but all our workes are vnperfect as well in parts as in degrees of accomplishment In parts because we omit many things which the Law prescribeth and doe many euill things which the Law prohibiteth In degrees because the works of the Saints are vncleane Esay 64.6 Phil. 3.8 Secondly a man must doe the worke of himselfe and by himselfe for if it be done by the helpe of another the merit doth not properly belong to the dooer But the good workes which we doe are not ours but are wrought by God in vs. Thirdly a man must doe the worke of his owne free will and pleasure not of due debt for when we doe that which we are bound to doe we doe no more but our duty But whatsoeuer we doe we doe it as poore debters nay wee are worse then poore debters we are miserable bankerupts wee haue nothing we haue lesse then nothing to pay Luke 17.10 Fourthly the worke must be done to the benefit and profit of him from whom we looke to be repayed But no man by any worke of his can bring any profit vnto God Iob 22.2.35.7 Psal 16.2.50.12 We may benefit men but we cannot benefit our Maker from whom we haue receiued life and limb soule and body and all that we haue wee can giue him nothing and therefore can deserue nothing from him Rom. 11.35 36. Lastly the worke and the reward must be in proportion equall for if the reward be more then the worke it is not then a reward of desert but a gift of good-will But there is no proportion betweene our workes which are altogether vnperfect and the excellency of those great blessings and benefits which the Father giueth vs freely in his Sonne Rom. 8.18 And therefore in this and the former respects there can be no merit in any meere man wherefore it is no lesse absurd to say that we merit saluation at Gods hands by good works then if one should say Thou hast giuen mee an hundred pounds therefore thou oughtest to giue me a thousand C. Was not this doctrine of merit taught in the times of ancient Fathers M. Merit being taken in his proper sense for due iust desert was neuer allowed of the sound Professors for a thousand yeeres after Christ Perkins 1. Vol. 574 575. second Vol. 535 536. Such therefore as will be iustified and saued by their owne workes and challenge eternall life by their merits doe shew themselues to be most proud and vnthankefull persons and deserue most iustly to be condemned eternally C. The Papists at their end doe renounce their owne merits and professe that they looke to be saued onely by the merits of Christ M. If there were nothing else but this it were enough to proue their doctrine of merit to be a false doctrine for if it were a truth then a man is not onely in his life time to professe it and maintaine it but also in his death yea rather to dye for it then to deny it But seeing they in their life professe it and maintaine it but at their death renounce it it is a manifest argument that euen they themselues doe know that it is not a true but a falâ—e doctrine C. If they know that it is not a truth what makes them then in their life-time so stiffely to maintaine it M. It serues greatly to maintaine and vphold the Popes kingdome for they teach that the ouer-plus of Christs merits and of the merits of Saints and Martyrs is the treasure of the Church which being gathered together and put into a store-chest is in the Popes custodie and he alone hath the plenary opening and shutting of this Chest and the ordering and disposing of these merits by vertue whereof hee giues out Indulgences and Pardons when and to whom hee will So that such as haue not merits enow of their own may haue them from thence And so hereby hee maintaines and vpholds his kingdome for hereby comes in infinite wealth and reuenewes Perkins 3. vol. 1. part pag. 165 2. D. 2. vol. 590. 2. a. In these and many other particular points the Papists teach contrary to the Articles of the Creed and therefore are no true Catholikes neither doe they belong to the Catholike Church as is thus proued Whosoeuer haue not the Catholike faith doe not belong to the Catholike Church but the Papists haue not the Catholike faith therefore they doe not belong to the Catholike Church That they haue not the Catholike faith is plaine by that aforegoing DIALOGVE 6. C. Doe they teach any thing contrary to the doctrine of the Sacraments M. Yes many things Christ ordained but onely two Sacraments The Church of Rome hath added to them fiue more namely Confirmation