Dialogue Between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant, Dialogue · Part · Commandment 1 – Commandment 2

Dialogue Between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant · Dialogue · Part · Commandment 1 – Commandment 2

p. 85The SECOND CONFERENCE.

Prot.

WEll met Sir, I see you are as good as your word, and I hope you will allow me as much freedom and patience as I did you.

Pop.

I shall willingly do it, therefore speak freely, and so will I, and if truth be on your side let it prevail.

Prot.

I shall divide my discourse into two Parts.

1. Some General Considerations, which indeed do very much set me against your Religion.

2. I shall examine the grounds of your Principal Points of Doctrine; for to meddle with all, will be needless: If your Pillars fall the rest cannot stand. For the first, there are several weighty Considerations against your Religion; I shall give you them in order. The first General Consideration is this;

1. That your Church declines all p. 86Judgment but her own, and makes her self Judge in her own Cause; you do not allow Scripture to be Judge, nor the Antient Fathers (for all your talk of Antiquity) nor indeed any but your selves, the Pope, or a Council of your own, and your Church it seems must determine, whether she be a true Church or no, and whether she be pure or corrupted, or whether she be Infallible or no; Is this so?

Pop.

I confess this is our Doctrine, and I think grounded upon Reason.

Prot.

You speak against the common sense of all men. In all Controversies or Differences between men and men, we generally suspect that party who will submit to no judgment but his own; and he who is willing to refer himself to any third indifferent party, is generally presumed to have the best cause; and th…s is our case, Protestants do not make themselves and their own Church the only Judge (though they might as justly and reasonably do it as you) but they are very willing to submit to other Judges, they refer themselves to be judged by the Scripture, which is acknowledged to be a most indifferent Judge; If that do not please you, they refer themselves to the Fathers for the first six hundred p. 87years, 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 aaDe expresso Dei Verbo.. 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 no… 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 p. 88excel the Scriptures: First, because that was written by the finger of God, but this by the Apostles aaEnchiridion, cap. 1., 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 bbDe primatu Romanae Ecclesiae, fol 92.? (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 ccEccles. Hierarch. lib. 2. cap. 2.. 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 ddIbid. l. 3. c. 3. fol. 103.. 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 p. 89alter, 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 p. 90and 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 **Contra haereses, l. 5. c. 6..

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 p. 91this 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: p. 92And 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 **In fine Concil. Trident. Reg. 4.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 p. 93Inquisitors, by 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**De Sacris vernaculis..

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 p. 94is the high and holy Scriptures which the unlearned must not read **Cap. cum ex injuncta. Extra de haeres.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 p. 95letter, 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? **Triplicatio contra Whitak, c. 17.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 p. 96Authors confess,**See Nullity. the Church were bound to believe Vices to be good, and Vertues bad, unless she would sin against Conscience;††De Pont. l. 4. c. 5. 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, p. 97Luke 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 **Roffensis contra Oecolampadiam, c. 2. fol. 3.; 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 p. 98excuse 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 p. 99God; 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 **De indulgentiis, cap. 4. sub finem., 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, p. 100I 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?

p. 101Pop.

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 p. 102of 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.**See Nullity, Chap 5. 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 p. 103lawful **Greg. de Valentiâ.: 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 p. 104with 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 aaDiligenter nota quod eujusmodi gratia▪ non dantur. pauperibus, quia non sunt, ideo non possunt consolari. Taxa Cancellariae Apostolicae. Tit. De Matrimoniali.; 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 p. 105must 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 bbNam Indulgentiae fiunt ad relevandam indigentiam Ecclesiae, quae non relevatur per solam voluntatem dandi, sed per datum. De Potestate Papoe, quest. 30. art. 3.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 remission of punishment which is procured by indulgences, in that case it is not inconvenient, that the rich is in a better condition than the poor, for there it is not said, come and buy without money ccQuantum 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.. I confess that were a dangerous speech, and would utterly undoe all the Church of Rome. It is sufficient that Isaiah once said it, and Christ again, come and drink freely. People should have been wise, and taken them at their word, for they are never p. 106like to hear it a third time. Is this true?

Pop.

They do indeed say so; and the practice of our Church manifests to all the world, that Indulgences are sold for money, and the condition of the rich, in that, is better than the poor. But what great matter is that, as to the Pardon of Sin, and eternal Life, or Death, both rich and poor are alike. This difference is only as to the pains of Purgatory.

Prot.

Is that nothing to you? you speak against your own, and all mens sense: we see how highly men esteem to be freed from a painful, though short, disease here; how much more to be freed from such pains as you all confess to be unspeakably more sharp and grievous, than all the pains that ever were endured in this world: It is so considerable a thing, that I assure you, it is to me matter of wonder (if Christ and the Apostles had been of your minde) how it came to pass so unluckily, that the poor only should receive the Gospel; whereas, if the men of that Age had not been all Fools, the rich would have been most forward to entertain it.

