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
a dreadful hazard in the point of worshiping of Creaturers Images Saints and especially the Bread in the Sacrament in which you run other hazards besides those I spoke of I am told that your Doctrine is this That it is necessary to the making of a Sacrament and so to the conversion of the Bread into Christs Body that the Priest intend to consecrate it Is it so Pop. Yes doubtless Bellarmine and all our Authors largely dispute for that Prot. And can I be sure of another mans intentions It is sufficiently known that divers of your Priests are prophane and atheistical wretches others envious and malicious and some actually Jews What assurance have I that my Priest is not such an one and that he doth not either out of a contempt or hatred of Religion or malice against my person intend to deceive me and not make a Sacrament of it Sure I am they intend to deceive their people in the preaching of the Word and why they may not do so in the Administration of the Sacrament I know not VIII My eighth and last general consideration is this that your Religion destroys even the principles of morality which true Religion is so far from destroying that it improves and perfects it I confess the bloodiness of your Religion hath ever made me both suspect and loath it I find that Christ is a Prince of peace though he whipt some out of the Temple yet he never whipt any into his Church that he drew in his Disciples with the cords of a man of conviction and perswasion and so did his Apostles after him but your Religion like Draco's laws is written in blood I perceive you answer our Arguments with Fire and Faggot besides this your Religion destroyes all civil Faith and Society your principle is known and so is your practice of equivocation and keeping no faith with Hereticks Pop. I know where you are you mean because of John Husse who after he had the faith of the Emperour given him for his safe Conduct was contrary to that faith put to death in the Council of Constance Prot. I do so and what can you say for it Pop. This I say you must not charge upon our Church the opinion of some few private Doctors since others disown this and have written against it Prot. It seems it is a disputable point among you whether you ought to be honest or not but I have heard that Iohn Husse was condemned by the Council of Constance and that when the Emperour scrupled to break his Faith they declared he might do it and ought to do it Is it so Pop. It is true what was done in that point was done by the Council Prot. And you hold Councils especially where the Pope joyns with them as he did with that Council to be infallible and therefore this I may confidently charge upon you as a Principle of your Religion I cannot but observe your fine devices At other times when we alledge passages out of any of your learned Doctors which make against you you tell us they are but private Doctors and we must judge of you by your Councils Now here we bring an approved Councils testimony and you send us back to your private Doctors Pop. These discourses of yours are only general I had rather you would come to the other thing you proposed viz. to examine the particular points of our Religion wherein I hope I shall give you such solid grounds and reasons that when you shall understand them you will embrace them Prot. You shall find me ingenuous and docible only remember I expect not words but solid Arguments I think our best course will be to pick out some principal points of your Religion and examine them for the rest will either stand or fall as they do Pop. I am perfectly of your mind let us proceed accordingly Prot. First then if you please we will begin with the sacrifice of the Mass which you say is essential to the Christian Religion Pop. It is so and Bellarmine rightly saith that where there is no sacrifice as you Protestants have none there is in truth no Religion Prot. Therefore I pray you let me hear one or two for those are as good as an hundred of your chief grounds and reasons for that Sacrifice Pop. I approve your motion and I shall only insist upon two Arguments First the Sacrifice of the Mass was appointed by God or Christ in the words of Institution of the Sacrament do this in remembrance of me It is the great Argument of the Council of Trent Prot. I adore the fruitfulness of your Churches Invention It seems they think these two words do this contain no less than two of your Sacraments to wit that of Orders which makes Priests and that of the Supper Pop. They do so Prot. That no sober man will easily believe nor that Christs meaning in the words mentioned was this Sacrifice me in remembrance of me But let me hear how you prove the Institution of the Mass from these words Pop. Christ bid his Disciples do this viz. that which he did Christ did in that last Supper truly and properly offer up himself to his Father his Body under the shape of Bread his Blood under the shape of Wine and therefore they were truly and properly to offer up or Sacrifice Christ in the Sacrament The Argument is Bellarmin's Prot. How do you prove that Christ did in that last Supper truly and properly offer up his Body and Blood to his Father I read that Christ offered himself but once Heb. 8. 27. and 9. 25 26 27 28. and 10. 