that do not please you they refer themselves to the Fathers for the first six hundred years till your abominations had leavened the world according to what was foretold Rev. 13. 8. II. My second consideration is this You do not only decline the Scriptures judgment but you infinitely disparage and vilifie it I meet with several passages quoted out of your Authors to that purpose Pop. Possibly you may out of some inconsiderable ones but not out of any of note and name in our Church Prot. Yes out of your prime Authors I read that Cardinal Hosius in his Advertisement to King Sigismund hath this expression If they that is the Hereticks say It is written that is the voice of the Devil speaking in his members But that it is below a Cardinal to read the Bible he would have found the words also in Christs mouth I read that Costerus calls the Scripture by way of contempt Paper and Parchment God saith he would noâ— have his Church by which always understand the Papists themselves now depend upon Paper and Parchment as Moses made the carnal Israelites And again That which is written in the heart of the Church doth by many degrees excel the Scriptures First because that was written by the finger of God but this by the Apostles as if the Writings of the Apostles were only a device of man I read that Cardinal Pool writing to Henry the Eighth saith thus What an absurd thing is this that thou dost attribute more authority to the Scripture than to the Church since the Scripture hath no authority but for the decree of the Church He means the Roman Church I see we are highly concerned to please your Church else we are like to have no Scriptures I read that Pighius saith The Apostles did never intend to subject our faith to their writings but rather their writings to our faith And afterward he saith The Scriptures are as one said not more pleasantly than truly a nose of wax which suffers it self to be drawn hither or thither as a man pleaseth I read that your Bullenger saith The Scripture is the Daughter the Church the Mother which gives being and sufficiency to her she begets No wonder then the Church makes bold with the Scripture to add or alter or dispense with it We all know the Mother may correct the Daughter I confess when I read those passages produced by our Writers I suspected they wronged them Are these things true Pop. I acknowledge it and it is a vain thing for me to deny it for the Books and those passages in them are extant under their own hands And I must confess these Authors are as considerable and approved as any we have But you ought to put a favourable sense upon them Prot. I would not strain them nor make them worse than they are Take them as you will they are abominable expressions and to me a great evidence that the Scripture is no friend to your Church And I conclude this to be one accomplishment of what Christ hath said Every one that doth evil hateth the light neither cometh to the light lest his deeds should be reproved John 3. 20. And if this be the spirit by which your Church is guided I am sure it is not the Spirit of God and of Truth for that teacheth men reverence and love to the Scriptures You seem to do like Herod who being convinced that he was not of the Royal race of the Iews did burn their Genealogies and Records that his false pretences might not be confuted by them And just so do you endeavour to do by the Scriptures III. My third Consideration against your Religion is this That your Cause is such as dares not abide tryal This is the honour and happiness of our Religion We are allowed to examine all that our Ministers say and we have a Rule which we may peruse to try them by viz. the holy Scriptures which you dare not suffer your people to read And this I take to be a secret confession of your guilt and I am told your Alphonsus de Castro saith That from the reading of the Scripture all Heresies come Pop. I think your experience hath justified that expression You see what you get by the reading of the Scriptures even this that you are crumbled into a thousand Sects Prot. Our Saviour was not of your mind for he thought not acquaintance with but ignorance of the Scriptures was the cause of Error Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures Mat. 22. 29. Nor did he only allow but command the Iews to search the Scriptures without any fear of this inconvenience Iohn 5. 39. Had S. Paul been of your mind he would not have commended but reproved the Beraans for searching the Scriptures and examining his Doctrine by them Act. 17. 11. If any of your people should do as the Beraeans did they would be sent to the Inquisition I do not deny but too many make a bad use of the Scripture and wrest it to wicked purposes which is to me no better an argument than this Wine makes many men drunk therefore no Wine must be sold. The Doctrine of Free Grace was abused by thousands as we read therefore S. Paul did ill in preaching of it The light of the Sun hurts sore eyes therefore Solomon was mistaken when he said It is a pleasant thing to behold the Sun But since you speak of this I pray you let me ask you one question Were not most of the Heresies that ever were in the Church brought in by learned men Pop. I cannot deny that for it is notoriously known Prot. Then you shut up the wrong door for it seems it is not the unlearned mans reading but the learned mans perverting the Scripture which is the true cause and fountain of Heresies And besides you must not do evil that good may come out of it nor defraud people of their greatest treasure nor keep them from their duty for fear of some inconveniencies This is to make your selves wiser than God Pop. But indeed you slander us in this point We do not absolutely forbid reading of the Scriptures The Council of Trent allows it provided you can get the Bishops leave Prot It is true that Council pretends to give some such liberty but they take away with one hand what they gave with the other for in their Index of forbidden Books they have this passage Since experience sheweth that the promiscuous reading of the Bible brings more evil than good therefore if any man shall dare to read or have a Bible without license from the Bishop or Inquisitor he shall not be capable of absolution unless he part with his Bible But in truth this pretended License is but an handsome blind For in that very place there is this Observation added to that Rule That the power of giving such Licenses of reading or keeping the vulgar Bibles is taken away from such Bishops and Inquisitors by