VII. But to proceed. My seventh Consideration against your Religion is taken from its great hazard, and utter uncertainty. According to the doctrine of your Church, no man can be sure of his salvation p. 107(without a revelation) but he must go out of the world, not knowing whether he goes. Indeed there is nothing but hazard and uncertainty in your Religion; I suppose you grant that all your Faith, and consequently your salvation depends upon the infallible Authority of your Church.

Pop.

That is most certain.

Prot.

Are you then infallibly certain, that your Church is infallible, or do you only probably believe it?

Pop.

I am but a private Priest, and therefore cannot pretend to Infallibility; but I am fully satisfied in it, that the Church is infallible in it self.

Prot.

Then I see you pretend to no more certainty than I have; for I know (and you grant) that the Scripture is infallible in it self: and I know its infallibility as certainly as you know the infallibility of your Church. But, I pray you tell me, what is your opinion? I know your are divided: but where do you place the infallibility, or where do you lay the foundation of your Faith?

Pop.

To deal freely with you, I place it in the Pope; who when he determines things out of his Chair, is infallible: for S. Peter who was supream Head of the Church, left the Pope his Successour.

p. 108Prot.

Then it seems your Faith doth wholly depend on these things, that Saint Peter was Bishop of Rome, and died there, and that he left the Pope his successour in his supream and infallible Authority.

Pop.

It doth so.

Prot.

How then are you infallibly assured of the truth of these things, which are all matters of Fact?

Pop.

Because they are affirmed by so many of the Ancient Fathers and Writers.

Prot.

Were those Fathers or Writers infallible persons?

Pop.

No.

Prot.

Then might they, and so may you, be mistaken in that point; and so indeed you have nothing but a meer conjecture for the foundation of your Faith. But again, are you infallibly sure, that Saint Peters intention was to leave his Infallibility to the Pope? For I do not read that S. Peter left it in his last wil. I tell you true it is strange to me, that St. Peter should write two Catholick Epistles, and (as I observed before) not leave one word concerning this matter. For my part I shall alwayes rather question the Popes Authority, than S. Peters fidelity or discretion, in omitting so Fundamental a Point when he put in many of far less concernment. But p. 109further, I demand, How are you assured that St. Peter intended to leave his power, and did actually leave it to his Successors?

Pop.

By the unanimous consent of the Ancient Fathers.

Prot.

I wonder at your confidence, that you dare affirm a thing which our Authors **Maulin, Reinolds against Hart, and others.have so clearly proved to be false. But suppose it were so, that the Fathers had said it; tell me, are the Fathers infallible? at least are they so in their reports of matter of Fact?

Pop.

No: we confess that it is only the Pope or Council that are infallible, not the Fathers; & to be true to you, even the Pope himself is not infallible in his Reports of matters of Fact.

Prot.

Then you have nothing but a meer conjecture, or historical Report delivered by men, liable to mistake, for the great foundation of your Faith. Yet once more, have you any greater or better certainty for your Faith than the Pope himself.

Pop.

God forbid I should be so impud…nt or wicked to say so; for my Faith depends upon his certainty.

Prot.

Very well, How I beseech you is the Pope assured? what is it that makes him infallibly certain of his own Infallibility? Is he assured of … Revelat…on?

p. 110Pop.

No (as I have told you oft) we pretend to no such things.

Prot.

How then?

Pop.

By the Spirit of God which guides him into all truth.

Prot.

How is he assured that the Spirit of God guides him?

Pop.

By the promises God hath made to him; I need not repeat them, they are known already, Thou are Peter, &c. Simon, Simon, I have prayed that thy Faith fail not, &c.

Prot.

I have already shewn how absurdly these Texts are alledged. But I beseech you, how is the Pope infallibly assured that this is the true meaning of those Texts? You confess it is not by inspiration.

Pop.

He knows that, by considering and comparing Scripture with Scripture, and by consulting the Fathers, and Prayer, Diligence, and Obedience, &c.

Prot.

All these things are very good, but any other man may use these means as well as the Pope, and hath as full promises from God, as any the Pope pretends to as Ioh. 7. 17. If any man will do his will, he shal know of the doctrine, whether it be of God; and the Spirit of Truth is promised to all that ask it, Luke 11. 13. So if this be all you p. 111have to say, God deliver my soul from such a desperate Religion, wherein all the certainty of its Faith depends upon his infallibility, that is not certain of his own infallibility.

But I need say no more of this; It is to me an undeniable argument, that there is no certainty at all in this foundation; because (as you confess) so many hundreds of your ablest Schollars do utterly reject it. But once more, in my opinion you run 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 p. 112or 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 p. 113faith 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 p. 114here 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.

p. 115Pop.

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 **Ses. 22. cap. 9. Can. 2, 3,.

