a dreadful hazard in the point of worshiping of Creaturers Images Saints and especially the Bread in the Sacrament in which you run other hazards besides those I spoke of I am told that your Doctrine is this That it is necessary to the making of a Sacrament and so to the conversion of the Bread into Christs Body that the Priest intend to consecrate it Is it so Pop. Yes doubtless Bellarmine and all our Authors largely dispute for that Prot. And can I be sure of another mans intentions It is sufficiently known that divers of your Priests are prophane and atheistical wretches others envious and malicious and some actually Jews What assurance have I that my Priest is not such an one and that he doth not either out of a contempt or hatred of Religion or malice against my person intend to deceive me and not make a Sacrament of it Sure I am they intend to deceive their people in the preaching of the Word and why they may not do so in the Administration of the Sacrament I know not VIII My eighth and last general consideration is this that your Religion destroys even the principles of morality which true Religion is so far from destroying that it improves and perfects it I confess the bloodiness of your Religion hath ever made me both suspect and loath it I find that Christ is a Prince of peace though he whipt some out of the Temple yet he never whipt any into his Church that he drew in his Disciples with the cords of a man of conviction and perswasion and so did his Apostles after him but your Religion like Draco's laws is written in blood I perceive you answer our Arguments with Fire and Faggot besides this your Religion destroyes all civil Faith and Society your principle is known and so is your practice of equivocation and keeping no faith with Hereticks Pop. I know where you are you mean because of John Husse who after he had the faith of the Emperour given him for his safe Conduct was contrary to that faith put to death in the Council of Constance Prot. I do so and what can you say for it Pop. This I say you must not charge upon our Church the opinion of some few private Doctors since others disown this and have written against it Prot. It seems it is a disputable point among you whether you ought to be honest or not but I have heard that Iohn Husse was condemned by the Council of Constance and that when the Emperour scrupled to break his Faith they declared he might do it and ought to do it Is it so Pop. It is true what was done in that point was done by the Council Prot. And you hold Councils especially where the Pope joyns with them as he did with that Council to be infallible and therefore this I may confidently charge upon you as a Principle of your Religion I cannot but observe your fine devices At other times when we alledge passages out of any of your learned Doctors which make against you you tell us they are but private Doctors and we must judge of you by your Councils Now here we bring an approved Councils testimony and you send us back to your private Doctors Pop. These discourses of yours are only general I had rather you would come to the other thing you proposed viz. to examine the particular points of our Religion wherein I hope I shall give you such solid grounds and reasons that when you shall understand them you will embrace them Prot. You shall find me ingenuous and docible only remember I expect not words but solid Arguments I think our best course will be to pick out some principal points of your Religion and examine them for the rest will either stand or fall as they do Pop. I am perfectly of your mind let us proceed accordingly Prot. First then if you please we will begin with the sacrifice of the Mass which you say is essential to the Christian Religion Pop. It is so and Bellarmine rightly saith that where there is no sacrifice as you Protestants have none there is in truth no Religion Prot. Therefore I pray you let me hear one or two for those are as good as an hundred of your chief grounds and reasons for that Sacrifice Pop. I approve your motion and I shall only insist upon two Arguments First the Sacrifice of the Mass was appointed by God or Christ in the words of Institution of the Sacrament do this in remembrance of me It is the great Argument of the Council of Trent Prot. I adore the fruitfulness of your Churches Invention It seems they think these two words do this contain no less than two of your Sacraments to wit that of Orders which makes Priests and that of the Supper Pop. They do so Prot. That no sober man will easily believe nor that Christs meaning in the words mentioned was this Sacrifice me in remembrance of me But let me hear how you prove the Institution of the Mass from these words Pop. Christ bid his Disciples do this viz. that which he did Christ did in that last Supper truly and properly offer up himself to his Father his Body under the shape of Bread his Blood under the shape of Wine and therefore they were truly and properly to offer up or Sacrifice Christ in the Sacrament The Argument is Bellarmin's Prot. How do you prove that Christ did in that last Supper truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood to his Father I read that Christ offered himself but once Heb. 8. 27. and 9. 25 26 27 28. and 10. 14. and that was upon the Cross nor do I find that he offered any thing at all to God in that Supper but only to his Apostles And what did Christ Sacrifice himself and imbrue his hands in his own Blood and did he eat up his own Body did he take his whole Body into his Mouth these are Monsters of Opinions But how prove you that Christ did then offer up himself to God Pop. Because Christ speaks in the present tense This is my Body which is broken Blood which is shed he doth not say which shall be broken and shed and therefore it must be broken and shed at that very time Prot. What a vain Argumet is this you know nothing is more usual in Scripture than to put the Present Tense for the Future Christ saith I do lay down my life when he means I will do it shortly Iohn 10. 15. I do go to my Father Iohn 16. 28. that is I shall go shortly Do that thou dost that is art about to do John 13. 27. And in Mat. 26. Christ saith of his Blood This is my Blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins and yet I suppose it was not shed at that time for you all profess the Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody Sacrifice But again tell me I pray you when Christ said do this did
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
no less than murder all your people by robbing them of that which is necessary to their life Pop. Not so for as I shall shew you you have the blood in the body or bread Prot. If it be so yet my taking it in that manner cannot be called a drinking it unless you will say that every man that eats rawish meat may be said to drink the blood which he eats in it but further I think we have as great right to the cup as your Priests we have Christs do this and you pretend no more in short we have both the legacy and command of Christ fortified with this strong reason this cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins whereby it sufficiently appears that the signe belongs to all that have interest in the thing and are capable of discerning the Lords body and this command of Christ is express and positive Mat. 26. Drink ye ALL of it it is remarkable that he doth not say eat ye all though they were to do so but drink ye all of it as foreseeing the sacriledge of your Church what can you say to this Pop. First I say here is no command but an institution only Prot. I understand no subtilties but if you say this was no command of drinking then it was no command of eating to say take eat and so the Sacrament is not commanded but people may receive or refuse it as they please and Christs do this is no more than do as you list for my part I shall never know when Christ commands any thing if this be not a command for no command can run in more express words Pop. If this be a command it concerns only Priests for such the Apostles were and they only were present Prot. Since it is evident that eating and drinking belong to the same persons if the one be restrained to the Apostles so is the other and because you confess the eating belongs to the people by vertue of this precept Eat of it by the same reason also doth the drinking reach to them also by vertue of that precept Drink of it Besides the Apostles though they were Ministers yet in this act they were in the peoples stead and Christ was the Minister or dispenser of the Sacrament and they only the receivers of it at this time Besides as they were Ministers he bad them do this that is take and distribute bread and wine to the people as he had to them If Ministers be under any command of administring and giving the Sacrament certainly it is here for no command can be more express and if they are commanded to give the bread to the people they are commanded to give the wine also for here is no difference at all Adde to this that St. Paul hath put this out of doubt and he expounds this of and applies it to the people for thus he writes to all the Corinthians Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup 1 Cor. 11. 28. in four verses together viz. 26 27 28 29. eating and drinking are inseparably joyned together which you have so wickedly divided If it be a Command Let a man examine himself which none will deny then it is a Command which immediately follows so let him eat this Bread and drink this Cup. Pop. It doth not appear that there is an absolute command of drinking but only that as oft as they do drink it they should drink it in remembrance of Christ. Prot. If this be so then here is no command for the Priest either to Consecrate the Cup or to Receive it And further then here is no command for his Consecrating or receiving the Bread neither for there is no more than a Do this and that is for the Wine as well as for the Bread Pop. Here is a difference for he saith of the Body simply Do this in remembrance of me but of the Cup This do ye as oft as you drink it Prot. If you lay any stress upon these words as oft as you do it I beseech you make use of your eyes and you shall read that it is said of the Bread as well as of the Cup Vers. 26. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup. Well I am sorry to see that you dare oppose such plain Scripture upon such pitiful pretences But I pray you let me ask you I have been told that your famous Council of Censtance in their Canon for the receiving the Sacrament in one kind have these expressions Although Christ did Minister this Sacrament undâ—r the forms of Bread and Wine And although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds Yet they make a Canon that it shall be received under one kinde only Is this so Pop. It is true they are the very words of the Council Prot. This was a wise Council indeed wiser than Christ and all his Apostles but I should think we are on the safest side having Christ and all the Primitive Churches for our patterns and by this I see what to judge of your glorious pretences that yours is the Antient and Apostolical Faith and ours forsooth but a new Religion But I pray let me hear what you have to say for this fact of yours in taking away the Cup I see Scripture is against you and the Antient Church at least so far that for 1400. years together the people might drink of the Cup if they would as I am told your Becanus confesseth Pop. You are greatly mistaken we have Scripture for us we have examples there of receiving the Sacrament in one kind Acts 2. 42. They continued in the Apostles Doctrine and breaking of Bread and Acts 20. 17. They came together to break Bread Prot. It is usual to express an whole Feast by this one thing Christ went into the Pharisees house to eat bread Luk. 14. 2. I suppose you think it was not a dry feast Ioseph's Brethren sat to eat Gen. 37. 25. so Act. 27. 35. Paul and the rest took bread and eat it yet none doubts but they had drink with it Besides here is as much said of the People as of the Ministers drinking of the Cup that is neither is here mentioned and if the silence concerning the Cup be a good Argument it proves that neither did partake of it if it be not then both might partake of it But what have you more to say Pop. You need not be troubled so much at the loss of the Cup since the blood is contained in the Bread that is in the Body by concomitancy Prot. This is in effect to tell Christ the Cup was a superfluous device Besides we are commanded to drink the Cup If I should dip bread in drink and eat it no man will say I drink the bread Again this destroys the main end of the Sacrament which is to shew forth Christs