such special opportunities of knowing the judgement of the antient Church both Iewish and Christian Besides I am informed that the famous Bishop of Sardis Melito a man of great judgment and venerable holiness as your Sixtus Senensis saith did take a journey to the Eastern Churches where the Apostles principally preached to find out the true Canon of the Scripture and returned with the same Canon that we own but for the Apochrypha brought home a Non est inventus And moreover that divers of your greatest Champions do confess that a great number of the Antient Fathers were of our opinion among which themselves reckon Melito Origen Athanasius Eusebius Ruffinus Hierom and Amphilocius so say Canus and Bellarmine and Andradius and in the General Sixtus Senensis confesseth that the Antient Fathers were of our opinion Are these things so Pop. I will not deny the truth it is so but you must know that other Fathers were of another minde as Clemens Cyprian and Ambrose and especially St. Austin and the Council of Carthage Prot. The Fathers of our opinion were both far more numerous and such as lived nearest the Apostolical Times and Churches The Council of Laodicea was more antient than that of Carthage and therefore of greater Authority and besides the sixth Council of Constantinople doth expresly confirm all the Decrees of the Council of Laodicea among which this was one and the Council of Carthage too doth not your work For in their Catalogue there is both more than you own to wit the third Book of Esdras although they call it the second as the Greeks did and less too for they shut out Baruch and the Maccabees But besides all this I am told that very many of your most eminent Doctors have disowned these Books which we reject as the Parisian Divines and Cardinal Ximenius with the Complutensian University and Aquinas and Lyra and Pagnim and many others Is it so Pop. I confess this is true Prot. Then I am sure this may satisfie any rational man concerning the Testimony of the Antient Church and for the next point viz. their agreement with the Canonical Books I think it is plain enough that they do grosly contradict them and the truth too that fact of Simeon and Levi which good Iacob acted by Gods Spirit detesteth Iudith commends Chap. 9. Tobit is said to have lived 202. years Chap. 14. whereas if he said true he must have lived twice as long for he saith he was taken captive by Salmanasser Chap. 1. and 2. and 14. and when he was about to die he saith the time was near for the return of the Israelites from their Captivity and the re-building of the Temple which was burn'd If the Books of the Maccabees say true Antiochus his soul had a lease of his body for three lives and he was killed thrice over I commend the Author he was resolved to make sure work of him 1. He dies at Babylon in his bed 1 Mac. 2. 6. then he is stoned in the Temple of Nanea 2 Mac. 1. Lastly he dyes in the Mountains by a fall out of his Chariot 2 Maccab. 9. And the fine fetches of your Authors to reconcile these gross contradictions put me in mind of a story we heard at School if you remember of a Gentleman that told this lye That he shot a Deer at one shot through his right ear and left hinder leg and you know how hard his man was put to it to help his Master out but I will not launch forth into the Sea of untruths and absurdities that are contained in those Books these may suffice to shew you that we do not without warrant reject them but howsoever it is sufficient for my purpose that you grant that my Bible as the Word of God and these Books in it Canonical and I can know this without the Churches Authority Pop. Do not make too much haste if I do grant that these Books in the Original Language are the Word of God yet yours is but a Translation Prot. Is it rightly translated for the substance or is it not What Bible is that which you have Pop. A Latin Bible Prot. Is that the Word of God and rightly translated Pop. Yes the Council of Trent hath decreed so Prot. Then I pray you let us try this Experiment do you pick out any 20. verses in several parts of the Bible and turn them into English out of your Bible Pop. The motion is fair I will do it Prot. I do not finde any substantial difference in all these places between your Translation and mine the difference is wholly in words not at all in sense so now I thank you for this occasion for I have heard some of your Priests ranting highly against our Translation and now I see they have no cause for it Pop. If all this were over yet the Scripture is not a sufficient Rule to guide you to Heaven of it self without Tradition Prot. Why so I beseech you Pop. Because you are also commanded there to hold the Tradition true in your Bible to 2 Thes. 2. 15. Hold the Traditions which ye have been taught whether by Word or Epistle Prot. How do you prove that he speaks of such Traditions as were not written in the Scripture Pop. Because he so plainly distinguisheth between what he taught them by word and what he taught them by Epistle or Writing Prot. That may be true that he speaks of some things of which he had not written to them and yet they might be written by him to others or by others at least after that time but besides notwithstanding this distinction between Word and Epistle divers of your own Authors affirm that Tradition is perfect and that St. Paul taught all things necessary by word of mouth and why may not I as well say that he taught all by Epistle But I pray you What do you mean by these Traditions Pop. I mean all the Traditions which either he or any other Apostles did deliver all these you are bound to receive Prot. I will not quarrel with you for that bring me solid proofs of any of your unwritten Traditions that they did indeed come from the Apostles I promise you I will joyfully receive them But I pray you what are these Traditions you speak of Pop. Such as these the Doctrine of Purgatory Invocation of Saints of the Popes Supremacy of the single life of Priests of the Fasts of the Church private Masses Worship of Images c. Prot. And do you think that all that did not believe and receive these Traditions shall be damned Pop. No by no means for then I should condemn many of the Holy Fathers and Martyrs who differed from us at least in some of these Points Prot. Then it is not necessary to salvation to receive these Traditions and the Scripture may be sufficient without them But further These unwritten Traditions you talk of I beseech you how came you to discover them and