14. and that was upon the Cross nor do I find that he offered any thing at all to God in that Supper but only to his Apostles And what did Christ Sacrifice himself and imbrue his hands in his own Blood and did he eat up his own Body did he take his whole Body into his Mouth these are Monsters of Opinions But how prove you that Christ did then offer up himself to God Pop. Because Christ speaks in the present tense This is my Body which is broken Blood which is shed he doth not say which shall be broken and shed and therefore it must be broken and shed at that very time Prot. What a vain Argumet is this you know nothing is more usual in Scripture than to put the Present Tense for the Future Christ saith I do lay down my life when he means I will do it shortly Iohn 10. 15. I do go to my Father Iohn 16. 28. that is I shall go shortly Do that thou dost that is art about to do John 13. 27. And in Mat. 26. Christ saith of his Blood This is my Blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins and yet I suppose it was not shed at that time for you all profess the Sacrifice of the Mass is an unbloody Sacrifice But again tell me I pray you when Christ said do this did
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
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
Books wherein they were recorded might either be lost by the injury of time as thousands of other Books were which was much more easie before Printing was found out or suppressed by the tyranny of your Predecessors who made it their business as Israels enemies of old that the name and remembrance of true Christians might be blotted out of the earth So then if Christ did indeed promise the perpetual visibility of his Church I will conclude he made it good though History be silent in the point nor will I conclude it was not done because it is not recorded But I pray you let me further ask you Is it true that I am told that in the former ages there were many Christians and Ministers whom your Church did persecute and burn for Hereticks Pop. That cannot be denyed Prot. This shews there were not wanting even in former ages some that testified against your corruptions and this was a sign they were the true Church whose office it is to contend for the Faith delivered to the Saints for these things were not done in a corner I am told that your great Bellarmine when is was objected against him that the Church was obscure in St. Hilaries dayes answers that though the true Church may be obscure by multitude of Scandals yet even then it is visible in its strongest members as then it was in Athanasius Hilary Eusebius and two or three more whom he mentions whence I gather that some few eminent Preachers and Professors of the Truth are sufficient to keep up this Visibility I remember I have read in the History of the Waldenses who though your Predecessors branded them with odious names and opinions yet do sufficiently appear to have been a company of Orthodox and serious Christians and indeed true Protestants these began about 500 Years ago saith your Genebrard and your Reinerius who was one of their cruel Butchers otherwise called Inquisitors writeth thus of them This Sect saith he is the most pernicious of all others for three causes 1. Because it is of long continuance some say that it hath endured from the time of Silvester others from the time of the Apostles The 2. is because it is more general for there is almost no Land in which this Sect doth not creep 3. That whereas all others by the immanity of their blasphemies against God do make men abhor them these having a great shew of godliness because they do live justly before men and believe all things well of God and all the Articles which are contained in the Creed only the Church of Rome they do blaspheme and hate Behold here out of your own mouths a plain Confutation of your Objection and a testimony of the perpetuity amplitude visibility and sanctity of our Church for it is sufficiently known that our Church and Doctrine is for substance the same with theirs Now tell me I pray you if this History of them had been lost and no other mention of them made in other Records Had it been a truth for you to affirm that there never were any such men and Churches in that time Pop. No surely for the recording of things in History doth not make them true nor the silence of Histories about true Occurrences make them false Prot. Then there might be the like Companies and Congregations in former ages for ought you or I know nor can you argue from the defect of an History to the denial of the thing And all this I say not as if there were no Records which mention our Church in former Ages for as I said before it is sufficiently evident that all our material Doctrines have been constantly and successively owned by a considerable number of persons in several Ages but only that you may see there is a flaw in the very foundation of your Argument Moreover I finde in Scripture several instances of such times when the Church was as much obscured and invisible as ever our Church was as when Israel was in Egypt so oft-times under the Judges Iudg. 2. 3. and so under divers of the Kings as Ahab when Elijab complained he was left alone and the 7000. which were reserved though known to God were invisible to the prophet and under Ahaz and Manasseh and so in the Babylonish captivity and so under Antiochus read at my desire 2 Chr. 15. 