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 p. 116Sacrifice Christ in the Sacrament. The Argument is Bellarmin's **De Missâ. l. 6. 1. 12. Sextum..

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 p. 11710. 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 they not obey Christs command at that Supper?

Pop.

I cannot deny that.

Prot.

Thence unavoidably follows, that this doing concerns the Communicants, as well as (if not more than) the Minister; and so it is not meant of Sacrificing Christ, but receiving of him; and really, if this Text do not, there is no other which doth, enjoyn Communicants to receive; which he that can believe, hath got a good mastery over his Faith: Besides, what Christ here commands his Apostles, I finde St. Paul commands the Corinthians, and expounds doing this by eating and drinking, 1 Cor. 11. And moreover, if the words do this, were the words which did ordain both Priest and Sacrifice, who can think that two of the Evangelists, viz. both Matthew and Mark would have omitted them in mentioning the words of p. 118Institution; and therefore this may pass. I shall only adde, that if our Divines should prove their Doctrines no better than by such wrested Scriptures and Arguments as this, we should hiss them out of the Pulpit: but I suppose you have some better Argument, therefore let me hear it.

Pop.

Consider then that irresistable Argument, Christ is a Priest, after the order of Melchisedeck. Now Melchisedeck did offer up a Sacrifice of Bread and Wine to God, Gen. 14. and thefore Christ was bound in agreement with this Type, to offer up such a Sacrifice, even his Body and blood, under the species of Bread and Wine.

Prot.

You tell me Melchisedeck offered up Bread and Wine to God; I find no such matter: it is only a dream of your own. The History is, Gen. 14. where indeed I read of his offering Bread and Wine to Abraham and his Souldiers, to refresh them (according to the custom of those times and places,) Deut. 23. 3, 4. and Iudges 8. 6. but not a word of any offering to God. It is the strangest relation of a Sacrifice that ever was; here's not one word of the Altar, or Offering, or Consecration, or the Destruction of the Sacrifice. You grant the thing sacrificed must be destroyed p. 119when it is sacrificed; I pray you how is this bread destroyed (save only by the Souldiers mouths, which you say came after the Sacrifice?)

Pop.

The bread possibly was destroyed by putting it in the furnace, and the Wine sprinkled upon the furnace, as Vasquez answers**In part. 3. Tho…e tom. 3. q. 83. dis. 220. art. 1. c. 3..

Prot.

I see it was otherwise in those dayes than now it is. If I thought my Bread would be destroyed by putting it into the Oven, I assure you, I would never put it in.

Pop.

It must be a Sacrifice that is there related; for it follows, And he was the Priest of the most High God.

Prot.

Not at all; for his being Priest evidently relates to that which follows, and he blessed him, and received Tythes of all: Besides, if Melchisedeck did here offer a Sacrifice, was Jesus Christ obliged to offer the same kind of Sacrifice that he did? for Christ was to offer up himself, Heb. 9. 10. (which none of his Types did.) Tell me first, Was Melchisedeck a Type of Christ in that action of eating Bread and Wine?

p. 120Pop.

Yes doubtless, and this was the principal thing, in respect of which Christ is called a Priest after the order of Melchisedeck, or else I say nothing.

Prot.

Then tell me, how can any man in his wits, believe that St. Paul, who spends so much of his Epistle to the Hebrews; in comparing Christ and Melchisedeck, and their Priesthood together; and who picks up the very smallest circumstances, as that he was without father, &c. Should not speak one word of this, which (if you say true) was the principal thing? Besides all this, If Melchisedeck was a type of Christ in that action, Did Christ offer Bread and Wine as Melchisedeck did?

Pop.

No, but he offered his own Body and Blood under the appearance of Bread and Wine.

Prot.

Nay, now I see there is no possibility of pleasing you; for I expected this all along, that Christ must needs have offered the same kind of Sacrifice that Melchisedeck did here: But now you forsake your own argument, and because Melchisedeck did offer Bread and Wine, Christ must not offer Bread and Wine, but something else under those appearances. Now I have heard your two principial Arguments, I hope you will hear mine also.

p. 121Pop.

Good reason I should do so.

Prot.

Then first, I argue thus, The Sacrifice of Christ was perfect, and did perfect all Believers, Heb. 10. 14. and therefore it need not, and ought not to be repeated, for the Apostle proves the imperfection of Levitical Sacrifices, because they were repeated, Heb. 10. 1, 2. Where remission of sin is, there is no more offering for sin, Heb. 10. 18. Either then remission was not obtained by his once offering, or there must be no more offering; either Christs offering upon the Cross was insufficient, or yours in the Mass is unnecessary.

Pop.

It is not properly repeated, for it is the same Sacrifice, for substance, which was offered upon the Cross, and is offered in the Mass**Cornelius à Lapide in Heb. 7. 28.Heb 7:28.

Prot.