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
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
as well as their English which may be good counsel for many of them that have so little to spare But seriously can you or any rational man think these reasons of sufficient weight to oppose against that great Scripture rule of Edification and the express words and plain arguments of St. Paul God deliver me from such a besotting Religion Besides what I have said I shall leave this with you at parting that you do not only oppose Scripture but also that Antient Church which you pretend to reverence and to follow her steps and your practice is contrary to the Church in all antient times The Prayers of the Iews in publick were alwayes made in the Hebrew tongue and in that Tongue God gave them those forms of Prayer and blessing which were then used Numb 6. 10. God gave the gift of Languages to that end that the Apostles might establish the Worship of God in every Nation in their own Language And I am told that Origen reports this to be the practice of the Church in this time as well as his own Judgment That every one did pray to God in his own dialect Greeks in Greek and Latines in Latin c. Besides I am told that your own Authors Lyra Aquinas and Harding and others confess this was the practice of the antient Church and that one of your own Councils that of Lateran in the year 1215. did make this order that Whereas in many places there were mixed people of divers Languages and customs the Bishops should take care to provide fit men that should perform divine Service amongst them according to this difference of Rites and Languages Moreover that your great Cardinal Cajetan confesseth that Prayers ought to be in a known tongue Are these things so Pop. I cannot deny it Their Books are extant Prot. Then by this I see how far your Church is not only from Infallibility but from common honesty that dare pretend they hold nothing But what hath been by constant Tradition conveyed to them from the Apostles times until this day And by this I shall judge of all your other brags of Antiquity in your Doctrine So I see you are obstinate and incorrigible and therefore I shall trouble my self no further to talk with you FINIS * Concil Trident. †See my Nullity of Romish Faith Chap. 2. Sect. 4. * De Pontifice l. 4. c. 2. * Cressy in Exomolog In the Appendix Chap. 4. num 7. Holden de Resolutione fidei l. 2. c. 1. * Lib. 5. Cap. 1. * See Potter and Chillingworth * De Pontific l. 4. c. 2. * De Eccl siâ militante l. 3. c. 16. †Chron. l. 4. * De Pontif. l. 3. c. 7. Denique quod * De verbo Dei l. 1. c. 10. Itaque non dicimus * See Nullity of Rom. faith ch 2. †Hist. l. 310. b Contra Appionem lib. 1. c In Annot. adversus Cajet de libris Maccab. d Enchir. c. de scrip de num lib. e In Scholiis ad Epist. 116. Hieronymi f De Verbo Dei l. 1. c. 10. In principio g Loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 11. * Rainoldus in his Praelections concerning the Apocryphal Books proves this out of their own words see Praelect 40 41 42 43. * See Rainoldus Spanhem de libris Apocryphis * De Tradit cap. 9. * Of which see Nulliâ—y Append. p. 92. * Sixtus the Fifth Pope tells us in his Preface to his Translation of the Bible that He pickt out of the Cardinals and almost out of all Nations a Colledge of most learnned men who advised him in that work They saith he consulted and I chose that which was best And he adds these remarkable words It is most evident that there is no surer nor stronger Argument than the comparing of ancient and approved Copies And he tells us that he carefully corrected it with his own hands And then the Pope imposeth this Translation upon all the world to be followed without adding or diminishing or altering under pain of Excommunication And yet that you may see how they abuse the peoples credulity to make them believe the Popes Infallibility which themselves do not in earnest believe About two years after comes Clement the Eighth and he puts forth another Edition and Translation of the Bible differing from and contrary to the former Edition in two thousand places as Doctor James hath proved by producing the places as they are in both Editions And which is more than all this in the Preface to his last Bible of Clement the Eighth we have these words Receive Christian Reader this old and vulgar Edition of the Scripture corrected with all possible diligence which though in respect of humane weakness it be hard to affirm that it is every way compleat yet it is not to be doubted but it is more pure and corrected than all that hath gone before it I think this were sufficient evidence if there were no other how great a cheat it is that you pretend the Pope to be the infallible Interpreter of Scripture For here we have one of those infallibles directly contradicting and overturning the other and besides instead of that Divine or after a sort divine infallibility which you ascribe to the Pope we have here a publick acknowledgment of his imbecillity nor dare he affirm his work to be perfect which it must needs have been if he had been infallibly guided in it as you pretend he was nor would he have said so if he had believed his own infallibiliy * In his Bellum Papale and defence of it a De expresso Dei Verbo a Enchiridion cap. 1. b De primatu Romanae Ecclesiae fol 92. c Eccles. Hierarch lib. 2. cap. 2. d Ibid. l. 3. c. 3. fol. 103. * Contra haereses l. 5. c. 6. * In fine Concil Trident. Reg. 4. * De Sacris vernaculis * Cap. cum ex injuncta Extra de haeres * Triplicatio contra Whitak c. 17. * See Nullity †De Pont. l. 4. c. 5. * Roffensis contra Oecolampadiam c. 2. fol. 3. * De indulgentiis cap. 4. sub finem * See Nullity Chap 5. * Greg. de Valentiâ a Diligenter nota quod eujusmodi gratia non dantur pauperibus quia non sunt ideo non possunt consolari Taxa Cancellariae Apostolicae Tit. De Matrimoniali b Nam Indulgentiae fiunt ad relevandam indigentiam Ecclesiae quae non relevatur per solam voluntatem dandi sed per datum De Potestate Papoe quest 30. art 3. c Quantum ad remissionem poenae quae acquiritur per indulgentiam in tali causa non est inconveniens quod dives sit melioris conditionis quâm pauper Ibi enim non dicitur Venite emite sine pecuniâ Ibid. * Maulin Reinolds against Hart and others * Ses. 22. cap. 9. Can. 2 3 * De Missâ l. 6. 1. 12. Sextum * In part 3.
