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
Prot. I pray you tell me hath Bellarmin such expressions as these That because God would honour his children he would have them to get Heaven by their merits which is more honourable to them than to receive it ly Gods free gift Pop. Bellarmine doth say so Prot. I see he was a man of a brave spirit and much a Gentleman but in my poor opinion he should have taken a little care for the honour of God as well as of the Saints But I have heard of many other strange expressions ascribed to your Authors I hear your Tapperus saith Far be it from them that righteous men should expect eternal life as a beggar doth an alms It is much more glorious that they should receive it as Conquerours and Triumphers and possess it as a reward due to their labours I see also this was a man of honour And again That our good works deserve the reward from God as from a just Iudge and are able to abide the severe judgement of God though he weigh all Circumstances I am told that your renowned Vasquez saith That Eternal life is due to the works of good men without any Covenant or the favour of God And your learned Cajetan and Dominicus à Scoto say as much as I hear Bellarmine reports And that Vasquez again saith The merits or Person of Christ adds no worth to the works of good men This man was resolved so far to tread in Abraham's steps as Abraham would not receive from the King of Sodom so he would not receive from Christ from a thread to a shoe-latchet lest it should be said Christ had made him rich Are these things true Pop. It is so Prot. Then sure I am our Religion is the safest way If we do err it is in giving too much to God but if you err it is no less than the worst kind of sacriledge to rob God of so much of his glory and the honour of your Salvation Yet if you can prove this I will receive it Produce your strongest Arguments Pop. First then I prove it hence That Eternal life is called a reward Mat. 5. 12. and given to Labourers in the Vineyard Mat. 20. Prot. We must compare Scripture with Scripture other places tell us it is an Inheritance Gal. 4. 7. Rom. 8. 17. The same Estate cannot be mine both by inheritance and purchase Pop. Yes it may I will prove it by an instance The glory which Christ had was his by inheritance for he was heir of all things and yet by purchase Philip. 2. 8 9. Prot. I thank you for this objection I have scarce had any thing from you like a solid Argument but this It deserves an Answer First then this will not reach our case The great hinderance of merit in our works is that the best of them are imperfect and a debt we owe to God before hand but Christs works are of another kind they are compleat and perfect and in part no debt for though when Christ was made Man he was a debtor to God and bound as a creature to fulfill the Law yet this was a voluntary act and no debt to God that he would become Man and so put himself under the Law Besides the dignity of his Person made his works proportionable unto all the glory he received whereas all our sufferings are not worthy to be compared with our glory Rom. 8. 18. Secondly It might be both an Inheritance and Parchase in Christ in divers respects because he had two natures as he was God or the Son of God it was his Inheritance and belonged to his Manhood only as united with the Godhead as he was Man he might purchase it by what he did and suffered in the flesh But in us there are not two natures nor any of these pretences to merit Moreover Scripture speaks of two kinds of Rewards the one of Grace the other of Debt and withal affirms that the reward which God gives to good men is meerly of grace as we profess and not of debt as you pretend Rom. 4. 4. Pop. Possibly it may be of both as Bellarmin saith Prot. No the Apostle forbids that Rom. 11. 6. If by grace it is no more of works otherwise grace is no more grace but if it be of works then it is no more grace otherwise work is no more work and this reward is not given to him that worketh but believeth Rom 4. 5. No Protestant could speak our Doctrine more fully Pop. But God gives this reward to men for working in his Vineyard Mat. 20. Prot. It is true but still the reward appears to be of grace because it is alike to him that came at the last hour as to them that had born the heat and burden of the day vers 12. but that Heaven is a reward of Justice and a due debt as you profess this Text proves not and other Scriptures plainly contradict Pop. But God is said to reward men according to their works that is according to the proportion of them and that implies merit Prot. Not so neither for since God is pleased to reward in us his own gifts and graces not our merits as S. Bernard speaks he may still keep the proportion and to them to whom he gives more grace here he may give more glory hereafter and yet there is no more merit in this additional reward than in the rest Again I may as well conclude that the blind men merited their sight because Christ saith Be it unto you according to your faith Matth. 9. 29. as you gather merit from this phrase according to your work therefore let me hear if you have any other Argument Pop. Our works are mentioned as the causes for which God gives eternal life Mat. 25. Come ye blessed for I was hungry and you fed me and other like places Prot. S. Paul did not think this a good Argument for though he knew that it was said of Abraham Because thou hast done this I will bless thee Gen. 22. 