How is it of the same kind, when you say, the one is bloody, the other unbloody; the one offered by Christ, the other by a Priest; but if it were of the same kind, so were the Levitical Sacrifices, and all had relation to Christ (as you pretend all Masses have) and yet the Apostle makes their Repetition an evidence of their Imperfection, Heb. p. 1229. 10. And moreover, the Apostle denies not only the repetition of other Sacrifices, but also of the same Sacrifice, and tells us as plainly (as man can speak) that Christ was to offer up himself but once, Heb. 9. 25, &c. whereas you wil needs over-rule the Apostle, and force Christ to offer up himself thousands of times▪

Pop.

It is true, there is but one Sacrifice of Redemption, and Expiation for Sin, and that was the Sacrifice of the Cross; but there are other Sacrifices of Application to apply that to us.

Prot.

I hope the Word, and Sacraments, and Spirit of Christ, are sufficient to apply Christs Sacrifice; must we have one Sacrifice to apply another? who ever heard of one plaister made to apply another? or a ransome paid the second time to apply the former payment? And you seem to me quite to forget your selves, to destroy the nature of your Sacrifice: for the business of a Sacrifice is oblation to God, not application to men. Besides, I have one Argument more which fully satisfies me; if the Mass be a real and proper Sacrifice, then the thing sacrificed must be really and properly destroyed?

Pop.

That I readily grant, as Bellarmin p. 123aaSacrificium verum & reale veram & realem occisionem exigit. Bell. de Missa, l. 1. c. 27. Denique vel in Missa.also doth, and indeed so it was in all the Sacrifices that ever were offered to God.

Prot.

But surely Jesus Christ is not destroyed in the Mass: Is he? And are your Priests the murderers of Christ?

Pop.

He is not so destroyed, for we tell you, it is an unbloody Sacrifice; yet he is in a manner destroy'd by the Priest's eating of him: for thereby Christ ceaseth to be where he was before, that is, in the species of Bread and Wine, and the Bread and Wine are destroyed.

Prot.

Call you this a destruction, for one to remove from one place to another, or to cease to be where he was before? this is ridiculous; and yet thisbbIbid. fantastical and mock-destruction is all which you can bring, instead of that real destruction, which you confess necessary to the very essence of a Sacrifice. And as for the Bread and Wine they were destroyed by Transubstantiation, not by the Oblation or Sacrifice which comes after it.

And now having mentioned that, let us discourse concerning your Doctrine of p. 124Transubstantiation. And first, tell me what is the Doctrine of your Church?

Pop.

That the Council of Trent will inform you, which declareth, that by Consecration the whole substance of the Bread and Wine is converted into the substance of the Body and Blood of ChristaaSess. 13. de Eucharist. cap. 4.

Prot.

How is it possible for the Bread to be converted into Christs Body, which was made already before the Bread? That Christ could turn Water into Wine was possible, but that he should turn that Water into such Wine as was in being before that change, this is impossible: but let that go: My next question is, if a Christian did actually receive Christs Body and Blood, tell me, what profit hath he by it? I cannot believe that God would work so many Miracles (as you affirm he doth in this Sacrament) to no purpose: Scripture and Reason tells me, and your Council of Trent confessethbbSess. 13. cap. 2., that the Sacrament is a feast for my Soul, and not for my Body. Is it not so? Now, what is my Soul the better for eating the very Body of Christ? When the woman cryed out to our Saviour,ccLuke 11. 27, 28.Luke 11:27Luke 11:28 Blessed is the womb that p. 125thee; Christ replies, Yea, rather, Blessed are they that hear Gods Words, and do it: nevertheless, if you can solidly prove it, I will receive it; therefore bring forth your Principal Arguments for it.

Pop.

I will do so, and our Church proves this point, especially, from two places of Scripture, John 6. and the words of Institution. I begin with the sixth Chapter of John, where our Saviour oft tells us, that the Bread which he gives is his flesh, &c.

Prot.

I have heard, that divers of your learned Doctors confess this Chapter speaks not of the Sacrament: Is it so?

Pop.

I will not dissemble with you. That was the opinion of Biel aaIn Canone Missae., Cardinal Cusanus bbEp. 7. ad Bohemos., Cajetan, ccIn Aquin par. 3. qu. 80. art. 8., and Tapperus ddArtic. Lovan. 15., and divers others.

Prot.

Certainly, This Argument is not likely to convince a Protestant which could not satisfie your own ablest Schollars. But I will not press that farther. Tell me then, do you judge that Christ speaks here of a bodily eating and drinking of his very Flesh and Blood?

Pop.

We do so.

Prot.

I confess some of the Antient; p. 126were of your mind, I mean the Jews. But with submission, I am rather of Christs Opinion, who plainly destroys that gross and carnal sense, telling them, it is the Spirit that quickneth, the Flesh profits nothing, vers. 63. Again, doth not Christ press this as a necessary, and present duty, upon all the Jews that then heard him?