poor Elijah and so Michaiah were left alone nor those in Malachy's daies that the Priests caused them to stumble at the Law Malac 2. 8. nor the Crucifiers of Christ that they obeyed the decrees of their Priests and Rulers I list not to repeat what I have said elsewhere therefore read Nullity of Romish Faith ch 2. sect 12. And will you yet stumble at the same stone 2. The people will not be excused by their Priests misguidance because they neglect their duty If indeed there were no duty incumbent upon the people but to believe what your Priests say and do what they require then your Church speaks reason But that none but a mad man will say There are several duties required of the People no less than of the Priests the Law of God was not given only to the Priests but to all the People God publisheth this law in the hearing of all the people and speaks in the singular number to every one of the people thou shalt do or forbear this or that and the curse is threatned to the people Deut. 27. 26. Cursed be he that confirmeth not all the words of this law to do them and all the people shall say Amen Which the Apostle repeats Gal. 3. 10. Cursed is every one not Priests only but the People too that continueth not in all things which are written in this book of the law to do them If the Priests then should have taught the Israelites as your Priests now teach you thou shalt worship a graven image when God saith thou shalt not worship a graven image can any serious man think this would have freed them from that curse and that it was safer for them to obey the Command of men than of God O the impudence of your Priests that dare say so O the blockishness of those people that will believe them when they say so your Pope may well contend with us for it seems your Priests will contest with God for Supremacy When the Priests and Prophets in Isaiahs daies were generally corrupt the people are not advised to believe all that they taught and to obey all that they decreed which is the strain of your Church but are commanded immediately to go to the law and to the testimony and if any speak not according to them they are to be rejected because there is no light in them Isa. 8. 20. Even people are required not to believe every spirit but to try the spirits 1 John 4. 1. Nor did the Apostles exempt themselves and their doctrines from this Tryal but allowed commended and required it in the people The Beraeans are not reproved and censured as they would certainly be that should tread in their steps at Rome but commended for examining the Doctrine of S. Paul by the Scripture Acts 17. 11. And the same Apostle allows the Galatians not only to try his Doctrines whether they were agreeable to what they had received but in case they find them contrary he gives them Commission to censure and anathemize him Gal. 1. 8 9. And he bespeaks the Corinthians in this language I speak to wise men judge you what I say 1 Cor. 10. 15. And he commands the Thessalonians to prove all things without exception as well as to hold fast that which is good 1 Thess. 5. 21. Consider these things I beseech you and do not wilfully cast away your precious souls upon trifles God hath given the Scripture as a rule to try things by and this was written for the Ignorant and the people as well as the learned and the Priests John 20. 31. he hath given people reason to try things with if you will hide these Talents in a Napkin at your peril be it The Prince was commanded to read and meditate in the Book of the Law that he might observe to do all that is written therein Iosh. 1. 8. Can you seriously think that if the corrupt Priests had agreed to teach him to do contrary to all that was written therein that this would have excused him before God then that Precept was both superfluous and dangerous and if you do not think so as you must needs if you have any Conscience then neither will it excuse your people for according to the Doctrine of your Church Prince and People are alike in this both tied to believe as your Church believes God commands every Christian to prove his own work and tells us that every man shall bear his own burden Gal. 6. 4 5. and that every man shall give an account of himself to God Rom. 14. 12. Do not think your Priests account shall serve turn and all the Christian people of Corinth are commanded to examine themselves whether they be in the faith 2 Cor. 13. 5. And dare you still live in the wilful breach of all these Commands and blindly give up your Souls and Consciences by an implicite faith to the conduct of your Priests to lead them whether they please 3. The Scripture hath given you full warning of your danger Read but two places Ezek 33. 8. where God assures us that the wicked shall die in his iniquity though he perished through the Watchmans fault and Matth. 15. 14. where Christ confutes this very opinion of yours which was also the opinion of the Jews that they were safe enough while they folowed their Priests Decrees and Counsels and tells them If the blind lead the blind both shall fall into the Ditch and doubt of this if you can or dare In a word if this senceless Doctrine were true not only Men would have dominion over our Faith contrary to express Scripture Be not ye called Masters for one is your Master even Christ Matth. 23. 10. Not that we have dominion over your faith said the great Apostle but also Christ should lose his dominion and have no authority in his Church but as your Priests please and it seems he shall not have this favour from you to continue in his Office quamdiu bene se gesserit but quamdiu vobis placuerit and Christs power is apparently limited to your Interpretation but the power of your Church is absolute and unlimited and the People obliged to believe them quamcunque sententiam tulerint whatsoever they shall decree as Gretser expresseth it If this be not to make the word and Authority of God and Christ void through your Traditions I know not what is I will trouble you no further If you be capable of Counsel take warning and suffer not your selves to be lead hoodwinckt to Hell to serve a Carnal Interest of some among you but quit your selves like men and by the grossness of this delusion learn to suspect the rest and with humble and honest hearts read what is here proposed to you for your Souls good and God give you light Let my Soul prosper no otherwise than I heartily wish the good and salvation of you all but if you will still persist in your blindness and add further obstinacy to your
