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
poor Elijah and so Michaiah were left alone nor those in Malachy's daies that the Priests caused them to stumble at the Law Malac 2. 8. nor the Crucifiers of Christ that they obeyed the decrees of their Priests and Rulers I list not to repeat what I have said elsewhere therefore read Nullity of Romish Faith ch 2. sect 12. And will you yet stumble at the same stone 2. The people will not be excused by their Priests misguidance because they neglect their duty If indeed there were no duty incumbent upon the people but to believe what your Priests say and do what they require then your Church speaks reason But that none but a mad man will say There are several duties required of the People no less than of the Priests the Law of God was not given only to the Priests but to all the People God publisheth this law in the hearing of all the people and speaks in the singular number to every one of the people thou shalt do or forbear this or that and the curse is threatned to the people Deut. 27. 26. Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them and all the people shall say Amen Which the Apostle repeats Gal. 3. 10. Cursed is every one not Priests only but the People too that continueth not in all things which are written in this book of the law to do them If the Priests then should have taught the Israelites as your Priests now teach you thou shalt worship a graven image when God saith thou shalt not worship a graven image can any serious man think this would have freed them from that curse and that it was safer for them to obey the Command of men than of God O the impudence of your Priests that dare say so O the blockishness of those people that will believe them when they say so your Pope may well contend with us for it seems your Priests will contest with God for Supremacy When the Priests and Prophets in Isaiahs daies were generally corrupt the people are not advised to believe all that they taught and to obey all that they decreed which is the strain of your Church but are commanded immediately to go to the law and to the testimony and if any speak not according to them they are to be rejected because there is no light in them Isa. 8. 20. Even people are required not to believe every spirit but to try the spirits 1 John 4. 1. Nor did the Apostles exempt themselves and their doctrines from this Tryal but allowed commended and required it in the people The Beraeans are not reproved and censured as they would certainly be that should tread in their steps at Rome but commended for examining the Doctrine of S. Paul by the Scripture Acts 17. 11. And the same Apostle allows the Galatians not only to try his Doctrines whether they were agreeable to what they had received but in case they find them contrary he gives them Commission to censure and anathemize him Gal. 1. 8 9. And he bespeaks the Corinthians in this language I speak to wise men judge you what I say 1 Cor. 10. 15. And he commands the Thessalonians to prove all things without exception as well as to hold fast that which is good 1 Thess. 5. 21. Consider these things I beseech you and do not wilfully cast away your precious souls upon trifles God hath given the Scripture as a rule to try things by and this was written for the Ignorant and the people as well as the learned and the Priests John 20. 31. he hath given people reason to try things with if you will hide these Talents in a Napkin at your peril be it The Prince was commanded to read and meditate in the Book of the Law that he might observe to do all that is written therein Iosh. 1. 8. Can you seriously think that if the corrupt Priests had agreed to teach him to do contrary to all that was written therein that this would have excused him before God then that Precept was both superfluous and dangerous and if you do not think so as you must needs if you have any Conscience then neither will it excuse your people for according to the Doctrine of your Church Prince and People are alike in this both tied to believe as your Church believes God commands every Christian to prove his own work and tells us that every man shall bear his own burden Gal. 6. 4 5. and that every man shall give an account of himself to God Rom. 14. 12. Do not think your Priests account shall serve turn and all the Christian people of Corinth are commanded to examine themselves whether they be in the faith 2 Cor. 13. 5. And dare you still live in the wilful breach of all these Commands and blindly give up your Souls and Consciences by an implicite faith to the conduct of your Priests to lead them whether they please 3. The Scripture hath given you full warning of your danger Read but two places Ezek 33. 8. where God assures us that the wicked shall die in his iniquity though he perished through the Watchmans fault and Matth. 15. 