Pop.

That must be granted.

Prot.

Then certainly Christ speaks not of the Sacrament which was not then instituted, and therefore they could not partake of it. I demand further, is this Sacrament of such efficacy, that all that receive it are saved; and of such necessity, that all that do not take it are damned?

Pop.

No, our Church utterly condemns both those Opinions.

Port:

But this eating of Christs Flesh is such, that Christ saith, all that eat it are saved, v. 24. and all that do not eat it are damned, v. 53. Therefore surely he speaks not of a Sacramental eating: besides the whole Laity are utterly undone, if your sense of this Chapter be true; for I find that drinking of Christs Blood is no less necessary to life eternal, than eating of his Flesh; and therefore woe to them to whom you do not allow to drink of the Cup in the Sacrament. I am told this objection p. 127is so considerable, that it forced divers of your Doctors (sore against their will) to forsake this Argument; and therefore this will not do your work: but I presume you have better Arguments.

Pop.

We have so. I shall urge but one, which is of its self sufficient, from the plain words of Institution, This is my Body. Methinks the very hearing of them read, should convince you, if you would take the words in their plain and proper sense, and not devise I know not what Figures and Tropes.

Prot.

If it were true that Christ did turn the Bread into his Body by saying these words, This is my Body, yet how doth it follow, that the Priest by reciting these words, worketh the same effect, any more than a Priest, every time he reads those words, Let there be light, doth make light; because God did make it by those words: or than he raiseth a dead man, every time he reads those words of Christ, Lazarus, come forth. Moreover, I have heard that divers of your most learned Doctors confess, that this place doth not, nor indeed, any other place of Scripture, prove Transubstantiation. I have heard three Cardinals named, viz. Cajetan aaIn 3. Thomae qu. 75. art. 1.and our Bishop p. 128of Rochester bbContra Captiv. Babyl. cap. 10.and Cameracensis ccIn 4. Sentent. qu. 6. lit. f., and divers famous Schoolmen, as Scotus and Biel, of whom this is known, and Durandus ddIn 4. Distinc. 11. q 4. art. 14., and Ocham eeIn 4. q. 6., and Melchior Canus ffLoc. com. l 3. c. 3., and Vasquez ggTom. 3. in 3. dis. 180. c. 5., and the great Cardinal Perron professeth, that he believes Transubstantiation, not by vertue of any necessary consequence, or reason, alledged by their Doctors; but by the words of Christ, as they are expounded by Tradition hhTraitiè p. 793.: and Bellarmin himself confesseth, This opinion is not improbable iiDe Euchar. l. 3. c. 23.. Methinks so many learned mens forsaking this Argument (who doubtless would have been right glad if it had been solid, and imployed all their wits to search out the strength of it) is to me a convincing evidence of its weakness and vanity, as also of the badness of your Cause, that can find no better Argument; yet I am willing to hear what you can say.

Pop.

This then I say, that these words, This is my Body, are to be taken in their proper, and not in a figurative sense: for surely Christ would speak plainly to the understanding of his Disciples, especially when p. 129he was so near his Death, and making his last Will and Testament, and instituting the Sacrament; in such cases men use to speek plainly.

Prot.

I readily grant that Christ did speak plainly and intelligibly: But tell me, is not that plain enough, when we take the words as they are commonly used in Scripture?

Pop.

I must needs grant that; but this is not the Present case.

Prot.

But it is; for we can give you scores of instances, as you very well know where the word Is, is so taken: nor is any thing more frequent in Scripture, the seven kine, and so the seven ears of corn, are seven years, Gen. 4. 12, 18. the Stars are the Angels of the Churches, Rev. 1. 20. the seven heads are seven Mountains, Rev. 17. 9. So Christ saith, I AM the way, the door, &c. So Zach. 5. 7, 8. This woman is wickedness; and a thousand such expressions. How do you understand these places?

Pop.

The sense is plain, they signifie those things; the Stars signifie the Angels, and so for the rest.

Prot.

Then certainly we have the advantage of you in this point, for we take is for signifies, (as you confess it is commonly taken) nor have the Jews (as I have been assured by learned men) any proper p. 130word for signifie (as the Greeks and Lutines have) but generally express it in this manner: But you must take it (if the Particle this denote the Bread, as I shall plainly prove it doth) for is converted into; a sense which you cannot give one example of in all Scripture. I see it was not without reason that you took the interpretation of Scripture into the Churches hands▪ for if you had left it in Gods hands, and left one Scripture to do that friendly office to expound another, you had certainly lost an Article of your Faith: And whereas you say that Christ would speak so as the Disciples might understand him, that sufficiently shews, that yours is not the true sense; for they could never have understood it, and would doubtless have been as much puzled then, as all the World now is, to apprehend that the body of Christ was contained under the species of Bread and Wine, invisibly and undiscoverably, after the manner of a Spirit, to conceive of a body without bigness, long without length, broad without breadth, broken whilest it remains whole (all which you profess to believe.) This is to turn Christs plain speech into a bundle of Riddles; and to call this the plain sense of the words which is (as you see) a heap of Figures, p. 131is a greater figure than all the rest; but they did well enough understand the words in our sense, because they were well read in Scripture, wherein, as you grant, that sense of the words is usual.