fall so that if this Text and Prayer reach to your Popes it should rather secure them from damnable Apostacies in practice which you confess many of them fell into and died in then from Heresies of which this Text speaks not at all But have you no other Arguments Pop. Yes there is one more which were sufficient if there were no other and that is from Gods Providence It is unbecoming the wisdom of God to leave his Church without a guide or infallible Iudge by which means there would be no end of Controversies and since you do not pretend to have any such in your Church it must be in ours or else there is none in the world Prot. I had thought you would have only taught me but now it seems you will teach God how to govern the World It should seem to me that God was not of your mind he did not think fit to end all Controversies but to permit that there should be Heresies 1 Cor. 11. 19. And if God in his wisdom thought an Infallible Judge necessary certainly that same Wisdom would have named the place person or persons where people should have found this Infallibility Was it ever known since the beginning of the world that any Prince constituted Judges in his Kingdom not so much as giving notice to his people who they were to whom they must resort for Justice this God hath not done for you do not pretend a particular place which settles this infallible Judge at Rome but only some general and fallacious Arguments as I have proved and besides it is so far from being evident that your selves are not agreed about it but some seek for this infallible judgement in the Pope others in a General Council and these do as fiercely dispute one against another in this point as you do against us in many others and therefore it is much more rational for me to conclude thus God hath not nominated and appointed such an infallible Judge in the Church therefore there is none and it is not fit there should be one than sawcily to undertake to be the Counsellor of the Almighty and to tell him what is fit to be done and then conclude that it is done In short For Controversies about Fundamental and necessary things God hath provided sufficient meanes for the ending of them having clearly enough determined them in his Word for the satisfaction of all that are diligent and humble and teachable And for Controversies of lesser moment there is no necessity of having them ended nor would they be much prejudicial to the peace of the world and the Church if men would learn to give any allowance for the infirmities of humane nature and exercise that great and necessary duty of Charity and mutual forbearance But since this is all you can say upon this particular I pray you let me hear what other Arguments you have against our Church and Doctrine Pop. Then another Argument against your Church and way is taken from the Novelty of it As for our Religion it hath had possession in the world ever since the Apostles days but you are of Yesterday and know nothing your Religion is an upstart Religion never heard of in the world till Luthers days Prot. First let me ask you this Question If you had lived in the days of Christ or of the Apostles or of the Primitive Fathers what would you have Answered for your self you know better than I that this was the very Argument which Iews and Heathens urged against the Christians then they charged Christ with not walking after the Traditions of the Elders Matth. 7. 5. And the Athenians said to Paul May we know what this new Doctrine is Act. 17. 19. And the Pharisees had Antiquity on their side being zealous for the Traditions of the Fathers Gal. 1. 14. And though it be true that the Apostles had the first Antiquity for them delivering nothing but what for substance was in Moses and the Prophets Act. 26. 22. which also is our case yet the immediate and latter antiquity was against them and for divers ages together these Doctrines had been in great measure obscured and unknown What then would you have Answered to a Iew or a Heathen objecting this Novelty to you Learn from Christ who when the Iews pleaded for the continuance of their old practice in the matter of Divorces he accounted it sufficient confutation that from the beginning it was not so Mat. 19. 7. And to all the pretences of the Pharisees from antiquity he opposeth this one thing Search the Scriptures John 5. 39. So you dispute against us with the arguments which the Pharisees used against Christ and we answer you as He answered them Besides let me ask you this Question If I could clearly prove to you all the points of our Faith and disprove the points of yours from the Holy Scriptures tell me Would you then acknowledge the truth of the Protestant Religion notwithstanding all this pretended Novelty Pop. Yes certainly for we all confess the truth of all that is contained in the holy Scriptures Prot. Hence then it follows undeniably that the main thing that you and I must look to in our faith is that it be agreeable to the holy Scriptures and if ours be so as I am fully perswaded it is and yours the contrary neither antiquity is any argument for you nor Novelty against us Besides when you charge our Church with Novelty I suppose you mean that our Doctrines are new Pop. I do so Prot. Then you cannot justly charge us with Novelty for 1. You confess the Antiquity and verity of most of our Fundamental Doctrines and your selves do approve them only you make additions of your own to them you own all the Scriptures in our Bible only you add the Apocrypha you acknowledge Scripture the rule of Faith only you add Tradition we believe all the Articles of the Apostles Creed the belief whereof the Antient Fathers thought sufficient to Salvation And the Doctrine of the four first General Councils as you do also You own our Doctrine of Christs satisfaction and Justification by Christ and Faith only you add your own works and satisfaction Our two Sacraments you approve only you add five more Our Doctrine of the two states of Men in heaven and Hell you own only you add Purgatory You own Christ for your Mediatour and Prayers to God through him only you add other Mediatours Our worship of God you own only you add Images These are the principal points of our Religion and dare you now say that our Doctrines are new 2. Many of your ablest Doctors confess that divers of the peculiar Doctrines of your Church are new and unknown to the Antient Fathers and it is most evident and undeniable concerning Indulgences Purgatory Communion in one kind Worship in a strange tongue the receiving some of your Apocryphal books Transubstantiation especially as an Article of Faith the Popes Infallibility Worship of Images