16 17. yet he positively denies the merit of Abraham's works Rom. 4. Gal. 3. And he saith of himself I obtained mercy because I did it ignorantly 1 Tim. 1. 13. yet I hope you do not think his ignorance merited mercy The King saith I forgive thee all that debt because thou desiredst me Mat. 18. 32. Did his asking deserve it Besides all this if God did reward them for their good works this will not prove merit if God reward men infinitely more than their good works deserve as God indeed doth and Bellarmine acknowledgeth so much Pop. But good men are said to be worthy Rev. 3. 4. Prot. They are so comparatively to other men and also by Gods gracious acceptation in and through Christ but otherwise the holiest Saints of God have ever judged themselves unworthy of the least of Gods mercies so far were they from thinking they were worthy of eternal life Gen. 32. 10. Mat. 8 8. And since
it is Gods grace which gives them all their worth and meetness for Heaven Coloss. 1. 12. it is impudence to pretend to merit from God by it If yet you will boast of your own worth and merit answer the Apostles question at your leasure 1 Cor. 4. 7. For who maketh thee to differ from another and what hast thou that thou didst not receive now if thou didst receive it why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it If you can baffle your conscience now you will find it an hard question to answer at the last day Pop. But eternal life is given them by Gods justice 2 Thess. 4. 6. 1 Tim. 4. 7 8. Prot. This word also doth not prove any merit for Gods Justice is oft-times taken improperly I read 1 Iohn 1. 9. If we confess our sins he is just and faithful to forgive them yet justification is not merited as you confess but is an act of meer grace being justified freely by his grace c. Rom. 3. 24 28. thus 2 Pet. 1. 1. we are said to obtain precious faith through the righteousness of God and yet faith is the gift of God and you confess that is given without merit for you grant none but justified persons can merit therefore in such places justice is taken either for equity and the congruity of it with Gods nature or word or for the faithfulness of God or the like Pop. Since you despise my arguments let me hear if you have better against the merit of good works Prot. You shall and methinks that one place Luke 17. 10. should convince you when ye shall have done all these things which are commanded you say we are unprofitable servants we have done that which was our duty to do Pop. Christ doth not affirm they are unprofitable but only bids them say they are unprofitable and teaches them to be humble Prot. Very well then you think Christ taught them to think one thing and say another that is he taught them the art of lying and that to God Pop. I answer further that without Gods grace men are unprofitable they only can merit that are in the state of grace as our Church holds Prot. Doth not your Conscience tell you the Apostles whom Christ commands to say thus were in the state of grace Pop. Though a man cannot profit God he may profit himself Prot. If he cannot profit God he cannot properly merit any thing from God for that implies a proportion between giving and receiving Pop. It is true we are unprofitable by our selves in regard of Gods absolute Soveraignty but not unprofitable in regard of Gods gracious Covenant Prot. It is ridiculous to say that is merit properly which depends on Gods meer grace and besides the Pharisees themselves whose errour Christ there strikes at were never so vain or absurd to think that they could be profitable to God in any other sense than what you affirm Pop. Let me hear your other Argument Prot. The nature of merit shews the impossibility of it in men It is evident that to merit these amongst other ingredients are required First that the work be not due already doth any man deserve an estate for that money whereby he payes an old debt Secondly That the work be our own you do not think a noble mans Almoner merits by distributing his Masters Alms. Thirdly that it be profitable to him of whom he merits Fourthly That the work be perfect for that action which needs a pardon certainly cannot deserve a reward Fifthly That it be suitable to the reward if I present my Prince with an Horse and he requites me with a Lordship who but a Horse would pretend this was merited Pop. I must acknowledge most of these things are true but this doth not concern our works Prot. That we will now examine and first all the works now we can do for God are deserved by him It fills me with horrour to hear men pretending to merit of that God who as they profess created them and every day upholds their souls in life and redeemed them and is so infinitely before hand with them every way Tell me dare you say that God doth not deserve that you should do the utmost you can for his service and glory Pop. I will not say so Prot. Then it is impudence to pretend merit from God besides the good works we do are not properly our own but Gods Faith is the gift of Gâ—d Ephes. 2. 8. Phil. 1. 29. So is Repentance Acts 11. 18. 5. 31. and in general every good and perfect gift is from God Jam. 1. 17. Pop. The first grace is from God but that I use it right that is from my self and thereby it is that I merit Prot. St. Paul was not of your mind what good work is there but it lies either in willing or doing yet both these God works in us Phil. 2. 13. not only the power of believing but the act too and suffering also is the gift of God Phil. 1. 