Pop.

If we grant it is used so in other cases, yet not in Sacramental Texts, for there Christ would speak properly.

Prot.

Yes, It is usual even in the Sacraments; Is not Circumcision called the Covenant? This is my Covenant, Gen. 17. 10. though proprerly it was not the Covenant, but the Seal of it, Rom. 4. 11. Is not the Lamb called the Lords Passeover? Exod. 12. though all men knew it was not the Lamb, nor the ceremony of eating it, which was or could be properly the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites; thus 1 Cor. 10. The Rock (that followed the Israelites) is Christ, though it was so only Figuratively and Sacramentally. Moreover, I am told, that divers of your own brethren acknowledge figures here. Tapperus saith, It is not inconvenient to admit of Tropes here, provided they be such as do not exclude the true presence of Christs body aaArtic. Lovan, 13.. And that the Bishop of Eureux owns three Figures in the words of this SacramentbbRepet. 3. c. 3.; and p. 132that Suarez ccIn Tom. 3. dis. 60. sect. 2., Bellarmine ddDe Eucharistia, l. 1. c. 11., and divers others confess as much.

Pop.

It is true, they do say so.

Prot.

Besides, you cannot think strange, if there be Figures in the first part, This is my Body, since it is most apparent there are Figures in the last part, This is the New Testament in my bloud. Here are not one, but divers Figures in it. The Cup you grant is taken for the liquor in it, there is one figure: The Wine in the Cup is taken for the Bloud, which was not in the Cup; there is a strange figure indeed (Logicians call it Non-sense.) This Cup, or Wine, or Bloud (if you please) is the New Testament or Covenant; whereas it was only the Seal of the New Testament, as is most manifest, because it is called, The Bloud of the New Testament, and the New Testament in my Bloud. Besides other strange figures, which I shall have occasion to speak to by and by. Here is figure upon figure, and yet you have the impudence to reproach us for putting in but one figure, which you confess to be very frequent. Wonder O p. 133Heavens, and judge O Earth, whether these men do not strain at Gnats, and swallow Camels! And nothing doth more confirm the truth in this point, than to consider into what absurdities this Doctrine hath forced you, even to say, that the Bloud of Christ is properly the Covenant or Testament **Bel. de Euch. l. 1. c. 11.: And that there are two sorts of Christs Bloud, the one in the Cup, the other shed on the Cross aaDe Euch. l. 1. c. 11. Ad quartam dico.: And that the Bloud of Christ is shed in the Sacrament, and yet never stirreth out of the veins: Did ever God or man speak of such bloud-shed? therefore for shame never charge us with understanding this Text figuratively. But again, let me ask you, Will you affirm that these words, This is my body, are to be taken properly? Doth your Church understand them so?

Pop.

Yes surely, or else we do ill to reproach you for taking them improperly.

Prot.

The words are not true in a proper sense, nor indeed do you understand them so.

Pop.

Make that good, and I must give up this cause for ever.

Prot.

First, for the word this, it is most p. 134evident that it is meant of Bread: It is impossible for words to express any thing more plainly, than that by this, is meant the Bread. It is said expresly, that Christ took Bread and brake it, and gave it, and said, Take eat, THIS is my Body. Where this necessarily relates to that which Christ, took, and brake, and gave. After Christ came the Apostles, and particularly Saint Paul, and he expounds the mind of Christ (and I hope you do not think he was so bad an Expositor, that his Comment was harder than the Text) and he tells us thrice in a breath that it is Bread, 1 Cor. 11. 26. As oft as you eat this Bread, and whosoever shall eat this Bread, and so let him eat of that Bread. And again, 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Bread which we break, is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ? And the participation of the Sacrament is called, breaking of Bread, Acts 2. 46. & 20. 7. which your Authors undertand of the Sacrament: and besides this, whatever it is, is broken, as it follows; but you dare not say, Christs Body is broken. Now then, since it is most evident, that this is meant of the Bread, I hope, you will not say, this is properly Christs Body.

p. 135Pop.

No: We are not so absurd to say, this Bread is Christs body, for that is false and against common sense as Bellarmine well saithaaDe Eucharist, l. 3. c. 19..

Prot.

What then do you mean by the word this?

Pop.

By This, I understand neither the Bread nor Christs Body, but in general this substance which is contained under this species bbBellarm. de Eucharist. l. 3. c. 19..

Prot.

What do you mean by that? I pray you tell me, Do you believe that there are any more substances under those species, besides the Bread first, and afterward the 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?

p. 136Pop.