denying of the reading of Scriptures to the people and others And will you yet brag of the Antiquity of your Religion 3. These Doctrines wherein we differ from you have been not only proved from Scripture but from the plain testimony of Antient Fathers as I think none can doubt that laying aside prejudices shall read what our Iewel and Morton and Field and others have written How then can you have the confidence to charge us with Novelty Pop. Your Church is new in this respect that although some others before you might own some of your Doctrines there was no Church that owned all your Doctrines both positive and negative Prot. That is not necessary I hope every alteration of Doctrines of less moment doth not make the Church new if it doth it is most certain that your Church is new also for nothing can be more plain than that the Catholick Church nay even your own Church of Rome did not antiently in former ages hold all these Doctrines which now she owns as your own greatest Authors confess this is sufficient that the Church of God in most former ages hath owned all our Substantial Doctrines But what have you further to say Pop. It is sufficient against you that your Church is Schismatical and you are all guilty of Schism in departing from the true Catholick Church which is but one and that is the Roman Prot. I desire to know of you Whether in no case a man may separate from the Church whereof he was a member without Schism Pop. Yes certainly if there be sufficient cause for it for the Apostles did separate from the Church of the Jews after Christs death and the Orthodox separated from the Arrian Churches and all Communion with them yet none ever charged them with Schism Prot. Since you mention that instance I pray you tell me Why they separated from the Arrians Pop. Because they held this Heresie That Christ was a Creature and not the true God Prot. Very well hence then I conclude That if your Church do hold any Heresie and require all her members to own it too it is no Schism for us to separate from you Pop. That must needs be granted but this is but a slander of yours for our Church holds no such Heresies Prot. Your Church doth not hold one but many dangerous Errours and Heresies as I do not doubt to manifest e're you and I part And if you please we will leave the present Argumeut to this issue if I do not prove your Church guilty of Heresie and the imposition of it too I am content you should charge us with Schism if I do you shall mention it no more Pop. You speak reason let it rest there Prot. Besides methinks you deal barbarously with us you drive us out from you by your tyranny and then you blame us for departing as if Sarah had call'd Hagar a Schismatick for going out of Abraham's family from which she forced her Tell me I pray you if the case be so that I must depart from the Roman Church or from God What must I do Pop. The case is plain you must rather depart from that Church Prot. This is the case If I do not depart from your Church she will force me to live in many mortal sins I must believe a hundred lies I must worship the Cross and Relicks and Images which God commands me under pain of his highest displeasure not to worship I must worship the Sacrament with divine worship which I am assured is no other for substance than bread for your Church is not content to hold these opinions but she enjoyns these practices to all her members And if things be thus I think you will not have the confidence any more to charge us with Schism for obeying the command of God to come out of Babylon since you force all your members to partake with you in your sins Rev. 18. 4. Besides all this let me ask you upon what account you charge us with Schism Pop. For departing from the Catholick Church and from your Mother Church of Rome and from the Pope whose Subjects once you were Prot. If then I can prove that we are not departed from the Catholick Church nor from our Mother Church nor from any of that subjection we owe to the Pope I hope you will acquit us from Schism Pop. That I cannot deny Prot. Then this danger is over For 1. We never did depart from the Catholick Church which is not your particular Roman Church as you most ridiculously call it but the whole multitude of Believers and Christians in the world Nay the truth is you are the Schismaticks in renouncing all Communion with all the Christian Churches in the world except your own which are equal to yours in number and many of them far superiour in true piety Next we do not own you for our Mother Ierusalem which is above not Babylon that is beneath is the Mother of us all If we grant now you are a true Church yet you are but a sister Church Pop. You forget that you received the Gospel from our hands Prot. Suppose we did really so Doth that give you authority over us If it did not Rome but Ierusalem should be the Mother Church from whom you also received the Gospel This you deny which shews that you do not believe your own Argument to be good And for the Popes Universal and Infallible Authority which he pretends over all Christians I have diligently read your Arguments for it and I freely profess to you I find your pretences both from Scripture and Fathers so weak and frivolous that I durst commend it to any understanding and disinterested person as a most likely means to convince him of the vanity and falseness of that Doctrine that he would peruse any of your best Authors and the very sight of the weakness and impertinency of your Arguments would abundantly satisfie him of the badness of your cause Pop. You have no Ministers because you have no uninterrupted succession from the Apostles as we have and therefore you have on Church and therefore no Salvation Prot. I observe you take the same course that the Adversaries of the Gospel ever did who when they could not reprove the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles they quarrelled with them for want of a Calling as you may see Iohn 1. 25. Mat. 21. 23. Act. 4. 7. But the good Christians of that time took another course and examined not so much the Call of the persons as the truth of the Doctrine Act. 8. 17. It seems to me a secret confession of your guilt and the Error of your Doctrine that you are so careful to turn off mens eyes from that to a far meaner point But tell me Do you believe that such an uninterrupted Succession of Ministers from the Apostles is absolutely necessary to the being of a Church Pop. Yes verily or else this Argument signifies nothing Prot. How then can you convince me
