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 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 like 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 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 Prot. 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 further 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 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 impudâ—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 〈◊〉 Revelatâ—on Pop. 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 have 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
fall so that if this Text and Prayer reach to your Popes it should rather secure them from damnable Apostacies in practice which you confess many of them fell into and died in then from Heresies of which this Text speaks not at all But have you no other Arguments Pop. Yes there is one more which were sufficient if there were no other and that is from Gods Providence It is unbecoming the wisdom of God to leave his Church without a guide or infallible Iudge by which means there would be no end of Controversies and since you do not pretend to have any such in your Church it must be in ours or else there is none in the world Prot. I had thought you would have only taught me but now it seems you will teach God how to govern the World It should seem to me that God was not of your mind he did not think fit to end all Controversies but to permit that there should be Heresies 1 Cor. 11. 19. And if God in his wisdom thought an Infallible Judge necessary certainly that same Wisdom would have named the place person or persons where people should have found this Infallibility Was it ever known since the beginning of the world that any Prince constituted Judges in his Kingdom not so much as giving notice to his people who they were to whom they must resort for Justice this God hath not done for you do not pretend a particular place which settles this infallible Judge at Rome but only some general and fallacious Arguments as I have proved and besides it is so far from being evident that your selves are not agreed about it but some seek for this infallible judgement in the Pope others in a General Council and these do as fiercely dispute one against another in this point as you do against us in many others and therefore it is much more rational for me to conclude thus God hath not nominated and appointed such an infallible Judge in the Church therefore there is none and it is not fit there should be one than sawcily to undertake to be the Counsellor of the Almighty and to tell him what is fit to be done and then conclude that it is done In short For Controversies about Fundamental and necessary things God hath provided sufficient meanes for the ending of them having clearly enough determined them in his Word for the satisfaction of all that are diligent and humble and teachable And for Controversies of lesser moment there is no necessity of having them ended nor would they be much prejudicial to the peace of the world and the Church if men would learn to give any allowance for the infirmities of humane nature and exercise that great and necessary duty of Charity and mutual forbearance But since this is all you can say upon this particular I pray you let me hear what other Arguments you have against our Church and Doctrine Pop. Then another Argument against your Church and way is taken from the Novelty of it As for our Religion it hath had possession in the world ever since the Apostles days but you are of Yesterday and know nothing your Religion is an upstart Religion never heard of in the world till Luthers days Prot. First let me ask you this Question If you had lived in the days of Christ or of the Apostles or of the Primitive Fathers what would you have Answered for your self you know better than I that this was the very Argument which Iews and Heathens urged against the Christians then they charged Christ with not walking after the Traditions of the Elders Matth. 7. 5. And the Athenians said to Paul May we know what this new Doctrine is Act. 17. 19. And the Pharisees had Antiquity on their side being zealous for the Traditions of the Fathers Gal. 1. 14. And though it be true that the Apostles had the first Antiquity for them delivering nothing but what for substance was in Moses and the Prophets Act. 26. 22. which also is our case yet the immediate and latter antiquity was against them and for divers ages together these Doctrines had been in great measure obscured and unknown What then would you have Answered to a Iew or a Heathen objecting this Novelty to you Learn from Christ who when the Iews pleaded for the continuance of their old practice in the matter of Divorces he accounted it sufficient confutation that from the beginning it was not so Mat. 19. 7. And to all the pretences of the Pharisees from antiquity he opposeth this one thing Search the Scriptures John 5. 39. So you dispute against us with the arguments which the Pharisees used against Christ and we answer you as He answered them Besides let me ask you this Question If I could clearly prove to you all the points of our Faith and disprove the points of yours from the Holy Scriptures tell me Would you then acknowledge the truth of the Protestant Religion notwithstanding all this pretended Novelty Pop. Yes certainly for we all confess the truth of all that is contained in the holy Scriptures Prot. Hence then it follows undeniably that the main thing that you and I must look to in our faith is that it be agreeable to the holy Scriptures and if ours be so as I am fully perswaded it is and yours the contrary neither antiquity is any argument for you nor Novelty against us Besides when you charge our Church with Novelty I suppose you mean that our Doctrines are new Pop. I do so Prot. Then you cannot justly charge us with Novelty for 1. You confess the Antiquity and verity of most of our Fundamental Doctrines and your selves do approve them only you make additions of your own to them you own all the Scriptures in our Bible only you add the Apocrypha you acknowledge Scripture the rule of Faith only you add Tradition we believe all the Articles of the Apostles Creed the belief whereof the Antient Fathers thought sufficient to Salvation And the Doctrine of the four first General Councils as you do also You own our Doctrine of Christs satisfaction and Justification by Christ and Faith only you add your own works and satisfaction Our two Sacraments you approve only you add five more Our Doctrine of the two states of Men in heaven and Hell you own only you add Purgatory You own Christ for your Mediatour and Prayers to God through him only you add other Mediatours Our worship of God you own only you add Images These are the principal points of our Religion and dare you now say that our Doctrines are new 2. Many of your ablest Doctors confess that divers of the peculiar Doctrines of your Church are new and unknown to the Antient Fathers and it is most evident and undeniable concerning Indulgences Purgatory Communion in one kind Worship in a strange tongue the receiving some of your Apocryphal books Transubstantiation especially as an Article of Faith the Popes Infallibility Worship of Images
Infallible though the Pope and all the Church of Rome truly so called should fail and perish Tell me I beseech you in particular What is that Church which from this and other places you conclude to be Infallible Pop. It is the Pope with the General Council as I have told you Prot. Then I pray you make sense of the verse for to me it is meer non-sense Timothy is here advised to behave himself rightly in the house of God which is the Church of God and the Pillar and Ground of Truth According to your opinion this is the sense of it That thou mightest know how to behave thy self in the Pope and a General Council I pray you tell me truly Was there a General Council then sitting Pop. No there was no General Council from that time till two or three hundred years after when the Councill of Nice was assembled Prot. Then it seems to me a most unreasonable thing to say that Paul directs Timothy how to behave himself in a General Council which was not then in being nor like to be and that he doth not direct him how to behave himself in that body the Church in which he then resided and ruled Besides I pray you where is the Pope or a Council called the House of God If they have any thing to do there they are the Governours the Stewards the Officers of the House but are never called the House of God but this name is alwayes ascribed to the multitude of Believers and Professors as Heb. 2. 5 6. where Moses whose place in the Church the Pope pretends to is not the House but the Servant the Officer of it so Heb. 10. 21. Having an High-Priest over the house of God so 1 Pet. 2. 5. Ye as lively stones are built up as a spiritual house And if you know any one place where it is otherwise used I pray speak if not as by your silence I see you do not all understanding men will conclude that neither Pope nor Council are concerned in this priviledge But besides let me further ask you Can you give me assurance that these words which is the ground and pillar of Truth imply Infallibility Pop. It is true the words are figurative and metaphorical but that is the meaning of them Prot. My old Friend can you advise me to venture my salvation upon a metaphor or that that is the true and only sense of the words Prove it and I am your Prisoner but it seemeth to me far otherwise God saith to Ieremy I have made thee an Iron Pillar Jer. 1. 18. Was Ieremy therefore Infallible Peradventure that was too mean a metal to amount to Infallibility but your Church is a brazen Pillar and so it seems by the impudence of your assertions I read in Eusebius That the Saints of Vienna and Lyons called Attalus the Martyr a pillar and ground of the Truth yet you will not allow him to be Infallible by which and divers other passages it is sufficiently evident that a Pillar in the Church is no more than a man that is well rooted and grounded and strong in the faith as he is a reed that is tossed to and fro with every winde of doctrine let me therefore hear if you have any better arguments Pop. Then John 16. 3. is an express promise When the Spirit of truth is come he will guide you into all truth and therefore our Chuch is infallible Prot. Tell me I pray you Is not this promise made to the Apostles only If so What is that to you If you say otherwise How do you make it appear that it concerns their Successours Pop. That appears by comparing another place with it John 14. 16. The Comforter shall abide with you for ever not surely in their persons for they were to die in a little time but in their Successours Prot. I expected a place which had said at the least that the Spirit Should lead them into all truth for ever but this is quite another thing you dare not say that every one with whom the Comforter abides is infallible but to forgive you this great mistake Tell me truly Is it then your opinion That all the Successors of each of the Apostles viz. all Bishops or all Ministers are infallible Pop. No in no wise for it is only S. Peter's Successours or the Pope who is infallible and others only so far as they depend upon him and cleave to him Prot. Then this Text is not for your turn for if it do extend to the Apostles Successors it extends either to all or none for sure I am this Text makes no difference Besides how do you prove that these words of the Spirits leading into all truth if they do reach further than the Apostles do imply Infallibility Then all Believers are infallible for they are all led by the Spirit Rom. 8. 14. Pop. True but here they are said to be led into all truth Prot. You know the words all and every are often taken in a limited sense as when the Gospel is to be preached to every creature Mark 16. 15. And you may as well conclude the omnisciency of all Believers from 1 Iohn 2. 20. You know all things and v. 27. The anointing teacheth you all things as the Infallibility of your Popes or Councils from that phrase and one Answer serves for both places viz. that they speak of all necessary truths But why do I hear nothing of Luke 22. 31. Simon Simon Satan hath desired to winnow you but I have prayed that thy faith fail not I have heard that Bellarmine useth this Argnment but I confess I thought they abused him Pop. It is true he doth use it and it is a solid one though you scorn it Prot. How do you know that it is meant of all Peter's Successours for there is not one word of them here But if I grant these were meant Do you then all believe that Peter's Successours are infallible Pop. I did before acknowledge that we are divided in that point Prot. Can you think to convince me with that argument that does not satisfie your own Brethren Moreover tell me I pray you What was the Faith of Peter which was struck at by the Devil and pray'd for by Christ Pop. The event shews that for the Devil tempted him and prevailed with him to deny his Master Prot. Did Peter deny Christ doctrinally and fall into the damnable error of disbelieving Christ to be the Messias or was it only an error or miscarriage of his tongue which spoke against his Conscience and Judgment Pop. Far be it from me to say that Peter did so damnably erre in his judgment I know no Catholick who saith so all do all agree that it was only an error of his tongue and conversation and practical denial of Christ. Prot. Very well Hence then I gather that Christ prayed for his practical not for his doctrinal Faith and that his grace of faith might not be utterly lost by his
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 Institution 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 when 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 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 Pop. 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 Pop. 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 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. 9. 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 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