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; **1 Place de la messe.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.

p. 137Prot.

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 eyewitnesses, S. Luke 1. 1, 2. and St. Johns p. 138what 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 p. 139of 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.aaA Popish Book, called, Scripture mistaken, p. 276.

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 p. 140to 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.

p. 141Prot.

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 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 p. 142devised. 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.

p. 143Prot.

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 affirmsaaSum. qu. 80. art. 3.. 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; bbCan. 39. Glossa in Can. c. 2. De Consecratione.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.

p. 144Pop.

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 p. 145opposite, 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 p. 146places 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 p. 147and 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 (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 p. 148outward element or sign, and the inward grace signified by it; and this I am told your Doctors acknowledgeaaBell. de Sacramentis in genere, lib. 1. c. 9. &c. 11. 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.bbDe invocat.

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.ccsanct. lib. 1. c. 18. He confessed likewise to Isaac Casaubone, (as he told our Bishop Andrews) that he himself never prayed to Saints, p. 149but only as he went in Procession that is for form sake. Andr. in Opusc. Posthuma, and that Salm…ron, and Cotton, aaInstit. 1. Book.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 CustomebbBeatit. sanctorum. l. 1. c. 8 sect. ult..

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 p. 150trouble, 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, p. 151Col. 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 p. 152Living 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 p. 153condemned 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-bookaaQuorum meritis precibusque rogamus. they help you by their Merits, as well as by their Prayers. Bellarmine affirmeth that the Saints in some sort are our Redeemers: bbDe Indulgentiis, l. 1. c. 4.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▪ p. 154Mary) 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; ccIn Martiali, Ann. 1493.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? ddIn Canone Missae sect. 80.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?eeIn 1 Tim. 2. dis. 8. p. 467.1 Tim 2 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;ffConcord. Evang. Tom. 1. l. 6. c. 11. 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 p. 155Milk, or the Sons bloud ggIn Amphitheatro honoris.. 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 believ…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 p. 156what 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.

p. 157Pop.

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**Against Perkins of Images..

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 p. 158Cherubims 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 from his House and presence: p. 159and to conclude this, I pray you tell me, Is it lawful to worship every place where God is in a special manner present?

Pop.

I conceive it is.

Prot.

Then it is lawful to worship every religious man in the World; It is true, your great Vasquez professeth, that a man may worship a Stone, or a Straw, or any creature where God is, for God is there according to this essence.aaDe adoratione l. 3. dis. 3. c. 2. p, 455, & 458, By which Argument it seems Christ might have worshipped the Devil; for the essence of God being every-where, must needs be in him. But what, I pray you, is your other Argument?

Pop.

The honour of God requires the worship of his Images, for that redounds to God; as if I honour a Prince, I will honour his Picture; and we shew our reverence to the King in being uncovered in his Presence Chamber, though the King be not there.

Prot.

Tell me, I pray you, If a King forbid any Pictures of himself to be made, or set up; if any over-officious Subject should, notwithstanding this, set up the Kings Picture, pretending to do it in respect to the King; would the King esteem himself honoured or dishonoured by it?

p. 160Pop.

In that case certainly the King is dishonoured, when his commands are broken, and his Authority despised.

Prot.

You say right. And so God will give you little thanks for breaking his Commands, upon pretence of his Service. If a King require such reverence to be given to his Presence-Chamber, it is fit that he should be obeyed (seeing it is only a civil, and not a religious respect:) and if God forbid any such reverence, any Religious worship should be given to any graven Images, good reason his prohibition too should be obeyed. You talk of honouring God, but for the way or means of honouring God, whether it be most reasonable to take an estimate from the Rules and Practices of all former Idolaters (who have all justified their Idolatry from this pretence of honouring God) or from the Commands of Gods, Word, and the practices of the godly Jews before Christ, and godly Christians, and Fathers, for some hundreds of years after Christ (who are all known to detest all manner of Worship of Images)aaSee Dallaeus de Imaginibus. I leave to any indifferent person to judge: besides, if you will needs testifie your respect to God, by honouring his Images, p. 161what a madness is it to confine this honour to dead Images of Wood or Stone, and to deny it to his Saints upon earth, who are his living, and far more noble and express Images.

Pop.

Since you scorn my Arguments, for the Worship of Images, let me hear your Arguments against it?

Prot.

My first Argument is this, the holy Scripture condemns it as Idolatry.

Pop.

We have Images in our Churches only as remembrancers (to put us in mind of worthy and excellent persons) but not as objects of Worship.

Prot.

No friend, it is not that time of day: you cannot now deceive us with such foolish excuses, for your Councils of Nice and Trent do both command the Worshipping of Images, and all your Authors plead for this.

Pop.

Well, but this I am sure is true, we do not worship the Images, but only God by them, and in them; we worship them only as representations of God or Christ, &c. and the honour passeth from them to God.