14. where Christ confutes this very opinion of yours which was also the opinion of the Jews that they were safe enough while they folowed their Priests Decrees and Counsels and tells them If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the Ditch and doubt of this if you can or dare In a word if this senceless Doctrine were true not only Men would have dominion over our Faith contrary to express Scripture Be not ye called Masters for one is your Master even Christ Matth. 23. 10. Not that we have dominion over your faith said the great Apostle but also Christ should lose his dominion and have no authority in his Church but as your Priests please and it seems he shall not have this favour from you to continue in his Office quamdiu bene se gesserit but quamdiu vobis placuerit and Christs power is apparently limited to your Interpretation but the power of your Church is absolute and unlimited and the People obliged to believe them quamcunque sententiam tulerint whatsoever they shall decree as Gretser expresseth it If this be not to make the word and Authority of God and Christ void through your Traditions I know not what is I will trouble you no further If you be capable of Counsel take warning and suffer not your selves to be lead hoodwinckt to Hell to serve a Carnal Interest of some among you but quit your selves like men and by the grossness of this delusion learn to suspect the rest and with humble and honest hearts read what is here proposed to you for your Souls good and God give you light Let my Soul prosper no otherwise than I heartily wish the good and salvation of you all but if you will still persist in your blindness and add further obstinacy to your
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
Infallible though the Pope and all the Church of Rome truly so called should fail and perish Tell me I beseech you in particular What is that Church which from this and other places you conclude to be Infallible Pop. It is the Pope with the General Council as I have told you Prot. Then I pray you make sense of the verse for to me it is meer non-sense Timothy is here advised to behave himself rightly in the house of God which is the Church of God and the Pillar and Ground of Truth According to your opinion this is the sense of it That thou mightest know how to behave thy self in the Pope and a General Council I pray you tell me truly Was there a General Council then sitting Pop. No there was no General Council from that time till two or three hundred years after when the Councill of Nice was assembled Prot. Then it seems to me a most unreasonable thing to say that Paul directs Timothy how to behave himself in a General Council which was not then in being nor like to be and that he doth not direct him how to behave himself in that body the Church in which he then resided and ruled Besides I pray you where is the Pope or a Council called the House of God If they have any thing to do there they are the Governours the Stewards the Officers of the House but are never called the House of God but this name is alwayes ascribed to the multitude of Believers and Professors as Heb. 2. 5 6. where Moses whose place in the Church the Pope pretends to is not the House but the Servant the Officer of it so Heb. 10. 21. Having an High-Priest over the house of God so 1 Pet. 2. 5. Ye as lively stones are built up as a spiritual house And if you know any one place where it is otherwise used I pray speak if not as by your silence I see you do not all understanding men will conclude that neither Pope nor Council are concerned in this priviledge But besides let me further ask you Can you give me assurance that these words which is the ground and pillar of Truth imply Infallibility Pop. It is true the words are figurative and metaphorical but that is the meaning of them Prot. My old Friend can you advise me to venture my salvation upon a metaphor or that that is the true and only sense of the words Prove it and I am your Prisoner but it seemeth to me far otherwise God saith to Ieremy I have made thee an Iron Pillar Jer. 1. 18. Was Ieremy therefore Infallible Peradventure that was too mean a metal to amount to Infallibility but your Church is a brazen Pillar and so it seems by the impudence of your assertions I read in Eusebius That the Saints of Vienna and Lyons called Attalus the Martyr a pillar and ground of the Truth yet you will not allow him to be Infallible by which and divers other passages it is sufficiently evident that a Pillar in the Church is no more than a man that is well rooted and grounded and strong in the faith as he is a reed that is tossed to and fro with every winde of doctrine let me therefore hear if you have any better arguments Pop. Then John 16. 3. is an express promise When the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth and therefore our Chuch is infallible Prot. Tell me I pray you Is not this promise made to the Apostles only If so What is that to you If you say otherwise How do you make it appear that it concerns their Successours Pop. That appears by comparing another place with it John 14. 