ—sel is meant of any Images and not of Idols only as you foolishly distinguish and so your principal refuge is lost and you are convicted Idolaters and then if you repent not you know where your portion will be Go now and brag of the safeness of your Religion I see how little it is that you can say for your Worship of the Dead Saints and their Images let me hear whether you have any better Arguments for your Prayers for the Dead and Purgatory Pop. I am glad you mention that since all your Divines do agree that Prayer for the Dead was the practice of the Antient Church and Fathers Prot. If that be true it is not sufficient for your purpose for I am fully satisfied that the Fathers were not infallible and your own greatest Doctors think so too But Besides I am told that their Prayers for the dead were quite of another nature than yours and for other purposes and they were grounded upon some private opinions of theirs which you disown for they prayed not only for those whom you suppose to be in Purgatory but for those who you confess many of them never did come there they pray for all the Saints from the righteous Abel to this day they pray for all their Ancestors Patriarchs Prophets and Martyrs as I have heard it in some of their Liturgies Is it so Pop. It is so Prot. I pray you tell me what do you pray for the Dead Pop. We pray that God would deliver them from those dreadful pains of Purgatory Prot. Then if there be no Purgatory the foundation of your Prayers for the dead is gone Pop. I grant it Prot. Then let us discourse of the most fundamental point as we have hitherto done the rest will fall of course Therefore First I pray tell me your opinion concerning Purgatory Pop. Our Doctrine in brief is this That though God freely gives to all that are truly penitent forgiveness of their sins and freedom from eternal death yet since they have much venial sin and corruption in them in which oft-times they die therefore it is necessary that they should for the expiation of those sins and for the satisfaction of Gods Justice either do or suffer such Penances Fastings Prayers c. as are enjoyned them here or where those are not sufficient suffer the pains of Purgatorie Prot. I understand your Doctrine now let me hear two of your strongest Arguments to prove it I hear that Bellarmin threatens us that whosoever doth not believe Purgatory shall be tormented in Hell Is it true Pop. He doth say so and I am of his mind Prot. Then I hope you have very clear Arguments for it because you lay so great a stress upon it But first I have heard that this Doctrine of Purgatory is confessed by divers of your own Brethren to be but a new Doctrine Is it so Pop. I will not dissemble with you several of our Doctors have unadvisedly blurted out such expressions as these our famous English Martyr Fisher Bishop of Rochester confesseth That Purgatory was for a long time unknown and either never or very seldom mentioned among the Antient Fathers and Alphonsus de Castro saith That many things are known to us of which the Antient Writers were altogether ignorant and amongst them he reckons Purgatory which saith he the Greek Writers mentioned not and even to this day it is not believed by the Greek Church Prot. I suppose you do not think all these Antient Fathers were damned Pop. No God forbid for many of them were glorious Confessors and Martyrs Prot. Then I see Bellarmines threats are not very formidable But to let this pass How do you prove this Doctrine Pop. From plain Scripture 1. From Mat. 12. 32. Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world neither in the world to come Which clearly implies that some sins not forgiven in this world are forgiven in the next and that must be in Purgatory Prot. I pray you tell me what sins are they which are forgiven in Purgatory Pop. Not great and mortal but small and venial sins as we all agree Prot. Is not blasphemy against the Son of Man a mortal sin Pop. Yes doubtless But what of that Prot. If this Text proves the pardon of any sins it proves the pardon of that sin no less than others because the sin against the Holy Ghost is here spoken of as the only sin which is unpardonable in both worlds Besides Christ speaks thus in opposition to a corrupt opinion which I have heard now is and then was rife among the Jews to wit that divers of their sins were pardoned after this life and that this was one of their antient Prayers Let my death be the expiation of all my sins for they thought the sufferings of this life and death the last of them did free them from the punishments of the other life And I have heard that it was one of their sayings That every Israelite hath a part in the future life Are these things so Pop. To deal freely with you This is not only true but it is one of our Arguments for Purgatory that Jason the Cyrenian who lived long before Christs time expresly affirms that it is profitable to pray for the dead that their sins may be pardoned 2 Mac. 12. Prot. I think that is impertinently alledged for Purgatory for the sin those men died in was a mortal sin as you confess and therefore not pardonable in Purgatory But I thank you for this for now I am satisfied that it was an antient opinion among the Iews and so Christ had just
the creature and expresly saith It is not absur'd that holy men be called our Redeemers after a sort and more of the like stuff we shall meet with before we part yet again your Religion as it depresseth God so it exalts the creature I will instance but in one thing and that is your Doctrine of Justification by the merit of good works A doctrine which S. Paul affirms gives unto a man matter of boasting and glorying Rom. 3. 27. Where is boasting then it is excluded By what Law of Works Nay but by the Law of Faith Rom. 4. 2. For if Abraham were justified by works he hath whereof to glory Next you grant That it is the great design and intent of Religion to discourage and beat down sin which your Religion doth exceedingly incourage by your Doctrines and Practice in Absolutions and Indulgences In my acquaintance I have known several Papists that have wonderfully encouraged themselves in their wicked wayes from this consideration especially when Easter drew near because they knew they should very suddenly be shriven and absolved and be as they said as sound and clean as when they came first into the world I have known also divers of our loose Protestants that have turn'd to your Religion that they might have greater liberty for and the security in sin and in my Conscience If I would let my lusts choose a Religion for me they would presently lead me to your Religion And so again your Religion doth not at all promote serious holiness but the soul and spirit of it is dwindled away into meer formality What can be of more pestilent consequence to true holiness than to tell a man that the saying so many Pater-Nosters or Ave-Maries though it may be he is talking or gazing about in the midst of his Devotions will procure him acceptance with God Is it true that your great and devout Doctor Suarez saith That is it not essential to Prayer that a man should think of what he saith Pop. It is true he doth say so in his Book of Prayer Prot. Then I confess your Religion hath the advantage of ours for a man may do two businesses at once It hath set me much against your Religion since I understood that