Penance Matrimonie Orders and extâ—eme Vnction C. Are not these Sacraments indeed M. No surely for there are foure things necessarily required to make a Sacrament First the authoritie of Christ commanding it Secondly the element or outward signe as the matter of it Thirdly the word of institution as the forme Fourthly the end and vse to be a seale of our faith for remission of sinnes These foure things are not to be found in their fiue latter Sacraments and therefore they are no Sacraments indeed Master Attersoll on the Sacraments pag. 119. to 150. Synopsis Papis Controu 14 15 16. C. May not the Church then institute and ordaine Sacraments M. None may ordaine a Sacrament but onely the Lord. As none may put a signe and seale to a mans last Will and Testament but onely the maker of the Testament so none may ordaine Sacraments which are signes and seales of the new Testament and couenant of grace but onely the Lord which made the couenant And therefore the Church of Rome in doing the contrary proues her selfe not to bee the true Church of Christ but rather the Church of Antichrist They doe also in many other things teach contrary to the doctrine of the Sacraments As First that the Sacraments doe giue grace and namely remission of sinnes ex opere operato by the worke wrought Rhem. Acts 22. Sect. 1. Secondly that not onely faith doth iustifie but the Sacraments also Rhem. Rom. 6. Sect. 5. Whereas Sacraments are signes and seales of iustification Rom. 4.11 Thirdly that Infants dying without Baptisme cannot bee saued Rhem. Ioh. 3. Sect. 2. They haue also added many idle ceremonies to Baptisme as Creame Tapers Salt c. with an opinion of saluation and worship annexed vnto them yea in times past they baptized Bels but now they begin to be ashamed of it and say that they were but onely hallowed and consecrated to holy vses Bellar. l. 4. de Pont. Rom. c. 12. Synopsis Papismi Controu 12. Quest 5. Concerning the Lords Supper they haue likewise most grossely abused it in many things First they take away the Cup from the Laity whereas the Church of Rome for aboue a thousand yeeres after Christ vsed both signes in the Communion The Communion vnder one kind was decreed defined and
satisfaction for their sinnes M. The satisfaction which they maintained was an ecclesiasticall and publike mulct or penalty imposed vpon notorious offenders thereby to testifie their repentance and to satisfie the Church whom they had offended Perkins 1. V. 577 c 2 vol. 165. 2 D. 166. The efficient causâ— of our iustification is God alone It is God onely that forgiueth our sinnes Esa 43.25 Mar. 2.7 Ro. 8.33 They teach that the Pope can forgiue sinnes and we know that he giues pardons not only for the time past but also for the time to come yea they teach that priests haue right to remit sinnes and they alleadge these places to proue it Math. 16.19 Ioh. 20.23 Now we are to note this that as none can forgiue a debt but the party to whom the debt is due so none can forgiue sinnes but God onely against whom the sinne is committed Ps 51.4 The power of binding and loosing committed to the Apostles Ministers of the Word is by declaring the will and pleasure of GOD out of his Word both to pronounce forgiuenes of sinnes to all that are truely penitent and the retayning of them to the impenitent The Pope and his Clergie are neuer able to proue themselues to bee the true Ministers of Christ and they cannot so much as challenge this latter authoritie and power to themselues much lesse the former which is proper to God onely The motiue or impulsiue cause which moued God to iustifie vs was not any thing in vs but onely the grace of God that is the free good will and pleasure of God Rom. 3.24 Eph. 2.8 Tit. 3.5 7. They teach that wee are not iustified by grace onely but by workes also that is by the merit of our works And to this end they haue of late yeeres deuised a first second Iustification The first is when a sinner of an euill man is made a good man and this they say commeth onely of Gods mercy by the merit of Christ The second is when one of a good or iust man is made better and more iust and this proceedeth from workes But we are to know that there are not two kinds of iustification a first and second but one and the same iustification considered in different respects In respect of Gods actuall acceptation of a mans person iustification is absolute but in respect of the actuall application and manifestation of Gods acceptation vnto a mans conscience iustification is by parts and degrees M. Scudder on the Lords Prayer pag. 303. to 309. And further we are to note that the Papists second iustification is no other then sanctification which is an effect fruit of iustification the which is imperfect not able to iustifie vs before God The materiall cause of our iustification is the actiue and passiue righteousnesse and obedience of Iesus Christ his inherent holinesse his fulfilling of the Law his death sacrifice and full satisfaction The formall cause or the forme of iustification is the righteousnesse of Christ imputed of God vnto vs Rom. 5.19 Rom. 4 5 6 7 8. 1. Cor. 1.30 2. Cor. 5.19 21. Phil. 3.9 The Papists deride this doctrine that Men are iustified by the imputation of the righteousnesse of Christ which righteousnesse is not in vs but in Christ The Rhemists call it a new no-iustice a phantasticall apprehension of that which is not Rhem. on Ro. 3. Sect 7. They hold them accursed that so affirme and teach And they teach that the onely formall cause of our iustificaâ—ion is the iustice of God whereby wee are not reputed and â—ccounted iust but are made iust indeed and this iustice is â—hat which euery man hath within himselfe and is inherent â—n him Concil Trid. Sess 6. can 10 11. Rhem. on Phil. cha 3. Sect. 3. â—he instrumentall cause of iustification on our part is a true â—nd liuely faith whereby wee receiue and apply vnto our selues the mercy of God Christ Iesus and all his benefits resting vpon him alone for saluation They teach that faith doth not iustifie as an instrument in apprehending the righteousnesse of Christ but as a proper and true cause it actually iustifieth by the dignity worthinesse and meritorious worke thereof Bellar. l. 1. de iustificat cap. 17. They teach also that faith is not the onely cause of our iustification but that there are other also as hope charity almes-deeds and other vertues yea they say that workes are more principall then faith in the matter of iustification and pronounce him accursed that shall say a man is iustified onely by faith Rhem. on Rom. 8. Sect. 6. and on Iâ—m 2. Sect. 7. Bellar. l. 1 de iustif c. 13. Concil Trid. Sess 6 Can. 9. These and other such like things they teach contrary to the doctrine of iustification which is a maine ground of Religion And if there were no more points of difference betweene vs these were sufficient to keepe vs from vniting of our Religions for heereby the Church of Rome doth raze the very foundation C. You said before that we are iustified freely I would know how this can be if we be iustified by the righteousnes and for the merit of Christ M. Because the Decree of God the Father for our Redemption is free and we pay nothing againe to God of our owne And therefore by the word freely our merits are excluded but not Christs By which it appeareth that in respect of our selues we are iustified freely of Gods meere mercy and grace without any respect of our owne righteousneâ— or worthinesse but yet through Christ and for his righteouâ—nesse and obedience imputed to vs both which are signifieâ— by the Apostle Rom. 3.23 24. C. Shew me I pray you what is meant by Merit what the dectâ—â— of the Papists is concerning merit and whether that our workes be mâ—â—â—orious or no. M. By Merit wee vnderstand any thing or any workeâ— whereby Gods fauour and life euerlasting is procured 〈◊〉 that for the dignitie and excellency of the worke or thiâ— done Now the true merit whereby wee looke to attaine the fauour of God and life euerlasting is to be found in the person of Christ alone in whom God is well pleased The Papists make two kindes of merit the merit of the person and the merit of the worke The merit of the person is as they say a dignitie in the person whereby it is worthy of life euerlasting The merit of the worke is a dignitie or excellency in the worke whereby it is made fit and inabled to deserue life euerlasting for the doer of the worke See Rhem. on Rom. 8. Sect. 5. We now doe renounce our owne personall merits and all merit of our owne workes and rely onely vpon the merits of Christ and we hold that no workes of ours can merit That no man by any workes of his can merit may bee proued by the properties and conditions that must bee in a worke meritorious and they are fiue First the worke must be absolutely perfect
determined as a publike Law in the Councell of Constance about the yeere 1114. Perk. 2. Vol. 554.2 b. Secondly they reserue the Bread in boxes pixes other vessels of the Church for dayes weekes and moneths They shew it to the people the Priest lifting it ouer his head anâ— going with it in procession All this is contrary to the Sacrament for it is no Sacrament vnlesse there be a giuing receiuing eating and drinking M. Attersoll on the Sacraments 386 387. The reseruation of the Sacrament was not allowed of but rather found fault withall by the Fathers Perk. 2. vol. 557. Thirdly they adore fall downe and honour the Sacrament with diuine worship calling it their Lord and God A thing neuer heard of among the heathen Idolaters namely to worship a piece of bread or rather a thin Wafer The adoration in the Sacrament belongeth vnto Christ sitting in heauen and is an inward worship of the heart or lifting vp of the minde being stirred vp with the outward signes Pope Honorius the third in the yeere 1220. was the first that euer instituted the adoration of the Sacrament And after him Vrban the fourth ordained a feast in honour of the body of Christ Perk. 2. Vol. 564. Attersoll on the Sacraments 388 389. Fourthly they turne the Sacrament into a sacrifice for the quick the dead abolishing the fruit remembrance of the death of Christ disannulling his Priesthood giuing him to his Father whereas the Father hath giuen him to vs c. ibid. page 390. Fiftly they maintaine Transubstantiation These are their very words If any man shall say that there remaineth the substance of Bread and Wine in the Sacrament after the words of consecration or shal deny that the whole substance of Bread and Wine is changed and conuerted into the bodie and bloud of Christ the formes and shewes onely of Bread and Wine remaining which singular and miraculous conuersion the Church calleth Transubstantiation let him be accursed Con. Trid. Sess 13. Can. 2. This their doctrine of Transubstantiation is a very fable to mock fooles withall and it ouerturneth both the nature and vse of the Sacrament Attersoll on the Sacraments page 45. 46. page 365. to 369. If there were a miraculous conuersion as they say there is of the Bread and Wine it would appeare to the outward senses For al true miracles are wrought openly cleerely euidently to mens senses Ioh. 6.26 But the Bread and Wine by the iudgement of all the senses remaineth and appeareth to be the same in substance which it was before of the same quality quantitie colour taste handling smelling vertue and nourishment there is not any one sense or all the senses together that can iudge otherwise of it then it did before If a man should bee called in when the Bread and Wine is set on the Table and bidden to consider well what he there seeth smelleth tasteth and then is willed to goe forth and to come in againe after the Consecration is ended by the Priest and to do the like and then is asked what he thinketh of it he no doubt will answere vnlesse feare of persecution make him to conceale the truth I see feele smell and taste the same wafer-cake and wine that I did before I can perceiue no naturall and substantiall change therein And therefore it followeth that there is no miracle wrought and consequently no transubstantiation at all The difference that is is in the end vse onely Before consecration it was common bread and wine ordained for the nourishing of our bodies After consecration it becommeth holy Bread and Wine sanctified by the Lord not so much to feede the body as the soule C. Did not the ancient Fathers hold this doctrine of Transubstantiation M. They knew nothing hereof for at least 800. yeeres after Christ Afterwards begun the disputations of Transubstantiation but not approued as an Article of faith The Church for a whole thousand yeeres taught no other then spirituall receiuing of Christ In the yeere 1215. Transubstantiation was decreed and determined in the Councell of Lateran vnder Pope Innocent the Third and made a maine matter of faith Perk. 2. vol. 558 559. C. What say you then of their Transubstantiated or consecrated host as it is called or the bread in the boxe carried in processiâ—n worshipped M. Surely it is nothing else but a wheaten or breaden god or rather an Idol nothing inferiour to Aarons Calfe or Ierohoams Calues or the Nehustan and piece of brasse that Ezechias brake in pieces nay as vile and detestable as an Idoll among the Heathen And for a conclusion of their doctrine of Transubstantiation I will heere set downe a wittie conceit which one shewed me not long since I haue kept the matter but changed the meeter to make it sound somewhat the sweeter The Priests doe make Christs body and bloud Hereof none must once doubt They eate they drinke they box him vp They beare him all about DIALOGVE 7. C. I am satisfied touching the first point namely that the Papists are not of sound faith but how doe you proue that they are not of good life seeing they doe so many good workes M. I proue it thus Where the Doctrine is corrupt the life cannot be good but their doctrine as you haue heard is most corrupt therefore their life cannot bee good A true faith is the ground of a good life and without which it is impossible to please God Heb. 11.6 yea whatsoeuer is not of faith is sinne Rom. 14.23 A true faith they haue not and therefore their workes cannot be good and such as may please God That they haue not a true and sound faith hath bin shewed in many particulars and it further appeareth also in this that they do euen wilfully reiect the meanes whereby it is wrought namely the preaching hearing and reading the Word of God They haue not neither will they haue the Scriptures to be soundly preached read and heard in their owne tongue That they cannot abide to haue them in their owne language appeareth by this one example One Pauier a Towne-Clarke of London in the time of King Henry the Eighth hearing that the Scriptures should be put into English he spake to this effect and confirmed it with an oath viz. that if he knew that the Scriptures should bee put into English and that the King would haue them to be read in the Church rather then he would lâ—ue so long to see it he â—ould cut his owne throat But as Hall saith who heard him speake it he was not so good as his word for instead of cutting his throat he hanged himselfe C. What is the cause that they cannot abide to haue the Scriptures in their owne language M. S. John giues the reason For euery one that doth euill hateth the light neither coÌ„meth to it left his deeds should be reproued discouered Ioh. 3.20 If the Owle flieth abroad by day the birds by by discerne him
how the Papists do place others in his roome Now shew me also why he is called Christ what that title signifieth M. Christ signifieth Anointed which title setteth forth his office namely that he is our only true Prophet Priest King C. Doe they teach any thing contrary hereunto M. They doe euen deny this Office of his and so consequently deny the fruits of his comming in the flesh 1. Iob. 4.3 C. Shew me wherein they deny his Office M. Christ is a Prophet to teach his Church and to reueale the will of God vnto vs to whom all are to hearken Mat. 17.5 Ioh. 10.27 Act. 3.22 23. And this hee hath perfectly done in the Scriptures They preferre their owne blinde traditions before the Scriptures they lay aside the Scriptures accounting and calling them dumbe Iudges A nose of Waxe The blacke Gospell Inken diuinitie c. Piggius Contr. 3. de Eccl. Hierarch lib. 3. cap. 3. A certaine popish Doctor reasoning with M. Tindal was not ashamed to say that we were better to be without Gods Law then the Popes They likewise set vp Images to be Lay-mens bookes and so in all this they deny by consequence his Propheticall office Christ is also a Priest and that for euer after the order of Melchsedech Heb. 7.24 And in this his office he hath none to succeede him Theâ— acknowledge not this but maintaine still an outward anâ— corporall Priesthood to offer vp an outward sacrifice eueâ— Christ himselfe Rhem. on Heb. chap. 7.7 Sect. 7.8 C. If this were true why then the Priest were become a Mediator betweene God and Christ the which is most absurd to thinke that any creature should be such a one M. It is indeed most absurd and yet in the very Canon of the Masse they intimate thus much when they request God to accept their gifts and offerings namely Christ himselfe offered as he did the sacrifices of Abel and Noah And which is more absurd than this yea blasphemy for any to affirme they by their former doctrine doe make the Priest to be more worthy in some respect then Christ for the person that doth offer a sacrifice is of more worth honour then the thing which he offereth but the Priest as they say offereth vp Christ to God his Father therefore the Priest that offereth him is of more worth and honour then Christ whom he offereth As Christ is a Priest so he alone and that but once for all offered himselfe and by his one offering once offered hath made a full and perfect satisfaction for all our sinnes so that now there remaineth no more offering for sinnes Heb. 9.12 14 26 10 14 18. They teach that in the Masse there is dayly a sacrifice offered for the sinnes both of the quick and the dead and so they make Christs sacrifice not to bee the perfect and onely sacrifice of the New Testament but set vp another in stead thereof C. They say that their sacrifice is not a new sacrifice or another from Christs but that it is the same M. The Author to the Hebrewes teacheth that Christs sacrifice neither may nor ought to bee reiterated repeated for as it is but one so it was but once offered And this word Once he vseth fiue seuerall times Heb. 7.27 9 12 26 28 30. C. They say that Christ indeed was offered but once after a bloudy manner but he is often offered after an vnbloudy manner M. This distinction of theirs hath no warrant out of Gods Word nay rather it is directly against the Word for Heb. 9. â—2 it is said Almost all things are by the Law purged with bloud and without shedding of bloud is no remission From whence we may thus reason Without shedding of bloud is no remission but in the Masse is no shedding of bloud therefore no remission And therefore it is no sacrifice for sinne C. Though this their distinction bee not to bee found in the Scriptures yet it is in the writings of the Fathers M. The Fathers indeed make mention of vnbloudy Sacrifices but they hereby vnderstand not outward and bodily Sacrifices for sinne but the Spiritual Sacrifices of Christians and they so call them in comparing them with the bloudy sacrifices of the Law with Christs bloudy sacrifice C. The Papists doe not say that the sacrifice of the Masse is an expiatorie but an applicatorie sacrifice that is it serues not properly to make any satisfaction to God but rather to apply vnto vs the satisfaction of Christ already made M. Their doctrine is that it is a sacrifice propitiatory that is auaileable to obtaine ex opere operato by the very work wrought remission pardon of all their sinnes yea that it is auailable to obtaine all other benefits as peace health and such like Concil Trid. Sess 22. Can. 3. Bellar. lib. 1. de Miss cap. 25. lib. 2. cap. 3. But let it be as you say that they account it but an applicatory sacrifice yet this maketh nothing for them The Sacrifices of the Law did serue to apply the vertue of Christs Crosse and yet the Apostle excludeth them by this reason that where there is remission of sinnes there is no more Sacrifice Heb. 10.18 Wherefore if the Apostles reason be good it concludeth also against their Sacrifice applicatory Againe the Apostle teacheth that therefore the Sacrifices of the Law are abolished by the death of Christ because they were but shadowes of good things to come and could not make the offerers perfect c. Heb. 10.1 2 3. And therefore this kinde of applying sacrifice which they faine themselues hath ceased We need not now a Sacrifice for the application of Christs death for Christ to that end hath appointed the preaching of the Word and hath instituted Sacraments whereby his death with all the benefits thereof are most fruitfully applied vnto vs Gal. 3.1 1. Cor. 11.26 Againe this their applying sacrifice is against the nature of a Sacrament in which God giues Christ vnto vs whereas in a sacrifice God receiues from man and man giues something to God C. The ancient Fathers vsed to call the Supper of the Lord a Sacrifice it should seeme therefore that there is some sacrifice offered therein to God M. It is true that they called it so not that Christ is therein offered a Sacrifice to God but in other respects First because that therein there was an offering and giuing of almes bread wine c. which are a Spirituall Sacrifice Secondly they called the Sacrament a Sacrifice not properly but figuratiuely because there was therein a representation of that Sacrifice which was offered vpon the Crosse and because it is a commemoration of Christs body which he offered for vs and of his bloud which he shed for vs. Thirdly It is called a sacrifice because it is an application of the Sacrifice offered vpon the Crosse vnto our selues Fourthly It is so called because of the sacrifice of prayers thanksgiuings and because in the Lords