16. The Comforter shall abide with you for ever not surely in their persons for they were to die in a little time but in their Successours Prot. I expected a place which had said at the least that the Spirit Should lead them into all truth for ever but this is quite another thing you dare not say that every one with whom the Comforter abides is infallible but to forgive you this great mistake Tell me truly Is it then your opinion That all the Successors of each of the Apostles viz. all Bishops or all Ministers are infallible Pop. No in no wise for it is only S. Peter's Successours or the Pope who is infallible and others only so far as they depend upon him and cleave to him Prot. Then this Text is not for your turn for if it do extend to the Apostles Successors it extends either to all or none for sure I am this Text makes no difference Besides how do you prove that these words of the Spirits leading into all truth if they do reach further than the Apostles do imply Infallibility Then all Believers are infallible for they are all led by the Spirit Rom. 8. 14. Pop. True but here they are said to be led into all truth Prot. You know the words all and every are often taken in a limited sense as when the Gospel is to be preached to every creature Mark 16. 15. And you may as well conclude the omnisciency of all Believers from 1 Iohn 2. 20. You know all things and v. 27. The anointing teacheth you all things as the Infallibility of your Popes or Councils from that phrase and one Answer serves for both places viz. that they speak of all necessary truths But why do I hear nothing of Luke 22. 31. Simon Simon Satan hath desired to winnow you but I have prayed that thy faith fail not I have heard that Bellarmine useth this Argnment but I confess I thought they abused him Pop. It is true he doth use it and it is a solid one though you scorn it Prot. How do you know that it is meant of all Peter's Successours for there is not one word of them here But if I grant these were meant Do you then all believe that Peter's Successours are infallible Pop. I did before acknowledge that we are divided in that point Prot. Can you think to convince me with that argument that does not satisfie your own Brethren Moreover tell me I pray you What was the Faith of Peter which was struck at by the Devil and pray'd for by Christ Pop. The event shews that for the Devil tempted him and prevailed with him to deny his Master Prot. Did Peter deny Christ doctrinally and fall into the damnable error of disbelieving Christ to be the Messias or was it only an error or miscarriage of his tongue which spoke against his Conscience and Judgment Pop. Far be it from me to say that Peter did so damnably erre in his judgment I know no Catholick who saith so all do all agree that it was only an error of his tongue and conversation and practical denial of Christ. Prot. Very well Hence then I gather that Christ prayed for his practical not for his doctrinal Faith and that his grace of faith might not be utterly lost by his
they not obey Christs command at that Supper Pop. I cannot deny that Prot. Thence unavoidably follows that this doing concerns the Communicants as well as if not more than the Minister and so it is not meant of Sacrificing Christ but receiving of him and really if this Text do not there is no other which doth enjoyn Communicants to receive which he that can believe hath got a good mastery over his Faith Besides what Christ here commands his Apostles I finde St. Paul commands the Corinthians and expounds doing this by eating and drinking 1 Cor. 11. And moreover if the words do this were the words which did ordain both Priest and Sacrifice who can think that two of the Evangelists viz. both Matthew and Mark would have omitted them in mentioning the words of Institution and therefore this may pass I shall only adde that if our Divines should prove their Doctrines no better than by such wrested Scriptures and Arguments as this we should hiss them out of the Pulpit but I suppose you have some better Argument therefore let me hear it Pop. Consider then that irresistable Argument Christ is a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck Now Melchisedeck did offer up a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine to God Gen. 14. and thefore Christ was bound in agreement with this Type to offer up such a Sacrifice even his Body and blood under the species of Bread and Wine Prot. You tell me Melchisedeck offered up Bread and Wine to God I find no such matter it is only a dream of your own The History is Gen. 14. where indeed I read of his offering Bread and Wine to Abraham and his Souldiers to refresh them according to the custom of those times and places Deut. 23. 3 4. and Iudges 8. 6. but not a word of any offering to God It is the strangest relation of a Sacrifice that ever was here 's not one word of the Altar or Offering or Consecration or the Destruction of the Sacrifice You grant the thing sacrificed must be destroyed when it is sacrificed I pray you how is this bread destroyed save only by the Souldiers mouths which you say came after the Sacrifice Pop. The bread possibly was destroyed by putting it in the furnace and the Wine sprinkled upon the furnace as Vasquez answers Prot. I see it was otherwise in those dayes than now it is If I thought my Bread would be destroyed by putting it into the Oven I assure you I would never put it in Pop. It must be a Sacrifice that is there related for it follows And he was the Priest of the most High God Prot. Not at all for his being Priest evidently relates to that which follows and he blessed him and received Tythes of all Besides if Melchisedeck did here offer a Sacrifice was Jesus Christ obliged to offer the same kind of Sacrifice that he did for Christ was to offer up himself Heb. 9. 10. which none of his Types did Tell me first Was Melchisedeck a Type of Christ in that action of eating Bread and Wine Pop. Yes doubtless and this was the principal thing in respect of which Christ is called a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck or else I say nothing Prot. Then tell me how can any man in his wits believe that St. Paul who spends so much of his Epistle to the Hebrews in comparing Christ and Melchisedeck and their Priesthood together and who picks up the very smallest circumstances as that he was without father c. Should not speak one word of this which if you say true was the principal thing Besides all this If Melchisedeck was a type of Christ in that action Did Christ offer Bread and Wine as Melchisedeck did Pop. No but he offered his own Body and Blood under the appearance of Bread and Wine Prot. Nay now I see there is no possibility of pleasing you for I expected this all along that Christ must needs have offered the same kind of Sacrifice that Melchisedeck did here But now you forsake your own argument and because Melchisedeck did offer Bread and Wine Christ must not offer Bread and Wine but something else under those appearances Now I have heard your two principial Arguments I hope you will hear mine also Pop. Good reason I should do so Prot. Then first I argue thus The Sacrifice of Christ was perfect and did perfect all Believers Heb. 10. 14. and therefore it need not and ought not to be repeated for the Apostle proves the imperfection of Levitical Sacrifices because they were repeated Heb. 10. 1 2. Where remission of sin is there is no more offering for sin Heb. 10. 18. Either then remission was not obtained by his once offering or there must be no more offering either Christs offering upon the Cross was insufficient or yours in the Mass is unnecessary Pop. It is not properly repeated for it is the same Sacrifice for substance which was offered upon the Cross and is offered in the Mass Prot. How is it of the same kind when you say the one is bloody the other unbloody the one offered by Christ the other by a Priest but if it were of the same kind so were the Levitical Sacrifices and all had relation to Christ as you pretend all Masses have and yet the Apostle makes their Repetition an evidence of their Imperfection Heb. 9. 10. And moreover the Apostle denies not only the repetition of other Sacrifices but also of the same Sacrifice and tells us as plainly as man can speak that Christ was to offer up himself but once Heb. 9. 25 c. whereas you wil needs over-rule the Apostle and force Christ to offer up himself thousands of times Pop. It is true there is but one Sacrifice of Redemption and Expiation for Sin and that was the Sacrifice of the Cross but there are other Sacrifices of Application to apply that to us Prot. I hope the Word and Sacraments and Spirit of Christ are sufficient to apply Christs Sacrifice must we have one Sacrifice to apply another who ever heard of one plaister made to apply another or a ransome paid the second time to apply the former payment And you seem to me quite to forget your selves to destroy the nature of your Sacrifice for the business of a Sacrifice is oblation to God not application to men Besides I have one Argument more which fully satisfies me if the Mass be a real and proper Sacrifice then the thing sacrificed must be really and properly destroyed Pop. That I readily grant as Bellarmin also doth and indeed so it was in all the Sacrifices that ever were offered to God Prot. But surely Jesus Christ is not destroyed in the Mass Is he And are your Priests the murderers of Christ Pop. He is not so destroyed for we tell you it is an unbloody Sacrifice yet he is in a manner destroy'd by the Priest's eating of him for thereby Christ ceaseth to be where he was before that is
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
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
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