the command and usage of the Roman and universal Inquisition At best it seems I must not obey Christs command of searching the Scriptures unless the Bishop give me leave But I pray you tell me Do your people use to ask and the Bishops to give them leave to read the Bible Pop. I will not dissemble with you They do not And the truth is an approved Writer of ours Ledesima puts the question What if a man should come to the Bishop and desire liberty to read the Bible and that with a good intention to which he replies that the Bishop should answer him in the words of Christ Matt. 20. 20. Ye know not what ye ask and Indeed saith he and he saith it truly the root of this demand is an heretical disposition Prot. Then I perceive in this as well as in other things you are more careful to deceive people with pretences than to inform them But indeed you tell me no more than I had read or heard out of your own Authors It was the speech of your Pope Innocent That the Mountain which the Beasts must not touch is the high and holy Scriptures which the unlearned must not read and your Doctors commonly affirm that people must not be suffered to read the Scriptures because we must not give holy things to Dogs nor cast Pearls before swine My fourth General consideration against your Religion is this That it grosly contradicts the great designs and ends of the Christian Religion which all confess to be such as these the glorifying of God and his Son Jesus Christ and the humbling and abasing of men the beating down of all sin and the promoting of serious holiness Are not those the chief ends of Religion Pop. I do freely acknowledge they are and our Religion doth most answer these ends Prot. That you and I will now try And for the first Your Religion doth highly dishonour God sundry ways What can be a greater dishonour to God than to make the holy Scriptures which you confess to be the Word of God to depend upon the Testimony and Authority of your Pope or Church and to say that the Word of God is but a dead letter and hath no authority over us without their Interpretation and Approbation By which means malefactors for such all men are Rom. 3. 9 10. your Pope not excepted are made Judges of and superiour to that Law whereby they are condemned Tell me would not the French King take it for a great dishonour if any of his Subjects should say That his Edicts and Decrees had no Authority over his People without their approbation Pop. Yes doubtless he would Prot. Just so you deal with God and what can be a fouler dishonour to God than that which your great Stapleton affirmed and Gretser and others justified and your Church to this day have never disowned it That the Divinity of Christ and of God in respect of us depends upon the Authority of the Pope And what more dishonourable to God than what your great Champion Bellarmine saith That if the Pope should erre in forbidding Virtues which God hath commanded and commanding Vices which God hath forbidden And that he may so erre divers of your most famous and approved Authors confess the Church were bound to believe Vices to be good and Vertues bad unless she would sin against Conscience that is in plain terms the Pope is to be obeyed before God Again is it not highly dishonorable to God to give the Worship which is proper to God unto the Creature I confess the Prophet Isaiah hath convinced me of it Isa. 42 8. I am the Lord that is my Name and my glory will I not give to another neither my praise to graven Images Pop. I also am of the same mind but it is a scandal of your Ministers to say we give Gods honour to the Creature I know where about you are you mean it of Images whereas we worship them with a lower kind of Worship Prot. You worship them with such a kind of worship as neither Angels nor Saints durst receive Cornelius did not worship Peter with a Divine Worship as God for he knew he was but Gods Minister yet Peter durst not receive it It was an inferiour Worship which the Devil required of Christ for he acknowledges at the same time God to be his Superiour and the giver of that power he claimeth Luke 4. 6. And yet that was the Worship which Christ saith God hath forbidden to be given to any Creature You are a valiant man that dare venture your immortal soul upon a nice School distinction I pray you do you not worship the Bread in the Sacrament with that worship which you call Latria which is proper to God Pop. We do so and that upon very good reason because it is not Bread but the very Body of Christ into which the Bread is turned Prot. But what if the Bread be not converted in Christs Body Is it not then an high dishonour to God and indeed damnable Idolatry Pop. Yes our Fisher the famous Martyr and Bishop of Rochester saith No man can doubt if there be nothing in the Eucharist but Bread that the whole Church hath been guilty of Idolatry for a long time and therefore must needs be damned but we are well assured that it is no longer Bread and yet I must add this If peradventure it should still remain Bread yet for as much as we believe it to be the Body of our Lord our ignorance I hope would excuse us from Idolatry and God would not impute it to us Prot. Tell me I beseech you Will all kind of ignorance excuse a man Pop. No certainly There is a wilful and affected ignorance which because it is against clear light will not excuse Prot. Tell me farther Did this excuse the Iews from their sin of crucifying Christ and the damnation due to it that they did it ignorantly Act. 3. 17. Pop. No because they shut their eyes against the plain light and clear evidence of that truth that Christ was the Messias Prot. No less do you in the doctrine of the Sacrament for they had no greater evidences against them than Sense and Reason and Scripture all which you reject as I shall prove by Gods help And as your Religion dishonours God so doth it also highly dishonour Jesus Christ whom he hath sent who is expresly called the one Mediatour 1 Tim. 2. 5. But you have conferred that honour upon many others Saints and Angels Pop. True there is but one chief Mediatour but there may be other secondary Mediatours Prot. In like manner to that which the Apostle there saith there is but one God it might be said there are other secondary gods and so we might introduce the Heathen gods into the Church It is the great Prerogative of Jesus Christ that he is the Redeemer of the World yet your Bellarmine was not afraid to communicate this honour to
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
living Creature Prot. Then Iohn at Rome may walk towards London and Iohn at London may walk toward Rome and so they may meet shall I say one the other and you may be sure it will be a merry meeting It were worth enquiry how long they will be e're they come together Then again at Rome all the parts of Iohn may be excessively hot and at London excessively cold and at Paris neither hot nor cold This is beyond all the Romances that ever were devised Besides Iohn may be sorely wounded at Rome and yet at London he may sleep in a whole skin Iohn may be feasting at Rome and fasting at London in the same moment I might be infinite in reckoning the horrid absurdities of this Doctrine he that can believe these things will stick at nothing Pop. You talk at this rate because you measure God by your selves whereas he can do more than you or I can think Prot. There are some things which it is no dishonour to God to say he cannot do them because they are either sinful so God cannot lie or absolutely impossible God himself cannot make a man to be alive and dead at the same time God cannot make the whole to be less than a part of it he cannot make three to be more than threescore he cannot make a Son to beget his Father he cannot make the same man to be born at two several times as your Authors confess and therefore in like manner he cannot make the same body to be in two several places for this is not one jot less impossible than the other Pop. These indeed are great difficulties to humane reason but reason is not to be believed against Scripture Prot. True but this is your hard hap this Doctrine of yours is against Scripture as well as Reason and indeed against many Articles of Religion And first it is against the Scripture in as much as it is highly dishonourable to Christ whose honour is the great design of the Scripture What a foul dishonour is it to him to subject him to the will of every Mass Priest who when he pleaseth can command him down into the Bread What a dishonour is it that the very Body of Christ may be eaten by Rats or Worms and may be cast up by Vomit and the like as your Aquinas affirms And that your Church in her Missals hath put this amongst other directions that if worms or Rats have eaten Christ Body they must be burned and if any man vomit it up it must be eaten again or burned or made a Relick and yet this is no more than your Doctrine will force you to own for if you will believe Christs words in one place as well as in another he assureth us that whatsoever without exception entreth into the mouth goeth into the belly and is cast forth into the draught Matth. 15. 17. Pop. This is no more dishonourable to Christ than that the Fleas might such his Blood when he was upon earth Prot. You mistake wofully for though in the dayes of his flesh it was no dishonor to him and it was necessary for us that he suffered so many indignities and died and was crucified yet now that he is risen from the dead he dies no more Rom. 6. and it is a dishonour to him to be crucified again and to be brought back to those reproaches which he long since left and all this to no purpose and without any profit to us as I shewed Again the Scripture approveth and useth this argument that a body cannot be in two places at once it is the Angels argument He is not here for he is risen Mat. 28. 6. sufficiently implying that he could not be here and there too or must we say that the Angels argument is weak or deceitful that yours may be strong and true Pop. He meant he was not there visibly Prot. It seems if a man being sought after should hide himself with you in some corner or hole in your room and the pursuers should ask for him you could answer with good Conscience He is not here because he is invisible Our Blessed Saviour every where makes these two opposite his being in the world and going to heaven Joh. 13. 1. The hour was come that he should depart out of this world unto the Father It seems you could have taught him the art of going thither and keeping here too I promise you I durst not venture to buy an Estate of any of you for it seems you could tell how to sell it to me and keep it to your selves You may remember once you and I made our selves merry with a passage that one used in a speech that since he could not give content neither by going nor staying hereafter he would neither go nor stay It seems you have as good a faculty as he had for you know how a man may both go from a place and stay in it at the same time I know not what can be more plain if you did not shut your eyes Christ saith expresly me you have not alwayes that is here Mat. 26. 11. Besides your doctrine destroyes the truth of Christs Humane Nature I read of Christ that he was in all points like unto us sin only excepted his Body was like ours and therefore it is impossible it should be in a thousand several places at once as you pretend it is this turns Christs Body into a Spirit nay indeed you make his body more spiritual than a Spirit for a Spirit cannot be in several places divided from it self The soul of man if it be entire both in the whole and in every part of the body yet it is not divided from it self nor from its body nor can it be in two several bodies at the same time as all confess and much less can it be in ten thousand bodies at once as by your Argument undoubtedly it may When ever an Angel comes to earth he leaves heaven and so this every way destroyes the truth of Christs Humane body Pop. Much of what you say was true of Christs Body in the dayes of his infirmity but when he was risen from the dead then he received a Spiritual Body as it is said ours shall be at the resurrection 1 Cor. 15. Prot. To this I answer First that you ascribe these monstrous properties to Christs Body before its Resurrection for you say The Flesh and Bloud of Christ were really in the Sacrament which the Disciples received while Christ lived Secondly Christs Resurrection though it heightned the perfections yet it did not alter the Nature and Properties of his Body nor give it the being of a Spirit for after he was risen he proves that he was no Spirit by this Argument Handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have Luke 24. 39. By this it appears that your Doctrine destroys the Truth of Christs Humanity at least it destroys the main evidence of it