Prot.

That cannot acquit you, neither before God nor man. Micah and his Mother were guilty of Idolatry, yet the silver was dedicated to the Lord (Jehovah) to make a graven Image, Judg. 17. 3. also Iudg. 18. p. 1625, 6. And the Israelites are charged with Idolatry in the worshiping of the Golden Calf, Acts 7. 41. 1 Cor. 10. 7. And yet they could not be so brutish, as to think that Golden Calf, which they brought out of Egypt in their ear-rings, was that God which brought them out of Egypt with strong hand.

Pop.

But they said, These be thy gods O Israel, which brought thee up out of the Land of Egypt.

Prot.

You use also to call an Image by the name of him whom it represents; you commonly say, this is the blessed Virgin, or S. Matthew, &c. when you mean, 'tis only their Image, and so it cannot be strange to you, that they express themselves in the same manner. Besides Aaron himself proclaims the feast of the Calf in these words, Tomorrow is a feast to Iehovah. The Heathens also excused their Idolatry by this very pretence. So Celsus bbLib. 7. Contra Celsum. Arnobius lib. 6. Lactant l. 2. c. 2. Eusebius de preparatione Evangelicâ, lib. 3. & lib. 4. in Praefat.and other said (as the antient Fathers tell us) We do not worship the Images of Gold or Brass, &c. as believing them to be gods; but we worship the gods in them, and by them.

p. 163Pop.

They worshiped wicked Men; but we worship only Holy Men, and the Friends of God, as such, and because they are such, and their Images, and therefore are not guilty of Idolatry.

Prot.

Then Saint Peter, Acts 10. and the Angel, Rev. 22. and Saint Paul, Acts 14. might have received that adoration (as being the friends of God) which they so utterly rejected. Moses was the friend of God, yet God hid away his body, lest the Israelites should worship him. And I have heard that the Fathers charged the Collyridians with Idolatry, for worshiping of the Virgin Mary; ccEpiphanius Haeresi. 97. per totum.and the Arrians for worshipping Christ, whom they believed to be but a creature (though all agreed they were the friends of God.) I suppose if any man should attempt to give the honour, proper to the King, to his Brother, or Friend, this would not excuse them from Treason; nor will it excuse any Adulteress that she lay with her Husbands dearest Friend or Relation. Again, it matters not much to this point, for what reason you worship Images: the only question is, whether you do worship Images? for the very doing of that (whatsoever p. 164pretences it may have) is Idolatry. Besides, if you worshipped God alone, and not the Image, your excuse would have some colour; but it is most evident, that you worship not only God, but the Image too. I am told that your own Azorius affirms, that it is the constant opinion of your Divines, that the Image is to be honored, or worshipped, with the same honour and worship which is given to him whose Image it is. aaLib. 9. Instit. mor. c. 6. art 3.And that Cajetan bbIn Thom. part. 3. qu. 25. art. 3.and Gregory de Valentia, ccTom. 3. Disp. 6. qu. 11. punct. 6.and Costerus ddEnchirid. p. 438.affirm as much. And that your Bellarmin expresly disputes for this, that Images are not only to be worshipped as they are exemplars, but also properly and by themselves, so as the worship may be terminated in them. eeDe Imag. l. 2. c. 21. prop. 1.Are these things true?

Pop.

I cannot deny but they are.

Prot.

Then I see the vanity of your pretences, and that you only seek to raise a mist before the eyes of ignorant people; for in truth you worship the Image it self, though happily not for its self: as if a Heathen Emperor commanded his Subjects Religiously to Worship such a Vice-gerent p. 165of his; no man, who did worship that Vice-gerent, could deny that he worshipped him, though he did it only for the Emperours sake. Tell me, I pray you, do you not hold, that there are two kinds of Religious Worship; namely, absolute, (which you give to God or the Saints) and relative, (which you give to their Images)?

Pop.

I must own it.

Prot.

Then it is horrible impudence to say, you do not give worship to the Images, since you give one of these two kinds unto them, and unto them only: besides, if all you say were true, this would not acquit you from Idolatry; for your Church professeth and commandeth the Worship of the Images of Saints, as well as of God and Christ; and since it is Idolatry to give Divine Honour to any creature (as I before proved) you are no less guilty in giving it to the Saints themselves, than to their Images, and so you are double-dy'd Idolaters.

My second Argument is taken from the second Commandment, Thou shalt not make any graven Image.

But first, I pray you, tell me true, hath your Church left out this second Commandment in divers of her Breviaries and p. 166Offices of Prayer, or do our Ministers slander them? I hear; that In the Hours of our Lady, Printed at Paris, An 1611. The Commandments of the first Table are set down in these words, and no other.

1. Commandment.

I am the Lord thy God, thou shalt not have nor worship any other God but me.

2. Commandment.

Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain.