Dialogue Between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant, Dialogue · Part · Commandment 3

Dialogue Between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant · Dialogue · Part · Commandment 3

p. 1663. Commandment.

Remember to keep holy the Sabbath Day and Feasts.

And that the Council of Ausburg, Ann. 1548. delivering the Commandments in Dutch for the People, leave out the mention of Images; and, that their cheat might not be discovered, that the people might have their full number, they make use of the mistake of one of the Fathers, and divide the last Command into two, against Sense and Reason, and the practice of the whole ancient Church. Are these things so?

Pop.

It is true, it is left out in some of our Books, but we leave it in, in all Bibles, and divers of our Catechisms.

Prot.

Very well, I see you had wit in your anger; I commend your discretion, p. 167that you did not your work so grosly, that all the world should cry shame of you: But that you blotted it out in any, is an evidence of your guilt. but what say you to this Argument?

Pop.

Then my first answer is, That this Command was peculiar to the Iews, who were most prone to Idolatry**Vasquez de adoratione..

Prot.

This is not true. It sufficiently appears that the Gentiles were under the obligation of this Law, from those punishments which God inflicted upon them for their transgression or breach of it by Idolatry, Rom. 1. But where there is no Law, there is no transgression. Besides, Christ tell, us, He came not to destroy the Law, (the Moral Law) but to fulfil it, Mat. 5. 17. Belike, you are not of his mind; and dare you say the Jews, as soon they believed in Christ, were discharged from this command, and allowed to worship the Images which that command forbad?

Pop.

I will not say so; but I have a second Answer; The thing prohibited here is not Images, (which are representations of real things) as you falsly render it, but Idols, which are the Images of false gods, p. 168which are not, and never were in the world.

Prot.

The Text its self is full against you; for the Images there prohibited, are not said to be the Images of the false gods of the Heathens (whereof many never had any being) but the Images of any thing in heaven or earth, &c. Moreover, divers of the Heathen gods were men whom they deified. I hope their Pictures were Pictures of real things, yet these are Idols.

Pop.

Though they really were Men, yet their pictures were made to represent them as gods, and such they were not really, and therefore were Idols.

Prot.

The learned Heathens knew (as well as you and I do) that Iupiter, and Mars, and Mercury, and the rest, were meer Men, (and they smiled at the ignorance of their Vulgar, that thought otherwise) only they thought of them just as you do of the Saints, that the great God had put some of his honour upon them, and therefore they might worship them; you cannot be so silly to think, the learned Heathens thought Augustus was a god really, when he was dead; yet their worship of his Image was Idolatry. And they that worshipped the Image of Caligula, (while he lived) were not so sottish p. 169to take him for a god (whom they knew to be a foolish and wicked man) yet I hope you will not excuse them from Idolatry. But further, as the Jews did universally understand this to be a prohibition of all manner of Images; so all the Prophets, and Christ, and the Apostles were so far from reproving them (which they would have done, if it had been an Error) that they every where strengthen them in this opinion, by declaiming against all worship of Images, without any distinction. And tell me, I pray you, if any Jew had at that time made (for instance) an Image of the Sun not looking on it as God, but as a glorious creature of God, and therefore fit to be religiously worshipped (as you think of the Saints and Angels) and had bowed down to it and worshipped it: Do you think he had not broken this Law?

Pop.

I dare not deny but he had broken it.

Prot.

Yet this had been no Idol, but an Image, according to your sense of it. Besides, I find that all manner of Images are forbidden, Lev. 26. 1. howsoever, to me you seem to venture your salvation upon a nice point, for the Hebrew word is neither Image nor Idol, but Pesel, as a Divine p. 170told me; and this, I understand is diversly translated; some render it an Image, others an Idol. Now you ventrue your soul upon it, that the last is the only true Translation, which is a dreadful hazard; because it is otherwise rendred, not only by Protestants, but by the most and best ancient interpreters**Aquila, Symmachus, Theodotion, Sic Iosephus foreign Philo foreign., even those whom your Vulgar Translation very oft follows in other places. These render it not an Idol, but a graven Image; and the Seventy Interpreters (I am assured) po promiscuously render the word sometimes an Idol, sometimes a graven Image: Nay, more than this, that it may appear how desperately our cause is, I am informed your own Vulgar Translation (from which you are obliged not to swerve) doth frequently render it not Idol, but a graven Image (Sculptile) particularly in Exod 20. 4. Levit. 26. 1. and Deut. 4. 16, 25. and 5. 8. Are these things so?

Pop.

I cannot deny it, for the Authors themselves would confute me; But one thing I have to say, you must understand one Scripture so as to agree with another: Now I find God himself allows and p. 171prescribes some Images, as those of the Cherubims; either then he contradicts himself, or he doth not forbid all Images, but Idols only.

Prot.

Though I might say, God may make an exception to some of his Laws, when no man can (as in the case of Abraham's offering up Isaac, and the Israelites, spoiling the Aegyptians of their Jewels) yet I need no other answer but this; I directly deny that here is any contradiction at all: For our question is not about the making of Images (whether by Gods order or Mans) but about the worshipping of them. And albeit there were such Images made, yet they were not made to be worshipped, as I before proved; nor was there any danger the people should worship them, because they were not admitted to see them. But I pray you answer me this one question, I am told that divers of your own Authors confess, that the Jews indeed were; though Christians are not forbidden the use of Images by this command. Is it so?

Pop.

These indeed are the words of our famous Vasquez, after he hath mentioned divers Authors for the contrary opinion, There are (saith he) other Authors, neither fewer, nor inferiour to them, who are p. 172of the contrary opinion, which to me alwayes seemed most probable, to wit, that all the use of Images is here forbidden to the JewsaaDe Adorat. l. 2. des. 4. c. 2., and for this he quotes many of our approved Authors; and Salmeron saith no less bbIn Rom. dis. 29. sect. prima….

Prot.

And you need say no more, for then all these Authors thought your distinction of Image and Idol frivolous, and that the word P…sel is meant of any Images, and not of Idols only, as you foolishly distinguish, and so your principal refuge is lost, and you are convicted Idolaters, and then, if you repent not, you know where your portion will be. Go now and brag of the safeness of your Religion.

I see how little it is that you can say for your Worship of the Dead (Saints and their Images) let me hear whether you have any better Arguments for your Prayers for the Dead and Purgatory.

Pop.

I am glad you mention that, since all your Divines do agree that Prayer for the Dead was the practice of the Antient Church and Fathers.

Prot.

If that be true, it is not sufficient for your purpose, for I am fully satisfied p. 173that the Fathers were not infallible, and your own greatest Doctors think so too**See Nullity. c. 3.. But Besides, I am told that their Prayers for the dead were quite of another nature than yours, and for other purposes, and they were grounded upon some private opinions of theirs, which you disown; for they prayed not only for those whom you suppose to be in Purgatory, but for those who (you confess) many of them never did come there: they pray for all the Saints from the righteous Abel to this day; they pray for all their Ancestors, Patriarchs, Prophets, and Martyrs, as I have heard it in some of their Liturgies. Is it so?

Pop.

It is so.

Prot.

I pray you tell me, what do you pray for the Dead?

Pop.

We pray that God would deliver them from those dreadful pains of Purgatory.

Prot.

Then if there be no Purgatory, the foundation of your Prayers for the dead is gone.

Pop.

I grant it.

Prot.

Then let us discourse of the most fundamental point, (as we have hitherto done) the rest will fall of course. Therefore.

p. 178First, I pray tell me your opinion concerning Purgatory.

Pop.

Our Doctrine in brief is this, That though God freely gives, to all that are truly penitent, forgiveness of their sins, and freedom from eternal death; yet since they have much venial sin and corruption in them, in which oft-times they die: therefore it is necessary that they should, for the expiation of those sins, and for the satisfaction of Gods Justice, either do or suffer, such Penances, Fastings, Prayers, &c. as are enjoyned them here, or (where those are not sufficient) suffer the pains of Purgatorie.

Prot.

I understand your Doctrine; now let me hear two of your strongest Arguments to prove it: I hear that Bellarmin threatens us, that whosoever doth not believe Purgatory, shall be tormented in Hell aaBel. de Purgat. l. 1. c. ult.Is it true?

Pop.

He doth say so, and I am of his mind.

Prot.

Then I hope you have very clear Arguments for it, because you lay so great a stress upon it. But first, I have heard that this Doctrine of Purgatory is confessed by divers of your own Brethren p. 175to be but a new Doctrine. Is it so?

Pop.

I will not dissemble with you, several of our Doctors have unadvisedly blurted out such expressions as these: our famous English Martyr Fisher Bishop of Rochester confesseth, That Purgatory was for a long time unknown, and either never or very seldom mentioned among the Antient FathersbbIn consut. Luther. art. 18. and Alphonsus de Castro saith, That many things are known to us, of which the Antient Writers were altogether ignorantccadv. hareses … 12. tit. Purgat. f. 258. and amongst them he reckons Purgatory, which (saith he) the Greek Writers mentioned not, and even to this day it is not believed by the Greek Church.

Prot.

I suppose, you do not think all these Antient Fathers were damned.

Pop.

No, God forbid, for many of them were glorious Confessors and Martyrs.

Prot.

Then I see Bellarmines threats are not very formidable. But to let this pass, How do you prove this Doctrine?

Pop.

From plain Scripture, 1. From Mat. 12. 32. Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven p. 176him neither in this world, neither in the world to come. Which clearly implies, that some sins not forgiven in this world, are forgiven in the next, and that must be in Purgatory.

Prot.

I pray you tell me, what sins are they which are forgiven in Purgatory?

Pop.

Not great and mortal, but small and venial sins, as we all agree.

Prot.

Is not blasphemy against the Son of Man a mortal sin?

Pop.

Yes doubtless, But what of that?

Prot.

If this Text proves the pardon of any sins, it proves the pardon of that sin no less than others, because the sin against the Holy Ghost is here spoken of as the only sin which is unpardonable in both worlds: Besides, Christ speaks thus in opposition to a corrupt opinion, which, I have heard, now is, and then was rife among the Jews, to wit, that divers of their sins were pardoned after this life, and that this was one of their antient Prayers, Let my death be the expiation of all my sins: for they thought the sufferings of this life and death, the last of them, did free them from the punishments of the other life: And I have heard that it was one of their sayings, That every Israelite hath a part in the future life: Are these things so?

p. 177Pop.

To deal freely with you. This is not only true, but it is one of our Arguments for Purgatory, that Jason the Cyrenian (who lived long before Christs time) expresly affirms, that it is profitable to pray for the dead, that their sins may be pardoned, 2 Mac. 12.

Prot.

I think that is impertinently alledged for Purgatory: for the sin those men died in, was a mortal sin, (as you confess) and therefore not pardonable in Purgatory. But I thank you for this; for now I am satisfied that it was an antient opinion among the Iews, and so Christ had just occasion to use this expression, to confute that vain expectation of theirs. But besides, the meaning of this phrase, Shall not be forgiven, is, that it shall be punished in both Worlds: this is a frequent phrase in Scripture. Thus Exod. 20. 7. God will not hold him guiltless, that is, he will severely punish: To accept persons in judgment is not good, that is, is very bad; The father of a fool rejoyceth not, that is, grieveth much. I hear S. Chrysostome expounds it thus**In locum., and a greater than he, S. Mark 3. 29. He hath never forgiveness, but is in danger of eternal damnation.

p. 178Besides all this, we all agree that there is a kind of forgiveness of sin after this life, and at the Day of Judgment, Acts 3. 19. Repent, that your sins may be blotted out, when the times of refreshing shall come from the presence of the Lord; for then indeed the pardon of sin is compleated and fully manifested. And it is a common phrase in Scripture to speak of a thing as done, when it is only declared and manifested, as the Apostle saith, those words, Psal. 2. This day have I begotten thee, were fulfilled in Christs Resurrection, Act. 13. because that declared him to be the only begotten Son o God, as S. Paul saith, Rom. 1. 4.

To which I might add, that by the World to come, Christ may very probably understand the time of the New Testament, which begun at Christs death. The Iews (I hear) oft use this expression of the days of the Messias. Nay, the Apostle himself doth so, Heb. 2. 5. This also I have read, that the Iews did generally expect a more plentiful and glorious remission of sins at that time, and so Christs meaning may be this, That this blasphemy shall not be forgiven, neither in that time nor state of the Church, (in which Christ then was) nor in the time of the Gospel p. 179and Kingdom of the Messias which began at his death (as I said) when, though there should be many great sins and sinners pardoned (as we see there were) yet this should not. I hope you will not brag much of your Argument from this place, let me hear your other place.

Pop.

My second Argument is from, 1 Cor. 3. 15. He shall be saved, yet so as by fire, that is, the fire of Purgatory.

Prot.

It seems you understand this fire properly, which is something strange when the whole place is metaphorical, or figurative; The Gold and Silver, Hay and Stubble, all are metaphorical, and so doubtless is the fire. I hear your Bellarmin confesseth, that the fire mentioned, v. 13. The fire shall try every mans work, is not meant of Purgatory.

Pop.

He doth indeed say so.

Prot.

That is enough to overthrow this Argument, for it is most evident that the fire, vers. 13. and 15. is one and the same. And this Fire cannot be Purgatory, 1. Because it is the Fire of the Day of Judgement, when you confess Purgatory ends. ddBell. de Purg. l. 2. c. 9. …. Iam. vero.The time of the last Judgement is called the Day by way of eminency, Heb. p. 18010. 25. 2 Tim. 1: 12. 18. and 4. 8. and 1 Thess. 5. 4. And the day of revelation or manifestation of all things, (because then all mens works will be manifested) and the day wherein Christ will come in flaming fire. 2 This fire burns the works of men, only their Hay and Stubble, not their persons, as your Purgatory doth. 3 This fire tries both good and bad. All pass through it. The Gold and Silver is in this fire, no less than the Hay and Stubble.

Pop.

How then, I pray you, do you understand this place?

Prot.

It is a Metaphor, or Figurative way of speaking, frequent in Scripture, and common use. The delivered Jews are said to be as a fire brand pluckt out of the burning, Amos 4. 11. Zach. 3. 2. So here, he shall be saved so as by fire, that is, not without difficulty of loss, and possibly some momentany shame: but howsoever the fire shall burn up his work, and he shall lose that part of his reward. Now I have heard your Arguments, I hope you will hear m…ne.

Pop.

I am ready to do that.

Prot.

I shall urge only two.

First, Christ hath fully paid our debt, and satisfied Gods Justice for all our offences; p. 181and therefore it were injustice in God to require the payment of any part of that debt in Purgatory. Christ is a compleat Saviour, His blood cleanseth us from all sin, 1 Joh. 1. 7. He is able (and sure he is no less willing) to save to the uttermost, those that come to him, Heb. 7. 25. God laid all our sins upon him, Isa. 53. and he bare them all in his body, 1 Pet. 2. 24. In short, either you make Christ but an half Saviour and believers wash away part of their own guilt; or if Christ hath fully washed away their guilt, you make god both unmerciful, and unjust, and untrue too; so dreadfully to punish innocent persons, and those too his own children (as you acknowledge) whom he declares he hath freely and fully pardoned; and to do this for sins, which you confess venial, and such as do not deserve the loss of Gods favour, and that without any necessity, This is not the act of a Father, especially so tender a Father as God is.

Pop.

Christ is a sufficient Saviour, and hath fully satisfied, but his satisfaction is applied to us by the pains of Purgatory.

Prot.

If Purgatory only apply Christs satisfaction to us, then he satisfied for our temporal as well as our eternal punishments; and if he did so, surely he did p. 182it fully, or not at all. Besides, you need not trouble your heads about the application; God hath provided for us more comfortable means of application, on his part, the Word, Sacraments, and Spirit; on our parts, Faith. You may keep Purgatory for your own use, it is not fit you should be pestered with any Hereticks there. But was ever such an application of Gods Grace heard of since the World began; that God should apply his Mercy, and the Grace of Christ Jesus, by such exquisite torments? This is (as one truly saith) as if a man should apply Physick by poison, or apply the light of the Sun, by putting out our eyes. God deliver us from such appliers. This is as if a Prince should pretend a free pardon to a Malefactor, and apply it by putting him upon the Rack.

Pop.

Though Christ made satisfaction for the guilt of mortal sins, and eternal punishment, yet he did not for venial sins, nor temporal punishment; and therefore they must purge out those themselves in Purgatory.

Prot.

If it were true that you say, yet there is no need of Purgatory; for this purging worke may be done by temporal afflictions in this life. The truth is, you add sin, to sin, and excuse one errour with another. But what do you mean by venial sins?

p. 183Pop.

We mean such smaller sins as do not exclude a man from Gods favour, nor from Heaven.

Prot.

Then surely you have very slight thoughts of sin, of God, and of his Law, that can so judge of such an horrid evil as Sin. Scripture fully condemns this Doctrine. It tells me that the wages of sin (all sin, without any difference) is death, even that death which is opposite to eternal life, Rom. 6. 23. that He that shall break the least of Gods commands, and teach men so, (though peradventure he do it ignorantly and so according to your opinion, it is a venial sin) shall be called the least in the Kingdom of Heaven; that is, he shall have no portion there. It tells me, Cursed is every one that continueth not in all things written in the Book of the Law to do them, Gal. 3. 10. And he speaks of that curse which Christ underwent for us, and redeemed us from. It tells me, that for every idle word that men shall speak, they shall give an account thereof in the Day of Iudgment, (and by such words, if not repented of, they shall be condemned) Mat. 12. 36, 37. So now your foundation, and one of the Pillars of Purgatory is gone. And as for your other fansie, that Christ did not satisfie for our temporal punishments, I pray you tell me, p. 184did not Christ suffer temporal afflictions?

Pop.

Yes doubtless, the whole Gospel is full of such sufferings.

Prot.

Surely all that Christ suffered, he suffered for us, both in our stead, and for our good. He was cut off, not for himself, (but for our sins) Dan. 9. 25. It was for our sakes that he bare that temporal part of the curse, to be hanged on a Tree; and all that pain and shame was but a temporal punishment, Gal. 3. 13. I read, Isa. 53. that Christ bore our griefs, and carried our sorrows, v. 4. which was not only accomplished in this, that he bare the guilt of our sins, as S. Peter expounds it, 1 Pet. 2. 24. but also in this, that he delivered them from sicknesses and temporal afflictions, as St. Matthew expounds it, Mat. 8. 16, 17. and both these consist well together, since Christ removed both sin the cause, and affliction the effect of it.

Pop.

If Christ had satisfied for our temporal punishments, then Believers should be free from all pains, and loss, and death, which it is apparent they are not; and therefore notwithstanding the fulness of Christs satisfaction, they may be liable to pains in Purgatory as well as in this life.

Prot.

To this I answer three things. First, Your inference from the pains of p. 185this life to the torments of Purgatory is weak, and false. I may, and must believe, that God afflicts his people here, because Scripture and Experience put it out of doubt. But that Cod will punish his people in Purgatory after this life, no Scripture affirms. You that can multiply your instances of the sufferings of Believers in this life, and can tell us of Adam, and David, and Solomon, and many others, have not to this day been able (though often urged) to produce one instance of the sufferings of any one Believer, after this life (which one consideration is sufficient to overthrow this Argument in the judgement of any indifferent man.)

Secondly, There is not the same reason for the sufferings of believers here, and those which you suppose in Purgatory, nor are they of the same nature. The present sufferings of Believers are necessary, (1 Pet. 1. 6. You are in heaviness if need be) both for Believers themselves to subdue the Flesh, which in this life is potent, and altogether needs such a curb. By this shall the iniquity of Iacob be purged, Isa. 27. 9. and to prevent their eternal damnation, 1 Cor. 11. 32. as also for the terror and caution of other offenders. So that, albeit Christ hath fully paid the debt, yet it p. 186is upon other accounts convenient that they should smart and suffer here. But there is no such necessity nor use of Purgatory sufferings, neither for Believers themselves (since there is no mortification of corruption after this life, no temptations to sin there, no improvement of grace, no fear of eternal damnation)aaIn Purgatorio animae nec mereri nec peccare possunt, Bel. de Purg. l. 2. cap. 2. Animae in Purgatorio certae sunt de suâ salute, ibid. cap. 4. nor for example and warning to others; For their fellow-sufferers in Purgatory, you do not pretend they are at all edified by their sufferings; and men here, they neither see nor know any thing of these pains, nor hath God revealed any thing concerning them; but when God makes any examples to others, he sets them in the view of others, or at least acquaints them fully therewith, as he did with Hell torments to this end. It were a sensles… thing to hang up a man in Iamaica, for the terror of those that live in England. Besides, the sufferings of Believers here do come from the love, and faithfulness of God, Heb. 12. 6. Whom the Lord loveth he chasteneth, Psal. 119. 75. In faithfulness thou hast afflicted me. Accordingly, p. 187good men have looked upon them as choice mercies, Psal. 97. 12. Blessed is the man whom thou chastnest, and Psal. 119. 67. It was good for me that I was afflicted: and the denial of afflictions is threatned as a grievous punishment, Is. 1. 5. Hos. 4. 14. 17.

But now the sufferings of Purgatory are in all points contrary; they are purely vindictive, and the effects of meer wrath: nor do you esteem those sufferings a mercy, and your happiness, but freedom from them. And therefore your Argument, from the pains of this life to those in Purgatory, is foolish and absurd.

Thirdly, Believers suffering here do not at all derogate from the fulness of our Redemption by Christ, because (as I have shewed) admitting that to be compleat, yet they are necessary for other purposes. But your Purgatory sufferings do, by communicating at least some part of his proper work to your selves. You profess they wash away part of your sins, which is Christs peculiar honor, He washed us from our sins in his own blood, Rev. 1. 5. You make them a part of the curse of the Law from which (and not only from a part of it) Christ hath redeemed us, himself being made a curse for us, Gal. 3. 13. You make them a real satisfaction in part to p. 188Gods justice (which is not satisfied by all that Christ did or suffered without them.) And, in a word, you make men in part their own Redeemers and Saviours I hope by this you see how weakly you reason from present troubles, to Purgatory torments; and that notwithstanding your objection, my first Argument stands good ag…inst Purgatory.

My second Argument is this, that the Scripture every where speaks of the state of Believers immediately after death, as happy and blessed; and that all the sufferings of Believers are confined to this life; and of this we have many expressions and examples too in Scripture, and not one to the contrary. The sufferings of this present time (saith S. Paul) are not worthy to be compared with the glory, Rom. 8. 18. He knew no other sufferings: the afflictions of Believers are light, and but for a moment, and they too are in things that are seen, 2 Cor. 4. 17, 18. and therefore he knew of no sufferings in the invisible world, unless happily you will say that S. Paul's Travels were in another road into the third heavens, and so he was ignorant of Purgatory. Lazarus received his evil things in this life, Luk. 16. 25. But now he is comforted, therefore surely not in Purgatory. p. 189If our earthly house of this Tabernacle be dissolved, we have an house in Heaven, saith S. Paul, 2 Cor. 5. 1. We are no longer absent from the Lord, than present in the Body, saith S. Paul, 2 Cor. 5, 6, 7, 8. The Prophet assures us, that when righteous men die, they enter into peace, they rest in their beds, Isa. 57. 1, 2. I tell you, their beds are very hard, and the Prophets mistake was very great, if they be frying in the flames of Purgatory. The Beggar died (and it follows immediately) he was carried by Angels into Abrahams bosom. I cannot think these Angels mistook their way: the Theif was to be with Christ that day in Paradise, Luke 23. 43.

Pop.

The Thief was a kind of Martyr, and so had that priviledge.

Prot.

His death was so far from being a Martyrdom, that it was a just punishment for his evil deeds, as he confesseth, v. 41. But because some of your Martyrs (as you call them) were indeed Malefactors; therefore to salve their honour; you make this Malefactor a Martyr. I will give you but one place more of many, and that is Rev. 14. 13. Blessed are the dead that die in the Lord, from henceforth, that they may rest from their labours. A place so clear, that I am told, a famous Doctor of your p. 190own, and one of the Sorbon-Colledge, Picherellus by name, did ingenuously confess, St. Iohn had in these few words put out the fire of Purgatory.aaDe Missâ p. 156. And I am perswaded you would have been ashamed to have kindled it again, but that by this craft you get all your living.

I think I need say no more to this point, let us now go to another. We have discoursed of Purgatory: Now if you please, let us discourse of the ways whereby you pretend to free men from it, which is by Absolutions, and Indulgencies, and that which is necessary thereunto, to wit, Auricular Confession.

Pop.

It is well you mention that, for I assure you it is a matter of salvation and damnation; our Council of Trent hath determined that it is by divine right necessary, and as attrition alone (which is a grief for sin, arising only from a fear of hell) will save a man where confession to a Priest follows; so all the repentance in the world will never save him, without this Confession to a Priest, viz. actual where it may be had, or in desire when it cannot be actually had.

Prot.

Since you lay so much stress upon it, I expect suitable evidence for it. p. 191But first I pray you inform me, what your Doctrine is in this point.

Pop.

I will give you that in the words of the Council of Trent as near as I can: they say, That every Christian is bound under pain of damnation, to confess to a Priest all his mortal sins, which after diligent examination he can possibly remember; yea, even his most secret sins, his very thoughts; yea, and all the Circumstances of them which are of any momentaaConcil. Trident. ses. 14. de poenitentia cap. 4.

Prot.

Now let me hear your strongest Arguments to prove this.

Pop.

You shall: Our two great Arguments are these; First, Priests are by God made Iudges, and intrusted with power of the Keys for the Remission of Sins: but no Iudges can exercise judicature, unless they know and understand the cause; and the Priest must know all the particular sins, and their circumstances by the mans own confession, or else he knows not whether to bind or loose him, to forgive or to condemn him: This is the Argument upon which the Council of Trent builds their DecreebbIbid..

Prot.

Tell me I pray you; Is it necessary to Salvation, to confess every particular p. 192mortal sin? What if a man unavoidably forget some of them?

Pop.

In that case we confess they may be pardoned without it, and it may suffice to say with David, Cleanse thy servant from secret sinsast;ast;Ibid.

Prot.

Now your Argument is quite lost: For it seems in this case (which may be in many hundreds of sins, especially in a person of bad memory) your Judge can pass sentence without knowing the particular Cause, and therefore such knowledge is not necessary to his giving Absolution. Moreover, tell me, I pray you, may not a Priest absolve him from his sins, whom Christ hath absolved?

Pop.

Yes doubtless.

Prot.

And is not every Priest bound to believe, that Christ hath absolved every person that is truly penitent?

Pop.

There is no question of that.

Prot.

Suppose a sinner hath visibly forsaken all his wicked wayes and company, and lives a very holy life before he comes to the Priest, and the Priest is certainly informed of this: Is not the Priest bound in that case to believe he is truly penitent?

p. 193Pop.

I should be most uncharitable if I should deny that.

Prot▪

Then he may without any more ado upon his desire absolve him, because it appears that Christ hath absolved him, It is not at all necessary to a Priest to this purpose to know whether a man be a greater or a less sinner, since the grace of God is offered unto great as well as little sinners: and therefore seeing this is your strong argument, and that learned Council could find no better, I see your cause is very low and bad; but I suppose you have some other Argument for it.

Pop.

There is so, and that is Jam. 5. 16. Confess your faults one to another.

Prot.

Is this your strong argument? here is not a word of the Priest, nor of Confession to him, but only to our fellow Christians; this confession is mutual, and it will as well prove that the Priest is bound to confess his sins to the People, as that the People are bound to confess to the Priest: the very next words are, Pray one for another; what are we bound to pray only for the Priest? It is one thing that sets me against your Religion to consider what pitiful arguments you rely upon. I am assured your own brethren confess the weakness of this argument, as p. 194Vasquez aaIn 3. Thom. qu 90. Art. 1. sect. Omittimus., and Cajetan bbIn locum., and Caenus ccRelect de poenit. part 6., but it seems you have no better. The weakness of your arguments for it, might save me the labour of mine against it; therefore I shall only offer to your thoughts these two considerations.

1. Your doctrine makes that necessary to salvation which God hath not made necessary. There is no command of God or Christ for it, as your eminent Doctors acknowledge,ast;ast;Scotus & omnes decretorum interpretes inquit Maldon in summâ qu. 18. Art. 4. Cajet. in Ioh. 20. 22. Bell. de poenit. l. 1. c. 4.John 20:22 and it sufficiently appears from the vanity of your proofs for it; you confess it was not necessary in the old Testament, and yet there was as much need and use of it then as now, and Christ hath made the condition of his Church not more, but less burthensome than it was before. Many commands and exhortations to repentance there are in Scripture, not one which either commands this auricular confession to a Priest, or declares the necessity of it, produce one place and I yield; there are many instances of Iohn the Baptist, and Christ and the Apostles, either actual giving, or in Gods Name p. 195proposing and offering remission of sins upon the conditions prescribed in the GospelaaLuk: 18. 13. Mat. 9. 2. Act. 2. 38. & 3. 19, & 22. 16.Matt 9:2Acts 2:38Acts 3:19Acts 22:16 among which not one of them requires this auricular confession: Bring one instance to the point and I yield.

Pop.

I will give you two instances, Matt. 3. 6. The Pharisees were baptized— confessing their sins: and, the conjurers confessed their sins, Act. 19. 18.

Prot.

These places do both speak of publick confession and in case of scandalous sins (which we acknowledge to be a duty) but what is this to auricular confession? will you never speak to the purpose? besides these places cannot be meant of auricular confession for that was not then instituted, as your council of Trent confesseth. Well, I see you can bring neither instance of this confession nor precept for it, and therefore I am sure there is no sin in the neglect of it, for where there is no law, there is no transgression, Rom. 4. 15.

2. Your doctrine makes that insufficient for pardon and salvation which God makes sufficient. The great God assureth us. That he that confesseth and forsaketh his sins shall find mercy, Prov. 28. 13.

p. 196Pop.

That makes against you, for you s…e there is confession required.

Prot.

And no doubt it is a mans duty to make confession to God, and in case of wrong, unto men, and sometimes to a Minister also, as in case of doubt or trouble of conscience, but this is nothing to auricular confession, nor can the text mean that, sor you grant it was not as yet instituted. God declares that if the wicked for sake his (evil) way and thoughts and turn unto God, he shall have mercy, Isa. 55. 7. so Isa. 1. 16. 17, 18. so Act. 16. 31. S. Paul in Gods name promiseth, believe on the Lord Iesus and thou shalt be saved. Thus Ro. 10. 13. Whosoever shall call upon the name of the Lord shall be saved: And who dares say, that he that doth all these things shall not be saved, unless he confess to a Priest, since God never spake such a word? What is it to add to Gods word, if this be not? The terms upon which Christ offered promised salvation, are Repent and believe.

Pop.

Auricular confession is a part of repentance.

Prot.

When Christ preached that doctrine it was no part of repentance, for you confess it was not then instituted, your Council of Trent determines, that it was instituted by Christ after his resurrection. p. 197**De PoeniteutiâAnd you will find it hard to perswade any rational man, that repentance wanted a necessary part before Christs resurrection, or that it was of one kind before it, and quite another after it. But I will not waste more time about so vain a fancy, for my part I rest upon Christs gracious promises to repenting and believing Sinners: By Gods grace I will endeavour to do these things, and I doubt not but he will make good his words whether you will or no; let God be true and every man a lyar.

But possibly you have better arguments for Absolutions and Indulgences: Produce them, but first let me hear what your doctrine in this point is.

Pop.

I will give you this in brief together with the rise and ground of it: We believe; first. That there are divers Saints who have not only merit for themselves, but a great deal to spare, and all their merits are put into one treasury. Secondly, That these merits are appliable to others, so as God will pardon Thomas, for example, for Iohns merit. Thirdly, That God hath put this treasure into the Churches, that is, the Popes hands, and from him into the hands of all Priests, who have a power to apply these merits as they see fit.

p. 198Prot.

There is nothing sound and solid in this whole discourse; first, I have proved that there is no Purgatory, there is your foundation of indulgences gone; next I hope ere we part to shew, that there is no such thing as merit in good works, which is another of your foundations. Next, that any mans merits (except Christs) may be applied to another, I pray you inform me, for I have learned quite otherwise: I read that every one shall bear his own burden, Gal. 6. 6. Every one shall receive according to what HE hath done in his body, 2 Cor. 5. 10. The wise Virgins differed from you, they thought they had oyl little enough for themselves and none at all to spare, Mat. 25. 9. So if you are Virgins, it seems you are none of that sort. If you can prove this conceit of yours, do.

Pop.

I will give you a clear place, Col. 1. 24. S. Paul saith, I now rejoyce in my sufferings for you and fill up that which is behind or that which is lacking of the afflictions of Christ in my flesh for his bodies sake which is the Church.

Prot.

First tell me, do you think any thing was lacking or defective in Christs sufferings.

Pop.

No, You use to charge us with that opinion, but falsly.

p. 199Prot.

It is well you grant thus much, but if you denied it, a cloud of plain Scriptures would force you to grant it, which tells us that by one offering Christ perfected for ever them that are sanctified, Heb. 10. 14. and that he is able to save to the uttermost, Heb. 7. 25. By sufferings of Christ then, we must understand the sufferings of Christ mystical, or Christ in his members, which are usually so called;aaAct. 9. 4. 2 Cor. 1. 7. Heb. 11. 27.Acts 9:42 Cor 1:7Heb 11:27 when Christ had done suffering in his person, he left it as a legacy to his members, that they should suffer with him, and for him,bbAct. 9. 16. & 14. 22. 2 Tim. 3 12.Acts 9:16Acts 14:222 Tim 3:12 and St. Paul bore his share in these sufferings; and for the last clause of his suffering for the Church, The phrase, it is true, is ambiguous, and sometimes indeed it signifies to satisfie Gods justice for another, but in this sense St. Paul rejects it with indignation, 1 Cor. 1. 13. was Paul crucified for you? But it is not always thus taken, for St. Paul saith he suffered for Christ, 2 Cor. 12. 10. not surely to satisfie for him: There is therefore another sense, and that is, he suffered for the Churches edification, & establishment, and so indeed he elsewhere explains himself, Phil. 1. 12. and I am told that your own brethren understand it thus,ccTho. Est. Iustin in locum. and p. 200your Bellarmin confesseth the words may be thus expounded, but only saith, the words may conveniently receive this sense, aaDe Poenit. l. 3. c. 3.which is as much as to say, if you will be courteous you may grant him the Argument, but if you do not, he cannot prove it. But, admit there be such a treasury of Merits for others, as you pretended; how prove you that your Priests are made Judges, and invested with such a power of distributing those Merits and giving Absolutions, as you challenge?

Pop.

Our great Argument is, John 20. 23. Whosesoever sins ye remit they are remitted, and whosesoever sins ye retain, they are retained. Answer me this Argument, and I will yield up this Cause.

Prot.

What Argument do you draw from these words?

Pop.

Hence it appears that Ministers are made judges, and intrusted with full power and authority of binding and loosing; so as Christ doth not loose (or forgive) a sinner by himself, but only by the Priest, as Bellarmin saith. bbIa 3. partem Thomae qu. 84. art. 3.And to speak properly, as our most learned Vasquez affirmeth, God doth not properly loose a sinner, but only approves of the Priests loosing of him (bbIa 3. partem Thomae qu. 84. art. 3.).

p. 201Prot.

Now in my opinion, it were good manners to make the Priest come after God, and not to make God depend upon the Priest. It seems then, if the Priest, should grow surly or envious, and deny me a Pardon, Christ cannot help me, for he hath given the power out of his hands: So you make the Priest the Judge, and God only the Approver. The Lord rebuke this spirit of Blasphemy. Again, nothing is more familiar in Scripture than for Gods Ministers to be said to do that, which they do only authoritatively declare that God will do. Thus God saith to Ieremy, I have set thee over Kingdoms to root out, and pull down, and destroy, that is, by declaring that God would do it: In like manner Gods Ministers are said to bind and loose, because they have from God authority, to declare a Sinner to be bound by his Sins, or loosed from them, which (if they declare truly and according to Gods word) God in heaven doth and will make it good. As for this Text, it saith nothing but this, that every one whom they bind or loose, that is, proceeding according to their rule, (which is always to be understood) shall be bound or loosed in heaven; but it doth not say that no man is bound or loosed, but they whom p. 202the Priest bindeth and looseth.

But besides, if all these things were granted, how doth this Text prove that the Priest or Pope can absolve or release any souls out of Purgatory, if there were such a place? I pray you tell me, can the Pope binde any soul and keep him in Purgatory?

Pop.

No, we do not pretend to that.

Prot.

Then he cannot loose a soul neither out of Purgatory; for I am sure binding and loosing are of the same extent. But upon second thoughts, I must own your discretion; for the binding of souls in Purgatory was an invidious and unprofitable work, and would have bound up mens hearts and purses: It is only the loosing of them out which opens their purse strings, & tends to the edification of the Church, that is, the Pope and Priests (as they always understand that word.) In sober sadness, it is enough to make any serious Christian abhor your Church, that your Pope should not be content to usurp a power over the whole visible world, but that he should extend his Authority to the other world, even to Purgatory. In my opinion he had done more wisely to have extended his empire to Hell, for there are many of his Predecessours (so far as p. 203can be judged by any mans life) whom he might have appointed his Deputies: but there is never a Pope in Purgatory; for they who can release others at pleasure, will certainly deliver themselves: But now I speak of that, I pray you tell me if it be true that I have heard, that the Pope when he dies, receives Absolution from his Confessor, and that after his death the Cardinals give him Absolution, and give order for the singing of abundance of Masses?

Pop.

It is true, I was at Rome when the last Pope died, and it was so then, and our Books justifie it.

Prot.

I am much pleased with your ingenuity, so the Pope gives the Priest a power to pardon himself; methinks he might save the charges of a Confessor; it were enough to say, I absolve my self. But tell me, do you say Masses for any that are in Heaven or in Hell.

Pop.

No, we utterly disclaim that.

Prot.

Then I perceive the Pope goes into Purgatory. I see your Popes are not self-seeking men (as they are slandered to be) that help so many thousands out of Purgatory, and leave themselves in.

But really, this is to me a convincing Argument, that you do not believe your p. 204selves, but deceive poor silly people against your Consciences: For else you might be assured the Pope would never come into Purgatory; for you say he can keep himself out, and no man doubts of his will to do it. Besides, your Doctrine usurps upon God's Prerogative. I had thought it was only my Father in Heaven to whom I should have prayed, Forgive us our Trespasses: Now it seems we must pray so to one of these Padre's upon earth. You make Subjects the supream Judges of all Offences committed against their Soveraign, and your Priests sit as Umpires between God and the Sinner, and determine what Satisfaction God shall have, and what Penance the Sinner shall undergo. Methinks they are brave fellows; and I now see it was not without ground that Father Cotton bragged, That he could do any thing when he had his God in his hand, (that was the Sacrament) and his King upon his knees (in Confession.) I think you will bring Christ upon his knees too, for it seems you have resolved, that he shall stand to your Priests Arbitration.

I might add to this, that you leave the souls of people to endless perplexities; you confess, that Indulgences profit not, If a man be not in the state of grace aaBell, de Indulg. l. 1. c. 13., p. 205(which you say a man cannot certainly know) or if a man have not made a free and full Confession after sufficient examination **Concil. Trident. de Poenitentia.and who knows when he hath done these things sufficiently?) or if the Priest do not intend to pardon him (and who knows another mans intentions?) and yet you would have me so desperate to venture my soul upon such sandy foundations, that your selves are afraid and ashamed of. But, to leave this, I perceive that this, and divers of your other Doctrines are grounded upon that of the merit of good works, which because I judge a very pernicious and dangerous Doctrine; let me hear what you can say for it: but first, let me understand your Doctrine: for I have heard some of you cry out, that our Divines slandered them, and profess that they did not hold Merit strictly, but cast the honour of all upon Christ and the grace of God; therefore I pray you inform me.

Pop.

I will be plain and candid with you, I do not like such Artifices; The Council of Trent in plain terms affirms, That our good works do truly merit increase of grace and eternal lifeaaCap. 11. can. 32.; and our famous p. 206Bellarmiue disputes, and proves, That good works do not only merit in respect of Gods gracious Covenant, but in regard of the worthiness of the works themselves, and that eternal life is not only due from Gods liberality, but from his just judgment bbDe Iustificat. l. 5. cap. 16. & 17..

Prot.

I pray you tell me, hath Bellarmin such expressions as these, That because God would honour his children, he would have them to get Heaven by their merits, which is more honourable to them, than to receive it ly Gods free gift?

Pop.

Bellarmine doth say so ccDe Iustif. l. 5. c 3..

Prot.

I see he was a man of a brave spirit, and much a Gentleman: but in my poor opinion, he should have taken a little care for the honour of God, as well as of the Saints. But I have heard of many other strange expressions ascribed to your Authors. I hear your Tapperus saith, Far be it from them, that righteous men should expect eternal life as a beggar doth an alms. It is much more glorious that they should receive it as Conquerours and Triumphers, and possess it as a reward due to their labours ddIn Explic, Artic, Lovan. Tom. 2 Art. 9.; I see also this was a man p. 207of honour: And again, That our good works deserve the reward from God as from a just Iudge, and are able to abide the severe judgement of God, though he weigh all Circumstances ccIbid. art. 8.. I am told that your renowned Vasquez saith, That Eternal life is due to the works of good men, without any Covenant, or the favour of God ddIn 1. secundae tom. 2. dis. 214.. And your learned Cajetan and Dominicus à Scoto say as much, as I hear Bellarmine reportseeDe Iustif. l. 5. c. 17.. And that Vasquez again saith, The merits or Person of Christ adds no worth to the works of good men ffubi supr.. This man was resolved so far to tread in Abraham's steps; as Abraham would not receive from the King of Sodom, so he would not receive from Christ, from a thread to a shoelatchet, lest it should be said Christ had made him rich. Are these things true?

Pop.

It is so.

Prot.

Then sure I am, our Religion is the safest way; If we do err, it is in giving too much to God; but if you err, it is no less than the worst kind of sacriledge to rob God of so much of his glory and the honour of your Salvation. Yet, if p. 208you can prove this, I will receive it. Produce your strongest Arguments.

Pop.

First then, I prove it hence, That Eternal life is called a reward, Mat. 5. 12. and given to Labourers in the Vineyard, Mat. 20.

Prot.

We must compare Scripture with Scripture: other places tell us, it is an Inheritance, Gal. 4. 7. Rom. 8. 17. The same Estate cannot be mine both by inheritance and purchase.

Pop.

Yes it may, I will prove it by an instance. The glory which Christ had was his by inheritance (for he was heir of all things) and yet by purchase, Philip. 2. 8, 9.

Prot.

I thank you for this objection: I have scarce had any thing from you like a solid Argument but this: It deserves an Answer; First then, this will not reach our case: The great hinderance of merit in our works is, that the best of them are imperfect, and a debt we owe to God before hand; but Christs works are of another kind, they are compleat and perfect, and in part no debt; for though when Christ was made Man, he was a debtor to God, and bound as a creature to fulfill the Law, yet this was a voluntary act, and no debt to God, that he would p. 209become Man, and so put himself under the Law. Besides, the dignity of his Person made his works proportionable unto all the glory he received; whereas all our sufferings are not worthy to be compared with our glory, Rom. 8. 18. Secondly, It might be both an Inheritance and Parchase in Christ in divers respects; because he had two natures; as he was God, or the Son of God, it was his Inheritance, and belonged to his Manhood only as united with the Godhead; as he was Man, he might purchase it, by what he did and suffered in the flesh: But in us there are not two natures, nor any of these pretences to merit. Moreover Scripture speaks of two kinds of Rewards, the one of Grace, the other of Debt, and withal affirms, that the reward which God gives to good men is meerly of grace, (as we profess) and not of debt (as you pretend) Rom. 4. 4.

Pop.

Possibly it may be of both, as Bellarmin saith **Lib. 5. cap. 17..

Prot.

No, the Apostle forbids that, Rom. 11. 6. If by grace, it is no more of works, otherwise grace is no more grace, but if it be of works, then it is no more grace, p. 210otherwise work is no more work, and this reward is not given to him that worketh, but believeth, Rom 4. 5. No Protestant could speak our Doctrine more fully.

Pop.

But God gives this reward to men for working in his Vineyard, Mat. 20.

Prot.

It is true; but still the reward appears to be of grace, because it is alike to him that came at the last hour, as to them that had born the heat and burden of the day, vers. 12. but that Heaven is a reward of Justice, and a due debt, (as you profess) this Text proves not, and other Scriptures plainly contradict.

Pop.

But God is said to reward men according to their works, that is according to the proportion of them, and that implies merit.

Prot.

Not so neither; for since God is pleased to reward in us, his own gifts and graces, not our merits, as S. Bernard speaks, he may still keep the proportion, and to them to whom he gives more grace here, he may give more glory hereafter; and yet there is no more merit in this additional reward than in the rest. Again, I may as well conclude, that the blind men merited their sight, because Christ saith, Be it unto you according to your faith, Matth. 9. 29. as you gather merit from p. 211this phrase, according to your work; therefore let me hear if you have any other Argument.

Pop.

Our works are mentioned as the causes for which God gives eternal life, Mat. 25. Come ye blessed, for I was hungry and you fed me, and other like places.

Prot.

S. Paul did not think this a good Argument; for though he knew that it was said of Abraham, Because thou hast done this, I will bless thee, Gen. 22. 16, 17. yet he positively denies the merit of Abraham's works, Rom. 4. & Gal. 3. And he saith of himself, I obtained mercy, because I did it ignorantly, 1 Tim. 1. 13. yet I hope you do not think his ignorance merited mercy: The King saith, I forgive thee all that debt, because thou desiredst me, Mat. 18. 32. Did his asking deserve it? Besides all this, if God did reward them for their good works, this will not prove merit; if God reward men infinitely more than their good works deserve (as God indeed doth) and Bellarmine acknowledgeth so much.**De Iustif. lib. 5. cap. 19.

Pop.

But good men are said to be worthy, Rev. 3. 4.

p. 212Prot.

They are so comparatively to other men, and also by Gods gracious acceptation in and through Christ, but otherwise the holiest Saints of God have ever judged themselves unworthy of the least of Gods mercies (so far were they from thinking they were worthy of eternal life) Gen. 32. 10. Mat. 8 8. And since it is Gods grace which gives them all their worth and meetness for Heaven, Coloss. 1. 12. it is impudence to pretend to merit from God by it. If yet you will boast of your own worth and merit, answer the Apostles question at your leasure, 1 Cor. 4. 7. For who maketh thee to differ from another? and what hast thou that thou didst not receive? now if thou didst receive it, why dost thou glory as if thou hadst not received it? If you can baffle your conscience now, you will find it an hard question to answer at the last day.

Pop.

But eternal life is given them by Gods justice, 2 Thess. 4. 6. 1 Tim. 4. 7, 8.

Prot.

This word also doth not prove any merit, for Gods Justice is oft-times taken improperly, I read 1 Iohn 1. 9. If we confess our sins he is just and faithful to forgive them, yet justification is not merited as you confess, but is an act of p. 213meer grace, being justified freely by his grace, &c. Rom. 3. 24, 28. thus, 2 Pet. 1. 1. we are said to obtain precious faith through the righteousness of God; and yet faith is the gift of God, and you confess that is given without merit (for you grant none but justified persons can merit) therefore, in such places, justice is taken either for equity and the congruity of it with Gods nature or word, or for the faithfulness of God, or the like.

Pop.

Since you despise my arguments, let me hear if you have better against the merit of good works.

Prot.

You shall, and methinks that one place, Luke 17. 10. should convince you, when ye shall have done all these things which are commanded you, say we are unprofitable servants, we have done that which was our duty to do.

Pop.

Christ doth not affirm they are unprofitable, but only bids them say they are unprofitable, and teaches them to be humble.aaBell. de Iustif. l. 5. c. 5. sect. quart.

Prot.

Very well: then you think Christ taught them to think one thing, and say another, that is, he taught them the art of lying, and that to God.

p. 214Pop.

I answer further, that without Gods grace men are unprofitable, they only can merit that are in the state of grace as our Church holds.

Prot.

Doth not your Conscience tell you the Apostles, whom Christ commands to say thus, were in the state of grace?

Pop.

Though a man cannot profit God, he may profit himself.

Prot.

If he cannot profit God, he cannot properly merit any thing from God, for that implies a proportion between giving and receiving.

Pop.

It is true we are unprofitable by our selves in regard of Gods absolute Soveraignty, but not unprofitable in regard of Gods gracious Covenant.

Prot.

It is ridiculous to say, that is merit properly which depends on Gods meer grace, and besides the Pharisees themselves, whose errour Christ there strikes at, were never so vain or absurd to think, that they could be profitable to God, in any other sense than what you affirm.

Pop.

Let me hear your other Argument.

Prot.

The nature of merit shews the impossibility of it in men: It is evident that to merit, these amongst other ingredients, are required.

p. 215First, that the work be not due already: doth any man deserve an estate for that money whereby he payes an old debt?

Secondly, That the work be our own; you do not think a noble mans Almoner, merits by distributing his Masters Alms.

Thirdly, that it be profitable to him of whom he merits.

Fourthly, That the work be perfect; for that action which needs a pardon, certainly cannot deserve a reward.

Fifthly, That it be suitable to the reward; if I present my Prince with an Horse, and he requites me with a Lordship, who but a Horse would pretend this was merited?

Pop.

I must acknowledge most of these things are true, but this doth not concern our works.

Prot.

That we will now examine, and first, all the works now we can do for God are deserved by him: It fills me with horrour to hear men pretending to merit of that God, who (as they profess) created them, and every day upholds their souls in life, and redeemed them, and is so infinitely before hand with them every way; Tell me, dare you say that God doth p. 216not deserve, that you should do the utmost you can, for his service and glory?

Pop.

I will not say so.

Prot.

Then it is impudence to pretend merit from God; besides, the good works we do, are not properly our own, but Gods; Faith is the gift of G…d, Ephes. 2. 8. Phil. 1. 29. So is Repentance, Acts 11. 18. & 5. 31. and in general, every good and perfect gift is from God, Jam. 1. 17.

Pop.

The first grace is from God, but that I use it right, that is from my self, and thereby it is that I merit.

Prot.

St. Paul was not of your mind; what good work is there but it lies either in willing or doing? yet both these God works in us, Phil. 2. 13. not only the power of believing, but the act too, (and suffering also) is the gift of God, Phil. 1. 29. and St. Pauls abundant labours in the Gospel, which certainly amounted to merit, if there were ever such a thing in the world, and which, if any thing, was his own act, yet he dare not take to himself, I laboured, yet not I, but the grace of God which was with me, 1 Cor. 15. 10. No less evident is it, that our works cannot profit God, Psal. 16. 4. Iob 22. 3. & 35. 7, as also our best works are so p. 217far from meriting, that they need a pardon for the infirmities accompanying them, by reason of which the best of Saints have been afraid of the severe judgments of God even upon their best works; so was Iob aaIob 9. 2.Job 9:2and David bbPsal. 130. 2.Ps 130:2and Paul cc1 Cor. 4. 4.1 Cor 4:4And lastly, it is so evident that our works are not proportionable to the reward, that Bellarmin hath a Chapter upon this head, to prove that good works are rewarded above their desert; ddDe Iustiff. l. 1. c. 19.and therefore it is an intollerable arrogance to affirm that divers of the Saints have not only merit enough to purchase eternal life, but a great deal to spare for the relief of others.

To let this point pass, now I would willingly be informed of two things, which concern us Lay-people in an especial manner;

First, Why you defraud us of the Cup.

Secondly, Why you order Prayer to be made in a language that many, nay, most of us do not understand: For the first, you rob us of one half of the Sacrament, p. 218viz. of the Cup; what can you say to acquit your selves from sacriledge?

Pop.

Let me hear what right you have to it.

Prot.

First, I remember you disputed for Transubstantiation out of Iohn 6. which, you said, spoke of the Sacrament; now if you say true, there is a passage in it, verse 53, except you eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink his blood, you have no life in you; if this be spoken of the Sacrament (as you say it is) and the wine be really his blood, then you do no less than murder all your people, by robbing them of that which is necessary to their life.

Pop.

Not so, (for as I shall shew you) you have the blood in the body (or bread.)

Prot.

If it be so, yet my taking it in that manner cannot be called a drinking it, unless you will say that every man that eats rawish meat, may be said to drink the blood which he eats in it; but further, I think we have as great right to the cup as your Priests, we have Christs do this, and you pretend no more; in short, we have both the legacy and command of Christ fortified with this strong reason, this cup is the new Testament in my blood which is p. 219shed for many for the remission of sins; whereby it sufficiently appears, that the signe belongs to all that have interest in the thing, and are capable of discerning the Lords body; and this command of Christ is express and positive, Mat. 26. Drink ye ALL of it, it is remarkable that he doth not say, eat ye all (though they were to do so) but drink ye all of it, as foreseeing the sacriledge of your Church; what can you say to this?

Pop.

First I say here is no command but an institution only.

Prot.

I understand no subtilties; but if you say, this was no command of drinking, then it was no command of eating, to say, take, eat, and so the Sacrament is not commanded: but people may receive or refuse it as they please, and Christs do this is no more than do as you list; for my part I shall never know when Christ commands any thing, if this be not a command, for no command can run in more express words.

Pop.

If this be a command, it concerns only Priests, for such the Apostles were, and they only were present.

Prot.

Since it is evident, that eating and drinking belong to the same persons, if the one be restrained to the Apostles; p. 220so is the other, and because you confess the eating belongs to the people by vertue of this precept. [Eat of it] by the same reason also doth the drinking reach to them also by vertue of that precept, [Drink of it.] Besides the Apostles though they were Ministers, yet in this act they were in the peoples stead, and Christ was the Minister or dispenser of the Sacrament, and they only the receivers of it at this time.

Besides, as they were Ministers he bad them do this, that is, take and distribute bread and wine to the people as he had to them; If Ministers be under any command of administring and giving the Sacrament, certainly it is here (for no command can be more express) and if they are commanded to give the bread to the people, they are commanded to give the wine also, for here is no difference at all.

Adde to this that St. Paul hath put this out of doubt, and he expounds this of, and applies it to the people, for thus he writes to all the Corinthians, Let a man examine himself, and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup, 1 Cor. 11. 28. in four verses together, viz. 26, 27, 28, 29. eating and drinking are inseparably p. 221joyned together, which you have so wickedly divided: If it be a Command, Let a man examine himself, (which none will deny) then it is a Command (which immediately follows) so let him eat this Bread, and drink this Cup.

Pop.

It doth not appear, that there is an absolute command of drinking, but only that as oft as they do drink it, they should drink it in remembrance of Christ.

Prot.

If this be so, then here is no command for the Priest, either to Consecrate the Cup, or to Receive it. And further, then here is no command for his Consecrating or receiving the Bread neither; for there is no more than a Do this, and that is for the Wine as well as for the Bread.

Pop.

Here is a difference, for he saith of the Body simply, Do this in remembrance of me; but of the Cup, This do ye as oft as you drink it.

Prot.

If you lay any stress upon these words, as oft as you do it, I beseech you make use of your eyes, and you shall read that it is said of the Bread as well as of the Cup, Vers. 26. For as oft as ye eat this Bread, and drink this Cup. Well, I am sorry to see that you dare oppose such plain Scripture upon p. 222such pitiful pretences. But I pray you let me ask you, I have been told that your famous Council of Censtance, in their Canon, for the receiving the Sacrament in one kind, have these expressions; Although Christ did Minister this Sacrament und…r the forms of Bread and Wine—And although in the Primitive Church this—Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds—Yet they make a Canon that it shall be received under one kinde only. Is this so?

Pop.

It is true; they are the very words of the Council.

Prot.

This was a wise Council indeed, wiser than Christ and all his Apostles; but I should think we are on the safest side, having Christ and all the Primitive Churches for our patterns: and by this I see what to judge of your glorious pretences, that yours is the Antient and Apostolical Faith, and ours (forsooth) but a new Religion. But I pray let me hear what you have to say for this fact of yours in taking away the Cup? I see Scripture is against you, and the Antient Church, at least so far that for 1400. years together the people might drink of the Cup, (if they would) as I am told your Becanus confesseth**In manuali de communione sub utraque specie..

p. 223Pop.

You are greatly mistaken, we have Scripture for us, we have examples there, of receiving the Sacrament in one kind, Acts 2. 42. They continued in the Apostles Doctrine, and breaking of Bread; and Acts 20. 17. They came together to break Bread.

Prot.

It is usual to express an whole Feast by this one thing, Christ went into the Pharisees house to eat bread, Luk. 14. 2. I suppose, you think it was not a dry feast; Ioseph's Brethren sat to eat, Gen. 37. 25. so Act. 27. 35. Paul (and the rest) took bread and eat it, yet none doubts but they had drink with it. Besides, here is as much said of the People, as of the Ministers drinking of the Cup, that is, neither is here mentioned; and if the silence concerning the Cup be a good Argument, it proves that neither did partake of it: if it be not, then both might partake of it: But what have you more to say?

Pop.

You need not be troubled so much at the loss of the Cup, since the blood is contained in the Bread, that is, in the Body, by concomitancy.

Prot.

This is in effect to tell Christ the Cup was a superfluous device: Besides, we are commanded to drink the p. 224Cup: If I should dip bread in drink and eat it, no man will say I drink the bread. Again, this destroys the main end of the Sacrament, which is to shew forth Christs death, and the shedding of his blood; and this was the reason why Christ appointed the Bread and Wine apart, as the fittest means to bring to our memories, the pouring of his blood out of his body for us; and as God would have us to remember the thing, so he commanded us to use this sign of drinking the Cup.

Pop.

But there are many weighty reasons why it is not fit you should partake of the Cup.

Prot.

I dare not forsake plain Scripture for any subtil pretences of Humane Reason; but let me hear them.

Pop.

1. In some Countries Wine is not to be had. 2. Some there are who have an antipathy against Wine, and cannot drink any. 3. There is great danger of spilling the Wine, which is the Blood of Christ.

Prot.

Are these your weighty Reasons; I see the Reason and Religion of Rome are both of a Complexion. But I pray you how came it to pass, that Christ and his Apostles, and all the Primitive Christians for so many hundreds p. 225of years should prescribe and use the Cup, notwithstanding those reasons? surely if these reasons are strong now, they were so 1660. years ago: Wine was as scarce then (as now it is) in some Countries; abstemious persons were then as well as now; the Wine might be spilled then as much as now. But they feared none of these things; either they were all stupid that did not see these things, or your Church is audacious, that dare in effect teach Christ and his Apostles, what they should have done. It might peradventure be added, that in such places where Wine cannot be had, or for some persons who cannot drink Wine, some other thing proportionable to it may be allowed; but if it might not, or if in such special cases they were confined to one kind, I am sure it is a ridiculous consequence, that because they must be content with the Bread that cannot drink of the Cup, therefore they that can, shall go without it; and because it may be omitted where it cannot be had, therefore it shall be omitted where it may be enjoyed. And for the danger of spilling of the Wine, there is also danger in dropping some of the Bread, and so that should be denied: p. 226By this Argument also the Priest should not meddle with the Wine, for he may spill it; but indeed such phantastical Reasons as these deserve no Answer; they make me almost sick to hear them.

There is only one point more, I would be informed in, what you can pretend for it, and that is, That your Publick Prayers are performed in a Language unknown to most of your people.

Pop.

What have you to say against it?

Prot.

What can be said more plainly and fully against it by us, than what S. Paul saith, 1 Cor. 14. there I find some, who having the Gift of speaking with divers Languages, did use it without interpreting them in the Publick Assembly; those the Apostle informs, that there is a better gift and more desirable than that of Tongues, namely Prophesie, and he useth divers reasons, which are so many undeniable Arguments against your Latine Prayers: He tells them it is their duty to manage Publick Worship, so as the Church may be edified, verse. 4, 5, 12. I hope you will not deny this.

Pop.

None can deny that.

Prot.

Well; then he tells us that what is spoken in an unknown Language doth p. 227not edifie the Church, vers. 4, 11, 12, 14. 2. Yet again, the Apostle commands that if any do speak in an unknown Tongue it must be interpreted, vers. 27. you disobey this command. 3. He argues that Publick Prayers are so to be made by the Minister that the People may say Amen, v. 16. And he also tells us that no man can say Amen to that which he doth not understand, vers. 15. so the Apostle stops all your starting holes.

Pop.

The very word▪ men is Hebrew.

Prot.

You dispute not only against me, but against the Apostle himself; but Amen, though an Hebrew word, is by common use sufficiently known to us all, to express our consent to his Prayers, and confidence that God will hear them. 4. Yet again, he argues that strange Tongues are designed only for the Conviction of Unbelievers, not to be used be Believers amongst themselves, unless interpreted, v. 22. What can, or dare you say against such clear places?

Pop.

S. Paul speaks not of the ordinary service of the Church, but of extraordinary Hymnes and Songs.

Prot.

That is false; he speaks of the ordinary service of the Church, though at that time there was something extraordinary p. 228in it; and besides, his reasons reach to all times and services, ordinary or extraordinary; must we not look to the Edification of the Church in the one as well as the other? Must not the people say Amen in one as well as the other? Let me hear therefore what you have to say for your selves.

Pop.

Preaching ought to be in a known language; for the end of that is the peoples Edification, but Prayers are made to God.

Prot.

Though they are made to God, yet they are made by the Church, who are to joyn in those Prayers, and to signifie their consent by saying Amen, which requires their understanding: And moreover, that Chapter speaks as expresly of Praying as it doth of Prophesying in the Church. Surely the people went not to Church to sit there like senseless Images, but to offer up a reasonable service, and to tender their Prayers and Praises unto God by the mouth of the Minister, as they did, Act. 4. 24, They lift up their voice with one accord. And if we pray with you, we must understand; else we cannot pray in faith (as it is our duty to do) and we shall fall into their error to ask we know not what.

p. 229Pop.

You need not concern your self about that; you may rely upon the wisdom and fidelity of the Church, who takes care that your prayers be right.

Prot.

I confess there is this great encouragement for it, that your Church, it seems, is wiser than St. Paul: but as a friend I advise you to give this Counsel of relying upon your Church to the Indians, or some remote places, for they that know her will never trust her. For my part, my Saviours words make me cautious, If the blind lead the blind, both shall fall into the ditch. If I had no other argument of your Churches Fallibility and Apostacy; this one point were a sufficient evidence of them both. But what have you more to say?

Pop.

I will give you then a Scripture instance; The Priests prayed in the Temple when the People waited without, Luke 1. 21.

Prot.

What is this to the purpose? I do not read, that the Priest prayed at all, but only went in to offer Incense; but if he did pray, he did it alone, not with and before the people, as your prayers are; you might as well plead thu; Those Priests said nothing at all, and therefore your Priests need only make a dumb shew, and p. 230may serve their Latin (as well as their English) which may be good counsel for many of them, that have so little to spare.

But seriously can you, or any rational man think, these reasons of sufficient weight to oppose against that great Scripture rule of Edification, and the express words and plain arguments of St. Paul; God deliver me from such a besotting Religion.

Besides what I have said, I shall leave this with you at parting, that you do not only oppose Scripture, but also that Antient Church which you pretend to reverence, and to follow her steps, and your practice is contrary to the Church in all antient times.

The Prayers of the Iews in publick, were alwayes made in the Hebrew tongue, and in that Tongue God gave them those forms of Prayer and blessing which were then used, Numb. 6. 10.

God gave the gift of Languages to that end, that the Apostles might establish the Worship of God in every Nation in their own Language: And I am told, that Origen reports this, to be the practice of the Church in this time (as well as his own Judgment) That every one did pray to God in his own dialect, Greeks in Greek, and Latines p. 231in Latin, &c.aaforeign Orig. contrac elsum. lib. 8. Besides, I am told, that your own Authors, Lyra, Aquinas, and Harding, and others confess, this was the practice of the antient Church, and that one of your own Councils, that of Lateran in the year 1215. did make this order, that Whereas in many places there were mixed people of divers Languages and customs, the Bishops should take care to provide fit men, that should perform divine Service amongst them, according to this difference of Rites and Languages. bbQuoniam in plerisque partibus intra candem civitatem & dioecesin, permixti sunt populi diversarum linguarum, habentes sub una fide varios ritus & mores, districtè praecipimus, ut Pontifices hujusmodi civitatum provideant vires idoneos, qui secundum diversitatem rituum & linguarum divina officia illis celebrent, c. 9.Moreover, that your great Cardinal Cajetan confesseth, that Prayers ought to be in a known tongue. ccEx hac Pauli doctrinâ habetur, quod melius ad aedificationem Ecclesiae est orationes publicas, quae audiente populo dicuntur, dici linguâ communi clericis & populo, quàm dici Latinè. Cajet. in 1 Cor. 14.1 Cor 14Are these things so?

p. 232Pop.

I cannot deny it. Their Books are extant.

Prot.

Then by this, I see, how far your Church is, not only from Infallibility, but from common honesty, that dare pretend they hold nothing But what hath been by constant Tradition conveyed to them from the Apostles times until this day. And by this I shall judge of all your other brags of Antiquity in your Doctrine. So I see you are obstinate and incorrigible, and therefore I shall trouble my self no further to talk with you.

FINIS.

End of the text · Matthew Poole, Dialogue Between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant (1672)