29. and St. Pauls abundant labours in the Gospel which certainly amounted to merit if there were ever such a thing in the world and which if any thing was his own act yet he dare not take to himself I laboured yet not I but the grace of God which was with me 1 Cor. 15. 10. No less evident is it that our works cannot profit God Psal. 16. 4. Iob 22. 3. 35. 7 as also our best works are so far from meriting that they need a pardon for the infirmities accompanying them by reason of which the best of Saints have been afraid of the severe judgments of God even upon their best works so was Iob and David and Paul And lastly it is so evident that our works are not proportionable to the reward that Bellarmin hath a Chapter upon this head to prove that good works are rewarded above their desert and therefore it is an intollerable arrogance to affirm that divers of the Saints have not only merit enough to purchase eternal life but a great deal to spare for the relief of others To let this point pass now I would willingly be informed of two things which concern us Lay-people in an especial manner First Why you defraud us of the Cup. Secondly Why you order Prayer to be made in a language that many nay most of us do not understand For the first you rob us of one half of the Sacrament viz. of the Cup what can you say to acquit your selves from sacriledge Pop. Let me hear what right you have to it Prot. First I remember you disputed for Transubstantiation out of Iohn 6. which you said spoke of the Sacrament now if you say true there is a passage in it verse 53 except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood you have no life in you if this be spoken of the Sacrament as you say it is and the wine be really his blood then you do
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
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.
12. 6. that is years it being a very familiar thing to put dayes for years in Prophetical Writings But if the Church may be obscured for three years why not for thirty yea three hundred Did Christ in his supposed promise of perpetual Visibility in the Church make an exception for these three years I trow not And tell me I pray you should you live till that time when Antichrist shall prevail and your Religion no less than ours be obscure and invisible if any of the followers of Antichrist should dispute against you that yours was not the true Church because not visible Would you grant it Pop. God forbid I should be so wicked to deny my Mother and Church because of her Afflictions Prot. Then I see you your selves do not believe this to he a good argument and that you do not make perpetual visibility a necessary token of the true Church To this I add there is no need we should shew a constant succession of Protestant Churches ever since the Apostles dayes as you pretend is necessary the succession that you pretend in your Church is sufficient for ours and so long as we generally agree that your Church was a true Church till later years though wofully corrupted and our Predecessors continued in it till your wounds stunk and became incurable we need no other succession than yours but when your impiety came to the height then we visibly departed from you and have given such reasons for it as you will never be able to answer In the mean time let me hear what you have further to say Pop. For as much as all your Ministers confess our Church was once a true Church I pray you tell me how and when she did fall you cannot tell either the time when she fell or the manner how by Apostacy or Heresie or Schism if you can name your Authors Prot. This is a most unreasonable demand A friend of mine had the Plague last year and died of it I askt him when he was sick how and when he got it he said he knew not Shall I then conclude he had it not Shall I make Christ a lyar and dispute that there were no tares because they were sown when men slept Mat. 13. 25. and so could not know when or how they came Shall I believe no Heresie to be an Heresie unless I can shew how and when it came into the Church What if the Records of these things by the injury of time are lost and their original left in obscurity shall I therefore say it is now become no Heresie I beseech you answer me freely this question Suppose I could bring plain and strong evidences from the holy Scripture and from antient Tradition or the unanimous testimonies of the Antient Fathers that your Doctrine of Merits for instance is an Heresie your Doctrine of worshipping Images is Idolatry and that you are in divers particulars apostatized from that faith which the Scriptures and Fathers do own in this case Would you not confess that you are guilty of Idolatry Heresie and Apostasie Pop. If it were so and you could really bring as you falsely pretend you can but indeed cannot any such solid proofs I must and will confess it For all our Writers agree that although we must believe many things that are not contained in the Scripture yet we must believe nothing contrary to the Scriptures nor to the consent of the antient Fathers Prot. Very well hence then I gather that the only question between you and me is Whether we can evidently and solidly prove the particulars now mentioned which if we can do as I am satisfied our Ministers have done you are convicted in your own Conscience and will confess your self and your Church guilty of Heresie Idolatry and Apostasie whether I can tell the manner or time or Authors of this doctrine or no. Therefore leaving these frivolous and impertinent questions let me hear what you have to say more against our Religion and whereas your discourse I observe hath wholly run upon Generals I beseech you come to some particulars and shew me the falshood of the Doctrines of our Church But it doth not a little confirm me in my Religion that you confess as I shewed before most of our Doctrines to be true and grounded upon Scripture whereas yours are additions of your own devising Now if things be thus you shall not need to trouble your self about many particulars But if you please single out some of our principal Heresies as you call them and let me hear what evidences you can bring against them Pop. Your Heresies are very many but I shall mention one which may be instead of all and that is your rule of Faith and Iudge of Controversies which you make to be the Scripture only Prot I am glad you have fallen upon so material a point the deciding whereof may make other Disputes in great part useless Tell me then what you have to say against this Doctrine Pop. I will urge four Arguments against it 1. Scripture hath no authority over us but from the Church 2. You cannot know what Books are the holy Scriptures or part of it but by the Churches report 3. If neither of these were true yet Scripture is not a sufficient rule for your faith without Tradition 4. If it were sufficient yet it is so obscure that you cannot know the sense of it without the interpretation of the Church You see here is a fourfold cord which you will find is not easily broken Prot. Make these things good and I confess you do your work in a great measure Let me hear your Proofs Pop. For the first then I say that Scripture hath no authority over us but from the Church neither you nor I are bound to believe the Scripture to be the word of God nor can any man know it or prove it to be so but from the testimony of our Church concerning it Prot. I pray tell me if you were to discourse with an Atheist who utterly denies the holy Scriptures and the Church too Could you not prove against him that the Scriptures are the Word of God Pop. God forbid but that I should be able to defend the truth of the Scriptures against any adversary whatsoever Prot. How then I pray you would you prove it Pop. I need not tell you the Arguments which in this case our Doctors use and I stand by them in it they alledge for the truth of the holy Scriptures the testimony of all ages and all sorts of persons the miracles wrought for it acknowledged even by the Enemies of it the martyrdom that so many thousands and many of them wise and learned men did run upon in the defence of them who living so near the time of the writing of them were best able do discern the truth and the wonderful power that goes along with them in convincing converting and comforting or terrifying sinners Prot. Do you believe these are solid Arguments
Body of Christ Do not you profess that as soon as ever it ceaseth to be Bread it becomes the Body of Christ Pop. We do so Prot. Then surely if it be a substance according to you it must be either Bread or the Body of Christ but you allow it to be neither and therefore it is no substance at all In the next place for the word is I have shewed you do not understand that properly neither but for the word Body also do you understand that properly Pop. Yes without doubt Prot. I am told that your Church professeth to believe that Christs body is there after the manner of a spirit taking up no room that head hands feet are altogether in the least crumb of the Host. Is this true Pop. Yes we all agree in that Prot. Then sure I am the word Body is most improperly taken A learned man well observes that you plead for the propriety of words and destroy the propriety of things How can you say that it is properly a body which wants the essential property of a body which is to have quantity and take up room Take away this and the body may be properly a spirit for it is that only which differenceth it from a spirit So now I see you neither do nor can understand these words properly and upon the whole matter that this Doctrine is false and your Proofs most weak and frivolous you shall see that I have better arguments against your Doctrine than you have for it Pop. I pray you let me hear them but be brief in them Prot. I have only three Arguments your Doctrine is against Sense against Reason and against Scripture Pop. Let me see how you will make these things good Prot. For the first I ask you if I am as sure that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation is false as you are sure that the Christian Religion is true will you desire more evidence Pop. If I should I were an unreasonable person Prot. And have you any greater assurance now of the truth of the Christian Religion than you could have had if you had lived in Christs dayes Pop. That were impudence to affirm but what do you mean Prot. If you had lived then what greater evidence could you have had of it than what your senses afforded for since the great Argument for Christianity as all agree was the words that Christ spake and the works that Christ did how could you be sure that he did so speak or so work if you may not credit the reports of your eyes and ears This was S. Lukes great evidence of the truth of what he writes that it was delivered to him by eye-witnesses S. Luke 1. 1 2. and St. Johns what we have seen with our eyes and our hands have handled of the Word of life 1 John 1. And St. Paul for Christs Resurrection that he was seen of Cephas then of the twelve then of the 500 1 Cor. 15. 5 6. Even Thomas his Infidelity yielded to this argument that if he did thrust his hand into Christs side he would believe John 20. 25. Christ judged this a convincing argument when the Apostles thought he had been a Spirit handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have Luk. 24. 39. Are these things true Pop. I cannot deny it they are not yours but Scripture assertions Prot. And do not all my senses tell me that this is Bread Pop. I must grant that but your sense is deceived Prot. Then your senses also might have been deceived about the words and works of Christ and so the greatest evidence of Christian Religion is lost but for my part it makes me abhor your Religion that so you may but seem to defend your own opinions you care not if you shake the pillars of Christianity My second Argument is that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation is against reason Tell me I pray you do you think any of the Articles of Christian Religion are contrary to reason Pop. No they may be above reason but God forbid I should be so injurious to Christianity to say any of them are against reason Prot. But your doctrine is as much against reason as sense for it makes you believe things absolutely impossible and gross contradictions Pop. You may imagine many things impossible that really are not so but if you can prove any real impossibilities which this doctrine forceth us to believe I must yield for we joyn with you in condemning the Lutheran opinion that Christs Body is every where because it is an impossibility and we therefore expound those words I am the Vine I am a door c. figuratively because it is impossible for him who is a man to be a vine or a door Prot. And it is no less impossible for the Bread to be Christs Body Why might not the Vine as well as the Wine be by Transubstantiation converted into Christs Substance I think the Mother is as good as the Daughter and especially since Christ saith I am the true Vine you might as well have devised another transubstantiation to make Christs words good I know what work you would have made of it if he had said This is my TRVE Body or my TRVE Blood But to give that over I will shew you that there is such an heap of contradictions as never met together in the most absurd opinion that ever was in the world I profess when I set my wit at work I cannot devise greater absurdities than you believe Tell me do you hold that the whole Body of Christ is present in every crumb of the Bread and in every drop of the Wine Pop. Yes doubtless Christ is there entire and undivided Prot. I suppose you believe that Christs Body is in Heaven in such a proportion or bigness as he had upon Earth Pop. No doubt of that Prot. Then the same Body of Christ is bigger than it self and longer than its self and which is yet worse Christ is divided from himself I know not what can be more impossible than to say that all Christ is at Rome and all at London and all in Heaven and yet not in the places between Pop All this is by Gods Almighty Power Prot. Then I suppose by the same Almighty Power it is possible for any other man to be in so many places for it matters not that Christ be invisibly in so many places and another should be there visibly or that Christ is there in so little a bulk and another must be in a greater Pop. I must needs grant that and I affirm it is not absolutely impossible for any other man to be at several places at once by Gods Power Prot. Then mark what monsters follow from this suppose now Iohn to be by divine Power at the same time at Rome at Paris and at London where ever Iohn is alive I suppose he hath a power to move himself Pop. That must needs be else he were not a
against those who affirmed that Christ had only a phantastical Body namely that he was seen and felt and heard for you say sense is not to be believed Again you destroy the truth of Christs ascension into Heaven For Christ is not ascended if he hath not left the world for these two are joyned together Ioh. 16. 28. I leave the world and go to the Father but if you say true he hath not left the world but is here in every Sacrament nothing can be more plain than that Christ did visibly and locally leave this world when he went up into heaven Acts 1. 9 10. that being once there the heavens must receive or contain him until the time of the restitution of all things Acts 3. 21. and that at the last day he shall come visibly and locally from heaven 2 Thess. 1. 7. but that he should come down a thousand times in a day at the command of every Mass-Priest is such a dream as the Scripture speaks not one syllable of nor can any rational man believe it Moreover your Doctrine destroys the very Essence of a Sacrament which consists of two parts an outward element or sign and the inward grace signified by it and this I am told your Doctors acknowledge I shall forbear mentioning further particulars these are more than enough to shew the falseness of this Doctrine of Transubstantiation In the next place pray let me hear what you have to say for your great Article of praying to Saints But first I am told divers of your own Authors confess it is not necessary to pray to Saints but only convenient Is it so Pop. It is true and I must confess the Council of Trent do only say it is good and profitable Prot. Then sure I will never run the hazard of committing Idolatry for an unnecessary work But I am further told that your great Scholar and Wit Perron confesseth That he found no footsteps of this praying to Saints either in Scripture or in the Fathers before the four first Councils which was some hundreds of years after Christ. He confessed likewise to Isaac Casaubone as he told our Bishop Andrews that he himself never prayed to Saints but only as he went in Procession that is for form sake Andr. in Opusc. Posthuma and that Salmâ—ron and Cotton and Eccius say as much in effect viz. That there is no command for this in either Testament Is it so Pop. It is true and Bellarmine confesseth That the Saints began to be worshipt not so much by any Law as by Custome Prot. Methinks these two Considerations should startle you that it is both unnecessary and uncommanded I perceive I am not like to hear Scripture Arguments in this point Pop. Some of our Authors do urge some Scriptures but you tie me up to use but few and those the best Arguments and therefore I will rather urge other Considerations 1. Humility and Discretion adviseth us to this duty for I suppose if you have any request to the King you do not sawcily rush into his presence but make use of some of his Courtiers Prot. But tell me I pray you If a King not only allows but commands all his Subjects to call upon him in the day of trouble to come to him freely and upon all occasions to pour out their complaints to him not doubting but he will receive and answer them and this King were always at perfect leisure to hear their requests and the oftner they come to him the welcomer they are and he appoints his own Son the Master of the Requests from time to time to receive all the Petitions of his Subjects and both the King and the Prince are ten thousand times more compassionate than the Courtiers would you not in this case account him a fool and somewhat else too that should spend his time in petitioning this and the other inferiour Courtier to gain access to the King Pop. I cannot deny that Prot. Then your Church hath need to make use of that counsel James 1. 5 If any man want wisdom let him ask it of God they rather choose to ask it of Saints and that is the reason they go without it Most plain it is this is the very case and such a King God in all points is and infinitely better than all this and such a Master of Requests Christ is but for the humility you talk of I think therein you do prudently for I remember the worship of Angels came in under a shew of humility Col. 2. 18. and the door being once opened it was discreetly done to bring in the worship of Saints there too let me hear what else you can say Pop. We use to pray to living Saints why not as well to departed and glorified Saints S. Paul writes to the Thessalonians Pray for us Col. 4. 3. Prot. Surely Scripture makes a sufficient difference You meet with very many Commands and Examples of Prayers or Addresses to the living not one to the dead Besides you know the living hear your Prayers you know nothing that the dead do so Besides I trow you do not pray to the living in such manner as you do to the dead you do not religiously worship the living and about that all our question is Did St. Paul invocate the Colossians because he desired their Prayers Can you say any thing more Pop. The Saints in Glory pray for us and therefore we may pray unto them Prot. Will you affirm that I may and ought to worship and pray unto all those that pray for me Pop. No Then our Churches practice would condemn me for we grant that the Fathers in their Limbus did and so those in Purgatory do pray for us and so do all the Living Saints upon Earth yet we do not allow Prayers unto them Prot. Then your argument is lost from their Intercession to your Invocation Pop. Let me hear if you have any better Arguments against this practice Prot. You shall 1. Since all grant that Prayer is a part of Gods Worship then your praying to Saints is directly contrary to Gods command Deut. 6. 13. Mat. 4. 10. Thou shalt worship the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve Pop. We do not worship the Saints as God with the highest kinde of Worship which is proper to God but only with an inferiour kind of Religious Worship and therefore do not transgress this command Prot. The Devil himself did not require the highest worship as I shewed before yet Christ thought that inferiour worship a breach of that law Nor did those Angel-worshippers mentioned Col. 2. worship the Angels as God with the highest worship for they were either Jews or Judaizing Christians both of which never pretend to equalize the Angels with God but judged them far inferiour to God and worshipped them accordingly yet nevertheless are they condemned by S. Paul for giving divine Honour to the Creature Next this praying to Saints is an high dishonour to Jesus
Christ. God hath made him the only Mediatour 1 Tim. 2. 5. he hath invited all persons to come freely and boldly to him hath promised those that come to him he will in no wise cast out Ioh. 6. 37. why do not you then go immediately to Christ This is a manifest questioning either of his power or faithfulness or goodness Pop. It is one of the slanders of your Ministers that we dishonour Christ we only pray to Saints to pray to Christ. Prot. All your Books of Devot on confute that pretence for you profess in your Mass-book they help you by their Merits as well as by their Prayers Bellarmine affirmeth that the Saints in some sort are our Redeemers Is this no more than only to pray for you Is it no more than this when you pray thus to the Virgin Mary Do thou protect us drive away evil from us and require good things for us and in right of a Mother command thy Son Is it no more than this when you say the Lord was with her i. e. the Virgin Mary and she with the Lord in the same work of redemption and when Esa. 63. is objected I trod the Wine press alone and there was no man with me they answer cunningly true Lord there was no MAN with thee but there was a WOMAN with thee Is it no dishonour to Christ that your famous Biel saith that God hath given the Virgin Mary half of his Kingdom and that whereas he hath justice and mercy he kept justice to himself and granted mercy to the Virgin In my opinion they shall do well to take in Christ for a share in the mercy Is it no dishonour to Christ to say that Prayers which are made to and delivered by the Saints are better than those by Christ as Salmeron saith Is it no dishonour to Christ that Barradius the Jesuite asketh of Christ why he took not his Mother up with him when he ascended up to Heaven and frames this answer Peradventure Lord it was lest thy heavenly Courtiers should be in doubt whether to go out to meet thee their Lord or her their Lady Is it no dishonour to Christ that Carolus Scribanius otherwise Clarus Bonarscius professeth he cannot tell which to prefer the Mothers Milk or the Sons bloud I believe neither Christ nor his Mother will give these men thanks for this another day and all these passages are not in obscure Authors that privily steal abroad into the World but in eminent Persons and Books Licensed by the Approbation and according to the Orders of your Church and besides your Church owns them in that she doth not blot them out nor put them into her expurgatory Indices Moreover I must pray to none but those in whom I must trust Rom. 10. 13 14. How shall they call on him in whom they have not believâ—d And trust is Gods Prerogative incommunicable to any creature Ier. 17. 5. Cursed is he that trusteth in man Again I must pray to none but to whom I may pray in faith and without doubting and upon good grounds believing that I shall receive Mat. 21. 22. Iames 1. 5 6. But I am not sure that the Saints do hear my prayers or can and will grant them Pop. The Saints in glory do know what we pray to them Prot. How doth that appear Pop. There are several wayes whereby they know these things but I adhere to what Bellarmine saith that they knew this by revelation from God Prot. You should not only say this but prove it One of your infallible Popes Gregory denies this no Scripture informs you thus much nay that sufficiently implies that the Saints do not particularly know nor mind the concerns of this world God tells Iosiah 2 Chr. 34. 28. Thou shalt be gathered to thy grave in peace neither shall thine eyes see the evil I will bring upon this place Eccl. 9. 5. the dead know not any thing of the particular occurrences of this life see Iob 14. 21. I am sure these are ten times better arguments than what you bring for the contrary And in a word its Gods incommunicable Prerogative to know the Heart and secret Prayers 2 Chron. 6. 30. Mat. 6. 6. So upon the whole matter I conclude and now by the vanity of your Arguments and Answers do fully discern the falseness of this opinion and the wickedness of the practice of calling upon Saints let me hear whether you have any better evidences for the worship of Images I hope you have and I am sure you need very clear and strong arguments for that practice or else you are guilty of that damnable sin of Idolatry Pop. We have very good arguments for that I will use only two and those our strongest arguments as you desire First we have the example and command of God for it he caused the Images of the Cherubims to be made and put upon the Ark which was worshipped Psal. 98. If the Ark was to be worshipped because it represented Gods footstool much more may an Image be worshipped as our Mr. Bishop rightly argued Prot. I suppose if this be a good Argument to us now it was so to the Iews formerly for length of time doth not turn false arguments into true ones tell me therefore if you had lived when the Law Exod. 20. was newly given and one had perswaded you to worship Images by your own argument what would you have answered Pop. I would have said it doth not follow that because the Ark was to be worshipped which God commanded them to worship therefore Images were to be worshipped which God forbad them to worship Prot. Good Sir bestow this answer as a token from me upon any of your Brethren that shall argue so absurdly besides it seems very unlikely to me that the Cherubims were ordained to be worshiped by the people because they were never seen by the people You put the Images which you worship in the most visible and conspicuous places Pop. Yet no man could worship the Ark but he must worship the Cherubims for they were over the Ark. Prot. In that case the Cherubims were not at all worshipped unless you will say that he that worships one of your wooden Images worships also the Spider which peradventure is paying its devotion there and got into the Saints mouth Besides it doth not appear that the Ark it self was worshipped for that also was not so much as seen by the people therefore not like to be worshipped All that we read is that the Israelites did and ought to worship God toward the Ark and so they are said to worship God toward the whole Temple and toward Ierusalem and towards the Holy Mountain and towards Heaven Yet I presume you will not say all these places were to be worshiped and if God was to be worshiped towards these places because he tells us expresly his special presence was there What is this to Images which God banisheth