you turned that great Doctrine of Repentance into a meer formality What a sad Doctrine is it that your great Masters teach that Repentance is not necessary at all times but only on Holy-daies as some of your Authors say only once in a year that is at Easter as others Nay indeed once in all his life and that in danger of death as Navar and Cajetan what an encouragement is this to wickedness to tell men that a thousand of their sins are venial which though not repented of will not exclude them from the favour of God and from Salvation but I will rake no farther into this kennel I think this may serve turn to let you see that I had warrant to say That your Religion contradicts the design and end of all Religion V. The fifth Consideration that sets me against your Religion is the desperate issues that you are driven to in the defence of your Cause as for example in the great point of Infallibility I observe your learned Doctors are beaten out of all their former Assertions and Opinions you have been driven from Scripture to the Fathers from them to the Pope from him to a Council and thence to the Pope with a Council and as a further sign of a desperate cause the Jesuits are brought to that exigence that they are forced to affirm the Pope to be infallible in matters of fact which is confessedly a new upstart and indeed monstrous Opinion and yet those piercing wits see their cause cannot be defended without it and others seeing the vanity of all their former pretences have been forced to resolve all into the present Churches testimony So for the point of Idolatry you are driven to those straits that you cannot excuse your selves from Idolatry but by such pretences as will excuse both Jewish and Gentile Idolaters and one of your ablest Champions is brought to this plunge that he is forced to affirm that some Idolatry is lawful I might instance in very many others but I forbear VI. A sixth consideration is taken from the partiality of your Religion That Religion which is from God is doubtless agreeable to the Nature and Will of God But so is not your Religion for it is guilty of that respect of persons which Scripture every where denies to be in God Act. 10. 34. Rom. 2. 11. Iob 34. 19. Pop. How is our Religion guilty of respect of persons Prot. I might shew it in many things but I will confine my self to one particular and that is in point of Indulgences The Souls of all that die in venial sins are doomed to those terrible pains of Purgatory there to continue none knows how long by the way I cannot but take notice of the great unhappiness of those Christians that lived and died in the dayes of Christ and the Apostles that have been multitudes of them frying in Purgatory to this day and are like to be so as long as the World lasts whereas those that live nearer the end of the World must needs have a far shorter abode there so men are punished with continuance of their torments meerly for the circumstance of time of their birth but this is not the thing I aim at from these pains of Purgatory there is no way to deliver a man but by indulgences and these indulgences must be bought off with money and wealthy men may buy off those corporal pains which the rascal herd must suffer without bail or main-prise and turn them into a fine of the purse So I see it was not without reason that Solomon said Money answers all things I have heard that your tax of the Apostolical Chancery put forth by the Authority of your Church where there is a price put upon all indulgences and upon all kinds of sins hath this expression Diligently note that these graces of Indulgences are not given to the Poor because they are not and therefore cannot be comforted by which I see that if St. Peter himself should rise from the dead and come to his Successour with his old tone Silver and Gold have I none if he were a thousand Peters he must into Purgatory without mercy I am told that another of your Authors Augustinus de Ancona an Author of great note with you tells us that Indulgences are for the relief of the Churches that is the Popes and their Prelates Indigencies which is not relieved by a willingness to give which is all that any poor man can pretend to but by the gift it self It seems your Church is not of Gods minde for if there be a willing mind he accepteth it for the deed 2 Cor. 8. 12. And a little after as I am told he saith as to the
occasion to use this expression to confute that vain expectation of theirs But besides the meaning of this phrase Shall not be forgiven is that it shall be punished in both Worlds this is a frequent phrase in Scripture Thus Exod. 20. 7. God will not hold him guiltless that is he will severely punish To accept persons in judgment is not good that is is very bad The father of a fool rejoyceth not that is grieveth much I hear S. Chrysostome expounds it thus and a greater than he S. Mark 3. 29. He hath never forgiveness but is in danger of eternal damnation Besides all this we all agree that there is a kind of forgiveness of sin after this life and at the Day of Judgment Acts 3. 19. Repent that your sins may be blotted out when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord for then indeed the pardon of sin is compleated and fully manifested And it is a common phrase in Scripture to speak of a thing as done when it is only declared and manifested as the Apostle saith those words Psal. 2. This day have I begotten thee were fulfilled in Christs Resurrection Act. 13. because that declared him to be the only begotten Son o God as S. Paul saith Rom. 1. 4. To which I might add that by the World to come Christ may very probably understand the time of the New Testament which begun at Christs death The Iews I hear oft use this expression of the days of the Messias Nay the Apostle himself doth so Heb. 2. 5. This also I have read that the Iews did generally expect a more plentiful and glorious remission of sins at that time and so Christs meaning may be this That this blasphemy shall not be forgiven neither in that time nor state of the Church in which Christ then was nor in the time of the Gospel and Kingdom of the Messias which began at his death as I said when though there should be many great sins and sinners pardoned as we see there were yet this should not I hope you will not brag much of your Argument from this place let me hear your other place Pop. My second Argument is from 1 Cor. 3. 15. He shall be saved yet so as by fire that is the fire of Purgatory Prot. It seems you understand this fire properly which is something strange when the whole place is metaphorical or figurative The Gold and Silver Hay and Stubble all are metaphorical and so doubtless is the fire I hear your Bellarmin confesseth that the fire mentioned v. 13. The fire shall try every mans work is not meant of Purgatory Pop. He doth indeed say so Prot. That is enough to overthrow this Argument for it is most evident that the fire vers 13. and 15. is one and the same And this Fire cannot be Purgatory 1. Because it is the Fire of the Day of Judgement when you confess Purgatory ends The time of the last Judgement is called the Day by way of eminency Heb. 10. 25. 2 Tim. 1 12. 18. and 4. 8. and 1 Thess. 5. 4. And the day of revelation or manifestation of all things because then all mens works will be manifested and the day wherein Christ will come in flaming fire 2 This fire burns the works of men only their Hay and Stubble not their persons as your Purgatory doth 3 This fire tries both good and bad All pass through it The Gold and Silver is in this fire no less than the Hay and Stubble Pop. How then I pray you do you understand this place Prot. It is a Metaphor or Figurative way of speaking frequent in Scripture and common use The delivered Jews are said to be as a fire brand pluckt out of the burning Amos 4. 11. Zach. 3. 2. So here he shall be saved so as by fire that is not without difficulty of loss and possibly some momentany shame but howsoever the fire shall burn up his work and he shall lose that part of his reward Now I have heard your Arguments I hope you will hear mâ—ne Pop. I am ready to do that Prot. I shall urge only two First Christ hath fully paid our debt and satisfied Gods Justice for all our offences and therefore it were injustice in God to require the payment of any part of that debt in Purgatory Christ is a compleat Saviour His blood cleanseth us from all sin 1 Joh. 1. 7. He is able and sure he is no less willing to save to the uttermost those that come to him Heb. 7. 25. God laid all our sins upon him Isa. 53. and he bare them all in his body 1 Pet. 2. 24. In short either you make Christ but an half Saviour and believers wash away part of their own guilt or if Christ hath fully washed away their guilt you make god both unmerciful and unjust and untrue too so dreadfully to punish innocent persons and those too his own children as you acknowledge whom he declares he hath freely and fully pardoned and to do this for sins which you confess venial and such as do not deserve the loss of Gods favour and that without any necessity This is not the act of a Father especially so tender a Father as God is Pop. Christ is a sufficient Saviour and hath fully satisfied but his satisfaction is applied to us by the pains of Purgatory Prot. If Purgatory only apply Christs satisfaction to us then he satisfied for our temporal as well as our eternal punishments and if he did so surely he did it fully or not at all Besides you need not trouble your heads about the application God hath provided for us more comfortable means of application on his part the Word Sacraments and Spirit on our parts Faith You may keep Purgatory for your own use it is not fit you should be pestered with any Hereticks there But was ever such an application of Gods Grace heard of since the World began that God should apply his Mercy and the Grace of Christ Jesus by such exquisite torments This is as one truly saith as if a man should apply Physick by poison or apply the light of the Sun by putting out our eyes God deliver us from such appliers This is as if a Prince should pretend a free pardon to a Malefactor and apply it by putting him upon the Rack Pop. Though Christ made satisfaction for the guilt of mortal sins and eternal punishment yet he did not for venial sins nor temporal punishment and therefore they must purge out those themselves in Purgatory Prot. If it were true that you say yet there is no need of Purgatory for this purging worke may be done by temporal afflictions in this life The truth is you add sin to sin and excuse one errour with another But what do you mean by venial sins Pop. We mean such smaller sins as do not exclude a man from Gods favour nor from Heaven Prot. Then surely you have very slight thoughts
and that the Atheist ought to yield to them Pop. Yes doubtless for every man is bound to receive the truth especially when it is so proposed and proved to him Prot. It seems then by this when you list you can prove the Scripture to be the Word of God without taking in the Churches Authority I hope you will allow me the same benefit But again let me ask you your Church that you talk of which believes the Scripture to be the Word of God Doth she believe it to be the Word of God upon solid grounds or no Pop. Yes doubtless our Church is not so irrational as to believe without grounds nor do we pretend Revelation but she believes it upon solid Arguments Prot. I wish you would give me a list of their Arguments But whatever they be that are sufficient to convince your Church why should they not be sufficient to convince any private man Popish or Protestant or Atheist And therefore there is no need of the Churches testimony Or will you say the Church hath no other sufficient reason to believe the Scriptures but her own testimony that is she believes because she will believe Pop. God forbid that I should disparage the Church or give Atheists that occasion to scoff at the Stripture Prot. Then I also may be satisfied without the Churches testimony that the Scriptures are the Word of God and I am so by such Arguments as your self mentioned but really I cannot but smile to see what cunning sophisters you are how you play at fast and loose The same Arguments for the Scriptures are strong and undeniable when you talk with an Atheist and are all of a sudden become weak as water when a Protestant brings them Pop. But if you can prove in the General That the Scriptures are the Word of God yet you cannnot without the Churches Authority tell what Books of Scripture or which are Canonical and so you are never the nearer Prot. Here also I must ask you again How doth your Church know which Books are Scripture and Canonical doth she know this by Revelation Pop. No we leave such fancies to your Church Prot. How then doth she know this and why doth she determine it Is it with reason or without it Pop. With reason doubtless being induced to believe and determine it upon clear and undoubted Evidences Prot. I pray you tell me what are those Evidences upon which she goes Pop. I will be true to you our great Bellarmine mentions these three The Church saith he knows and declares a Canonical Book 1. From the testimonies of the Antients 2. From its likeness and agreement with other Books 3. From the common sense and taste of Christian people Prot. Since a private man especially one that besides learning and experience hath the Spirit of God to guide him which is that anointing given to all Believers which teaches them all things 1 Joh. 2. 27. may examine and apprehend these things as well as the Pope himself and better too considering what kind of creatures divers of your Popes are confest to have been he may therefore know without the Churches Authority what Books are indeed Canonical but I pray you tell me Do not you acknowledge those books to be the Word of God which we do that are in this Bible Pop. I must be true to you we do own every Book you have there but you should receive the Books which you call Apocryphal so that indeed your Bible is not compleat for you believe but a part of the written Word of God which I must tell you is of dangerous consequence Prot. If these Books be a part of Gods Word I confess we are guilty of a great sin in taking away from Gods Word and if they be not you are no less guilty in adding to it so that the only question is Whether these Books be a part of the holy Scripture or no Now that if you please we will try Bellarmines rules Pop. The motion is fair and reasonable Prot. First then for the judgment of the Antient Church let us try that I know you hold the Churches judgment infallible especially in matters of this moment and I suppose you think the Iewish Church was infallible before Christ as the Christian Church now is Pop. We do so and the Infallibility of the Iewish Church and High Priest Deut. 17. is one of our principal Arguments for the Infallibility of our Church Prot. Then only these Books of the old Testament were Canonical which the Jewish Church did own Pop. That must necessarily follow Prot. Then your cause is lost for it is certain the Jews rejected these Apocryphal Books which you receive and they reckoned only 22. Iosephus his words acknowledged for his by Eusebius are most express for us The Iews have only 22 Books to which they deservedly give credit which contains things written from the beginning of the World to the times of Artaxerxes other things were written afterward so the Apocryphal Books are granted to have been but they are not of the same credit with the former because There was no certain succession of Prophets and I am told divers of your learned Authors confess it as Catharinus Costerus Marianus Victor and Bellarmine himself whose words are these All those Books which the Protestants do not receive the Iews also did not receive and this is more considerable because to the Iews were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. And neither Christ nor his Apostles did accuse them of breach of trust in this matter Moreover I am told and surely in all reason it must needs be true that the Canonical Books of the Iewish Church were written in the Iewish or Hebrew language whereas these were written in Greek only Are these things so Pop. What is true I will acknowledge It is so The Jewish Church indeed did not receive them nor yet did they reject them as our Canus well answers Prot. Either that Church did believe them to be Canonical or they did not if they did then they lived in a mortal sin against Conscience in not receiving them if they did not they were of our opinion Pop. Well what soever the Jewish Church did I am sure the Antient Christians and Fathers did receive these Books as a part of the Canonical Scriptures Prot. I doubt I shall take you tardy there too I am told that the Council of Laodicea in the year of our Lord 364. drew up a Catalogue of the Books of the Scripture in which as in ours the Apocryphal Books are rejected Pop. It is true they did not receive them nor yet reject them Prot. If they did not receive them that undeniably shews that they did not believe them to be Canonical and yet they diligently scanned the point and the Books had then been extant some hundred of years and they were far more likely to know the truth than we at this distance having then
the command and usage of the Roman and universal Inquisition At best it seems I must not obey Christs command of searching the Scriptures unless the Bishop give me leave But I pray you tell me Do your people use to ask and the Bishops to give them leave to read the Bible Pop. I will not dissemble with you They do not And the truth is an approved Writer of ours Ledesima puts the question What if a man should come to the Bishop and desire liberty to read the Bible and that with a good intention to which he replies that the Bishop should answer him in the words of Christ Matt. 20. 20. Ye know not what ye ask and Indeed saith he and he saith it truly the root of this demand is an heretical disposition Prot. Then I perceive in this as well as in other things you are more careful to deceive people with pretences than to inform them But indeed you tell me no more than I had read or heard out of your own Authors It was the speech of your Pope Innocent That the Mountain which the Beasts must not touch is the high and holy Scriptures which the unlearned must not read and your Doctors commonly affirm that people must not be suffered to read the Scriptures because we must not give holy things to Dogs nor cast Pearls before swine My fourth General consideration against your Religion is this That it grosly contradicts the great designs and ends of the Christian Religion which all confess to be such as these the glorifying of God and his Son Jesus Christ and the humbling and abasing of men the beating down of all sin and the promoting of serious holiness Are not those the chief ends of Religion Pop. I do freely acknowledge they are and our Religion doth most answer these ends Prot. That you and I will now try And for the first Your Religion doth highly dishonour God sundry ways What can be a greater dishonour to God than to make the holy Scriptures which you confess to be the Word of God to depend upon the Testimony and Authority of your Pope or Church and to say that the Word of God is but a dead letter and hath no authority over us without their Interpretation and Approbation By which means malefactors for such all men are Rom. 3. 9 10. your Pope not excepted are made Judges of and superiour to that Law whereby they are condemned Tell me would not the French King take it for a great dishonour if any of his Subjects should say That his Edicts and Decrees had no Authority over his People without their approbation Pop. Yes doubtless he would Prot. Just so you deal with God and what can be a fouler dishonour to God than that which your great Stapleton affirmed and Gretser and others justified and your Church to this day have never disowned it That the Divinity of Christ and of God in respect of us depends upon the Authority of the Pope And what more dishonourable to God than what your great Champion Bellarmine saith That if the Pope should erre in forbidding Virtues which God hath commanded and commanding Vices which God hath forbidden And that he may so erre divers of your most famous and approved Authors confess the Church were bound to believe Vices to be good and Vertues bad unless she would sin against Conscience that is in plain terms the Pope is to be obeyed before God Again is it not highly dishonorable to God to give the Worship which is proper to God unto the Creature I confess the Prophet Isaiah hath convinced me of it Isa. 42 8. I am the Lord that is my Name and my glory will I not give to another neither my praise to graven Images Pop. I also am of the same mind but it is a scandal of your Ministers to say we give Gods honour to the Creature I know where about you are you mean it of Images whereas we worship them with a lower kind of Worship Prot. You worship them with such a kind of worship as neither Angels nor Saints durst receive Cornelius did not worship Peter with a Divine Worship as God for he knew he was but Gods Minister yet Peter durst not receive it It was an inferiour Worship which the Devil required of Christ for he acknowledges at the same time God to be his Superiour and the giver of that power he claimeth Luke 4. 6. And yet that was the Worship which Christ saith God hath forbidden to be given to any Creature You are a valiant man that dare venture your immortal soul upon a nice School distinction I pray you do you not worship the Bread in the Sacrament with that worship which you call Latria which is proper to God Pop. We do so and that upon very good reason because it is not Bread but the very Body of Christ into which the Bread is turned Prot. But what if the Bread be not converted in Christs Body Is it not then an high dishonour to God and indeed damnable Idolatry Pop. Yes our Fisher the famous Martyr and Bishop of Rochester saith No man can doubt if there be nothing in the Eucharist but Bread that the whole Church hath been guilty of Idolatry for a long time and therefore must needs be damned but we are well assured that it is no longer Bread and yet I must add this If peradventure it should still remain Bread yet for as much as we believe it to be the Body of our Lord our ignorance I hope would excuse us from Idolatry and God would not impute it to us Prot. Tell me I beseech you Will all kind of ignorance excuse a man Pop. No certainly There is a wilful and affected ignorance which because it is against clear light will not excuse Prot. Tell me farther Did this excuse the Iews from their sin of crucifying Christ and the damnation due to it that they did it ignorantly Act. 3. 17. Pop. No because they shut their eyes against the plain light and clear evidence of that truth that Christ was the Messias Prot. No less do you in the doctrine of the Sacrament for they had no greater evidences against them than Sense and Reason and Scripture all which you reject as I shall prove by Gods help And as your Religion dishonours God so doth it also highly dishonour Jesus Christ whom he hath sent who is expresly called the one Mediatour 1 Tim. 2. 5. But you have conferred that honour upon many others Saints and Angels Pop. True there is but one chief Mediatour but there may be other secondary Mediatours Prot. In like manner to that which the Apostle there saith there is but one God it might be said there are other secondary gods and so we might introduce the Heathen gods into the Church It is the great Prerogative of Jesus Christ that he is the Redeemer of the World yet your Bellarmine was not afraid to communicate this honour to
remission of punishment which is procured by indulgences in that case it is not inconvenient that the rich is in a better condition than the poor for there it is not said come and buy without money I confess that were a dangerous speech and would utterly undoe all the Church of Rome It is sufficient that Isaiah once said it and Christ again come and drink freely People should have been wise and taken them at their word for they are never like to hear it a third time Is this true Pop. They do indeed say so and the practice of our Church manifests to all the world that Indulgences are sold for money and the condition of the rich in that is better than the poor But what great matter is that as to the Pardon of Sin and eternal Life or Death both rich and poor are alike This difference is only as to the pains of Purgatory Prot. Is that nothing to you you speak against your own and all mens sense we see how highly men esteem to be freed from a painful though short disease here how much more to be freed from such pains as you all confess to be unspeakably more sharp and grievous than all the pains that ever were endured in this world It is so considerable a thing that I assure you it is to me matter of wonder if Christ and the Apostles had been of your minde how it came to pass so unluckily that the poor only should receive the Gospel whereas if the men of that Age had not been all Fools the rich would have been most forward to entertain it VII But to proceed My seventh Consideration against your Religion is taken from its great hazard and utter uncertainty According to the doctrine of your Church no man can be sure of his salvation without a revelation but he must go out of the world not knowing whether he goes Indeed there is nothing but hazard and uncertainty in your Religion I suppose you grant that all your Faith and consequently your salvation depends upon the infallible Authority of your Church Pop. That is most certain Prot. Are you then infallibly certain that your Church is infallible or do you only probably believe it Pop. I am but a private Priest and therefore cannot pretend to Infallibility but I am fully satisfied in it that the Church is infallible in it self Prot. Then I see you pretend to no more certainty than I have for I know and you grant that the Scripture is infallible in it self and I know its infallibility as certainly as you know the infallibility of your Church But I pray you tell me what is your opinion I know your are divided but where do you place the infallibility or where do you lay the foundation of your Faith Pop. To deal freely with you I place it in the Pope who when he determines things out of his Chair is infallible for S. Peter who was supream Head of the Church left the Pope his Successour Prot. Then it seems your Faith doth wholly depend on these things that Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome and died there and that he left the Pope his successour in his supream and infallible Authority Pop. It doth so Prot. How then are you infallibly assured of the truth of these things which are all matters of Fact Pop. Because they are affirmed by so many of the Ancient Fathers and Writers Prot. Were those Fathers or Writers infallible persons Pop. No. Prot. Then might they and so may you be mistaken in that point and so indeed you have nothing but a meer conjecture for the foundation of your Faith But again are you infallibly sure that Saint Peters intention was to leave his Infallibility to the Pope For I do not read that S. Peter left it in his last wil. I tell you true it is strange to me that St. Peter should write two Catholick Epistles and as I observed before not leave one word concerning this matter For my part I shall alwayes rather question the Popes Authority than S. Peters fidelity or discretion in omitting so Fundamental a Point when he put in many of far less concernment But further I demand How are you assured that St. Peter intended to leave his power and did actually leave it to his Successors Pop. By the unanimous consent of the Ancient Fathers Prot. I wonder at your confidence that you dare affirm a thing which our Authors have so clearly proved to be false But suppose it were so that the Fathers had said it tell me are the Fathers infallible at least are they so in their reports of matter of Fact Pop. No we confess that it is only the Pope or Council that are infallible not the Fathers to be true to you even the Pope himself is not infallible in his Reports of matters of Fact Prot. Then you have nothing but a meer conjecture or historical Report delivered by men liable to mistake for the great foundation of your Faith Yet once more have you any greater or better certainty for your Faith than the Pope himself Pop. God forbid I should be so impudâ—nt or wicked to say so for my Faith depends upon his certainty Prot. Very well How I beseech you is the Pope assured what is it that makes him infallibly certain of his own Infallibility Is he assured of 〈◊〉 Revelatâ—on Pop. No as I have told you oft we pretend to no such things Prot. How then Pop. By the Spirit of God which guides him into all truth Prot. How is he assured that the Spirit of God guides him Pop. By the promises God hath made to him I need not repeat them they are known already Thou are Peter c. Simon Simon I have prayed that thy Faith fail not c. Prot. I have already shewn how absurdly these Texts are alledged But I beseech you how is the Pope infallibly assured that this is the true meaning of those Texts You confess it is not by inspiration Pop. He knows that by considering and comparing Scripture with Scripture and by consulting the Fathers and Prayer Diligence and Obedience c. Prot. All these things are very good but any other man may use these means as well as the Pope and hath as full promises from God as any the Pope pretends to as Ioh. 7. 17. If any man will do his will he shal know of the doctrine whether it be of God and the Spirit of Truth is promised to all that ask it Luke 11. 13. So if this be all you have to say God deliver my soul from such a desperate Religion wherein all the certainty of its Faith depends upon his infallibility that is not certain of his own infallibility But I need say no more of this It is to me an undeniable argument that there is no certainty at all in this foundation because as you confess so many hundreds of your ablest Schollars do utterly reject it But once more in my opinion you run
of sin of God and of his Law that can so judge of such an horrid evil as Sin Scripture fully condemns this Doctrine It tells me that the wages of sin all sin without any difference is death even that death which is opposite to eternal life Rom. 6. 23. that He that shall break the least of Gods commands and teach men so though peradventure he do it ignorantly and so according to your opinion it is a venial sin shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven that is he shall have no portion there It tells me Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the Book of the Law to do them Gal. 3. 10. And he speaks of that curse which Christ underwent for us and redeemed us from It tells me that for every idle word that men shall speak they shall give an account thereof in the Day of Iudgment and by such words if not repented of they shall be condemned Mat. 12. 36 37. So now your foundation and one of the Pillars of Purgatory is gone And as for your other fansie that Christ did not satisfie for our temporal punishments I pray you tell me did not Christ suffer temporal afflictions Pop. Yes doubtless the whole Gospel is full of such sufferings Prot. Surely all that Christ suffered he suffered for us both in our stead and for our good He was cut off not for himself but for our sins Dan. 9. 25. It was for our sakes that he bare that temporal part of the curse to be hanged on a Tree and all that pain and shame was but a temporal punishment Gal. 3. 13. I read Isa. 53. that Christ bore our griefs and carried our sorrows v. 4. which was not only accomplished in this that he bare the guilt of our sins as S. Peter expounds it 1 Pet. 2. 24. but also in this that he delivered them from sicknesses and temporal afflictions as St. Matthew expounds it Mat. 8. 16 17. and both these consist well together since Christ removed both sin the cause and affliction the effect of it Pop. If Christ had satisfied for our temporal punishments then Believers should be free from all pains and loss and death which it is apparent they are not and therefore notwithstanding the fulness of Christs satisfaction they may be liable to pains in Purgatory as well as in this life Prot. To this I answer three things First Your inference from the pains of this life to the torments of Purgatory is weak and false I may and must believe that God afflicts his people here because Scripture and Experience put it out of doubt But that Cod will punish his people in Purgatory after this life no Scripture affirms You that can multiply your instances of the sufferings of Believers in this life and can tell us of Adam and David and Solomon and many others have not to this day been able though often urged to produce one instance of the sufferings of any one Believer after this life which one consideration is sufficient to overthrow this Argument in the judgement of any indifferent man Secondly There is not the same reason for the sufferings of believers here and those which you suppose in Purgatory nor are they of the same nature The present sufferings of Believers are necessary 1 Pet. 1. 6. You are in heaviness if need be both for Believers themselves to subdue the Flesh which in this life is potent and altogether needs such a curb By this shall the iniquity of Iacob be purged Isa. 27. 9. and to prevent their eternal damnation 1 Cor. 11. 32. as also for the terror and caution of other offenders So that albeit Christ hath fully paid the debt yet it is upon other accounts convenient that they should smart and suffer here But there is no such necessity nor use of Purgatory sufferings neither for Believers themselves since there is no mortification of corruption after this life no temptations to sin there no improvement of grace no fear of eternal damnation nor for example and warning to others For their fellow-sufferers in Purgatory you do not pretend they are at all edified by their sufferings and men here they neither see nor know any thing of these pains nor hath God revealed any thing concerning them but when God makes any examples to others he sets them in the view of others or at least acquaints them fully therewith as he did with Hell torments to this end It were a senslesâ— thing to hang up a man in Iamaica for the terror of those that live in England Besides the sufferings of Believers here do come from the love and faithfulness of God Heb. 12. 6. Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth Psal. 119. 75. In faithfulness thou hast afflicted me Accordingly good men have looked upon them as choice mercies Psal. 97. 12. Blessed is the man whom thou chastnest and Psal. 119. 67. It was good for me that I was afflicted and the denial of afflictions is threatned as a grievous punishment Is. 1. 5. Hos. 4. 14. 17. But now the sufferings of Purgatory are in all points contrary they are purely vindictive and the effects of meer wrath nor do you esteem those sufferings a mercy and your happiness but freedom from them And therefore your Argument from the pains of this life to those in Purgatory is foolish and absurd Thirdly Believers suffering here do not at all derogate from the fulness of our Redemption by Christ because as I have shewed admitting that to be compleat yet they are necessary for other purposes But your Purgatory sufferings do by communicating at least some part of his proper work to your selves You profess they wash away part of your sins which is Christs peculiar honor He washed us from our sins in his own blood Rev. 1. 5. You make them a part of the curse of the Law from which and not only from a part of it Christ hath redeemed us himself being made a curse for us Gal. 3. 13. You make them a real satisfaction in part to Gods justice which is not satisfied by all that Christ did or suffered without them And in a word you make men in part their own Redeemers and Saviours I hope by this you see how weakly you reason from present troubles to Purgatory torments and that notwithstanding your objection my first Argument stands good agâ—inst Purgatory My second Argument is this that the Scripture every where speaks of the state of Believers immediately after death as happy and blessed and that all the sufferings of Believers are confined to this life and of this we have many expressions and examples too in Scripture and not one to the contrary The sufferings of this present time saith S. Paul are not worthy to be compared with the glory Rom. 8. 18. He knew no other sufferings the afflictions of Believers are light and but for a moment and they too are in things that are seen 2 Cor. 4. 17 18.
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
commands and exhortations to repentance there are in Scripture not one which either commands this auricular confession to a Priest or declares the necessity of it produce one place and I yield there are many instances of Iohn the Baptist and Christ and the Apostles either actual giving or in Gods Name proposing and offering remission of sins upon the conditions prescribed in the Gospel among which not one of them requires this auricular confession Bring one instance to the point and I yield Pop. I will give you two instances Matt. 3. 6. The Pharisees were baptized confessing their sins and the conjurers confessed their sins Act. 19. 18. Prot. These places do both speak of publick confession and in case of scandalous sins which we acknowledge to be a duty but what is this to auricular confession will you never speak to the purpose besides these places cannot be meant of auricular confession for that was not then instituted as your council of Trent confesseth Well I see you can bring neither instance of this confession nor precept for it and therefore I am sure there is no sin in the neglect of it for where there is no law there is no transgression Rom. 4. 15. 2. Your doctrine makes that insufficient for pardon and salvation which God makes sufficient The great God assureth us That he that confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall find mercy Prov. 28. 13. Pop. That makes against you for you sâ—e there is confession required Prot. And no doubt it is a mans duty to make confession to God and in case of wrong unto men and sometimes to a Minister also as in case of doubt or trouble of conscience but this is nothing to auricular confession nor can the text mean that sor you grant it was not as yet instituted God declares that if the wicked for sake his evil way and thoughts and turn unto God he shall have mercy Isa. 55. 7. so Isa. 1. 16. 17 18. so Act. 16. 31. S. Paul in Gods name promiseth believe on the Lord Iesus and thou shalt be saved Thus Ro. 10. 13. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved And who dares say that he that doth all these things shall not be saved unless he confess to a Priest since God never spake such a word What is it to add to Gods word if this be not The terms upon which Christ offered promised salvation are Repent and believe Pop. Auricular confession is a part of repentance Prot. When Christ preached that doctrine it was no part of repentance for you confess it was not then instituted your Council of Trent determines that it was instituted by Christ after his resurrection And you will find it hard to perswade any rational man that repentance wanted a necessary part before Christs resurrection or that it was of one kind before it and quite another after it But I will not waste more time about so vain a fancy for my part I rest upon Christs gracious promises to repenting and believing Sinners By Gods grace I will endeavour to do these things and I doubt not but he will make good his words whether you will or no let God be true and every man a lyar But possibly you have better arguments for Absolutions and Indulgences Produce them but first let me hear what your doctrine in this point is Pop. I will give you this in brief together with the rise and ground of it We believe first That there are divers Saints who have not only merit for themselves but a great deal to spare and all their merits are put into one treasury Secondly That these merits are appliable to others so as God will pardon Thomas for example for Iohns merit Thirdly That God hath put this treasure into the Churches that is the Popes hands and from him into the hands of all Priests who have a power to apply these merits as they see fit Prot. There is nothing sound and solid in this whole discourse first I have proved that there is no Purgatory there is your foundation of indulgences gone next I hope ere we part to shew that there is no such thing as merit in good works which is another of your foundations Next that any mans merits except Christs may be applied to another I pray you inform me for I have learned quite otherwise I read that every one shall bear his own burden Gal. 6. 6. Every one shall receive according to what HE hath done in his body 2 Cor. 5. 10. The wise Virgins differed from you they thought they had oyl little enough for themselves and none at all to spare Mat. 25. 9. So if you are Virgins it seems you are none of that sort If you can prove this conceit of yours do Pop. I will give you a clear place Col. 1. 24. S. Paul saith I now rejoyce in my sufferings for you and fill up that which is behind or that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake which is the Church Prot. First tell me do you think any thing was lacking or defective in Christs sufferings Pop. No You use to charge us with that opinion but falsly Prot. It is well you grant thus much but if you denied it a cloud of plain Scriptures would force you to grant it which tells us that by one offering Christ perfected for ever them that are sanctified Heb. 10. 14. and that he is able to save to the uttermost Heb. 7. 25. By sufferings of Christ then we must understand the sufferings of Christ mystical or Christ in his members which are usually so called when Christ had done suffering in his person he left it as a legacy to his members that they should suffer with him and for him and St. Paul bore his share in these sufferings and for the last clause of his suffering for the Church The phrase it is true is ambiguous and sometimes indeed it signifies to satisfie Gods justice for another but in this sense St. Paul rejects it with indignation 1 Cor. 1. 13. was Paul crucified for you But it is not always thus taken for St. Paul saith he suffered for Christ 2 Cor. 12. 10. not surely to satisfie for him There is therefore another sense and that is he suffered for the Churches edification establishment and so indeed he elsewhere explains himself Phil. 1. 12. and I am told that your own brethren understand it thus and your Bellarmin confesseth the words may be thus expounded but only saith the words may conveniently receive this sense which is as much as to say if you will be courteous you may grant him the Argument but if you do not he cannot prove it But admit there be such a treasury of Merits for others as you pretended how prove you that your Priests are made Judges and invested with such a power of distributing those Merits and giving Absolutions as you challenge Pop.
Our great Argument is John 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted and whosesoever sins ye retain they are retained Answer me this Argument and I will yield up this Cause Prot. What Argument do you draw from these words Pop. Hence it appears that Ministers are made judges and intrusted with full power and authority of binding and loosing so as Christ doth not loose or forgive a sinner by himself but only by the Priest as Bellarmin saith And to speak properly as our most learned Vasquez affirmeth God doth not properly loose a sinner but only approves of the Priests loosing of him Prot. Now in my opinion it were good manners to make the Priest come after God and not to make God depend upon the Priest It seems then if the Priest should grow surly or envious and deny me a Pardon Christ cannot help me for he hath given the power out of his hands So you make the Priest the Judge and God only the Approver The Lord rebuke this spirit of Blasphemy Again nothing is more familiar in Scripture than for Gods Ministers to be said to do that which they do only authoritatively declare that God will do Thus God saith to Ieremy I have set thee over Kingdoms to root out and pull down and destroy that is by declaring that God would do it In like manner Gods Ministers are said to bind and loose because they have from God authority to declare a Sinner to be bound by his Sins or loosed from them which if they declare truly and according to Gods word God in heaven doth and will make it good As for this Text it saith nothing but this that every one whom they bind or loose that is proceeding according to their rule which is always to be understood shall be bound or loosed in heaven but it doth not say that no man is bound or loosed but they whom the Priest bindeth and looseth But besides if all these things were granted how doth this Text prove that the Priest or Pope can absolve or release any souls out of Purgatory if there were such a place I pray you tell me can the Pope binde any soul and keep him in Purgatory Pop. No we do not pretend to that Prot. Then he cannot loose a soul neither out of Purgatory for I am sure binding and loosing are of the same extent But upon second thoughts I must own your discretion for the binding of souls in Purgatory was an invidious and unprofitable work and would have bound up mens hearts and purses It is only the loosing of them out which opens their purse strings tends to the edification of the Church that is the Pope and Priests as they always understand that word In sober sadness it is enough to make any serious Christian abhor your Church that your Pope should not be content to usurp a power over the whole visible world but that he should extend his Authority to the other world even to Purgatory In my opinion he had done more wisely to have extended his empire to Hell for there are many of his Predecessours so far as can be judged by any mans life whom he might have appointed his Deputies but there is never a Pope in Purgatory for they who can release others at pleasure will certainly deliver themselves But now I speak of that I pray you tell me if it be true that I have heard that the Pope when he dies receives Absolution from his Confessor and that after his death the Cardinals give him Absolution and give order for the singing of abundance of Masses Pop. It is true I was at Rome when the last Pope died and it was so then and our Books justifie it Prot. I am much pleased with your ingenuity so the Pope gives the Priest a power to pardon himself methinks he might save the charges of a Confessor it were enough to say I absolve my self But tell me do you say Masses for any that are in Heaven or in Hell Pop. No we utterly disclaim that Prot. Then I perceive the Pope goes into Purgatory I see your Popes are not self-seeking men as they are slandered to be that help so many thousands out of Purgatory and leave themselves in But really this is to me a convincing Argument that you do not believe your selves but deceive poor silly people against your Consciences For else you might be assured the Pope would never come into Purgatory for you say he can keep himself out and no man doubts of his will to do it Besides your Doctrine usurps upon God's Prerogative I had thought it was only my Father in Heaven to whom I should have prayed Forgive us our Trespasses Now it seems we must pray so to one of these Padre's upon earth You make Subjects the supream Judges of all Offences committed against their Soveraign and your Priests sit as Umpires between God and the Sinner and determine what Satisfaction God shall have and what Penance the Sinner shall undergo Methinks they are brave fellows and I now see it was not without ground that Father Cotton bragged That he could do any thing when he had his God in his hand that was the Sacrament and his King upon his knees in Confession I think you will bring Christ upon his knees too for it seems you have resolved that he shall stand to your Priests Arbitration I might add to this that you leave the souls of people to endless perplexities you confess that Indulgences profit not If a man be not in the state of grace which you say a man cannot certainly know or if a man have not made a free and full Confession after sufficient examination and who knows when he hath done these things sufficiently or if the Priest do not intend to pardon him and who knows another mans intentions and yet you would have me so desperate to venture my soul upon such sandy foundations that your selves are afraid and ashamed of But to leave this I perceive that this and divers of your other Doctrines are grounded upon that of the merit of good works which because I judge a very pernicious and dangerous Doctrine let me hear what you can say for it but first let me understand your Doctrine for I have heard some of you cry out that our Divines slandered them and profess that they did not hold Merit strictly but cast the honour of all upon Christ and the grace of God therefore I pray you inform me Pop. I will be plain and candid with you I do not like such Artifices The Council of Trent in plain terms affirms That our good works do truly merit increase of grace and eternal life and our famous Bellarmiue disputes and proves That good works do not only merit in respect of Gods gracious Covenant but in regard of the worthiness of the works themselves and that eternal life is not only due from Gods liberality but from his just judgment
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