3. 28. 24. 29. 6 7. 33. 3 4. so in the New Testament how obscure and in a manner invisible was the Christian Church for a season Nay let me add this perpetual visibility and splendour is so far from being a note of the true Church that on the contrary it is rather a sign that yours is not the true Church as appears thus Christ hath foretold the obscurity and smallness of his Church in some after ages he tells us that there shall be a general Apostasie and defection from the faith 2 Thess. 2. 1 Tim. 4. I read of a woman Rev. 12. and she is forced to flee into the Wilderness and I am told your own Expositors agree with us that this is the Church which flees from Antichrist into the Wilderness and secret places withdrawing her self from persecution Is this true Pop. I must confess our Authers do tâ—ke it so Prot. Then it seems you do not believe your selves when you plead the necessity of perpetual visibility and splendour for here you acknowledge her obscurity and really this place and discourse of yours does very much confirm me that that obscurity which you object against us is an argument that ours is the true Church though according to this Prediction the Pope this Antichrist did drive our Predecessors into the Wilderness I read of a Beast rising out of the Sea Revel 13. which your own Authors Menochius Tirinus and almost all Expositors as Riberus saith acknowledge to be Antichrist and this Beast all the Inhabitants of the World do worship except those whose names are written in the Book of life verse 8. that is excepting only the invisible Church if any Church be visible and glorious at that time it must be the false and Antichristian Church and now I speak of that I have heard that you your selves confess that in the time of Antichrist the Church shall be obscure and all publick Worship in the Churches of Christians shall be forbidden and cease Is it so Pop. It is true it shall be so i. e. during the time of Antichrists reign as Bellarmine acknowledgeth but that is only for a short moment for three years and a half which is all the time that Antichrist shall reign Prot. I thank you for this for now you have exceedingly confirmed me in the truth of my Religion for since you grant that the Church shall be obscured durings Antichrist reign I am very well assured that your opinion of the Triennial reign of Antichrist is but a meer dream and that he was to reign in the Church for many hundred of years for 1260 dayes Rev. 11. 3.
12. 6. that is years it being a very familiar thing to put dayes for years in Prophetical Writings But if the Church may be obscured for three years why not for thirty yea three hundred Did Christ in his supposed promise of perpetual Visibility in the Church make an exception for these three years I trow not And tell me I pray you should you live till that time when Antichrist shall prevail and your Religion no less than ours be obscure and invisible if any of the followers of Antichrist should dispute against you that yours was not the true Church because not visible Would you grant it Pop. God forbid I should be so wicked to deny my Mother and Church because of her Afflictions Prot. Then I see you your selves do not believe this to he a good argument and that you do not make perpetual visibility a necessary token of the true Church To this I add there is no need we should shew a constant succession of Protestant Churches ever since the Apostles dayes as you pretend is necessary the succession that you pretend in your Church is sufficient for ours and so long as we generally agree that your Church was a true Church till later years though wofully corrupted and our Predecessors continued in it till your wounds stunk and became incurable we need no other succession than yours but when your impiety came to the height then we visibly departed from you and have given such reasons for it as you will never be able to answer In the mean time let me hear what you have further to say Pop. For as much as all your Ministers confess our Church was once a true Church I pray you tell me how and when she did fall you cannot tell either the time when she fell or the manner how by Apostacy or Heresie or Schism if you can name your Authors Prot. This is a most unreasonable demand A friend of mine had the Plague last year and died of it I askt him when he was sick how and when he got it he said he knew not Shall I then conclude he had it not Shall I make Christ a lyar and dispute that there were no tares because they were sown when men slept Mat. 13. 25. and so could not know when or how they came Shall I believe no Heresie to be an Heresie unless I can shew how and when it came into the Church What if the Records of these things by the injury of time are lost and their original left in obscurity shall I therefore say it is now become no Heresie I beseech you answer me freely this question Suppose I could bring plain and strong evidences from the holy Scripture and from antient Tradition or the unanimous testimonies of the Antient Fathers that your Doctrine of Merits for instance is an Heresie your Doctrine of worshipping Images is Idolatry and that you are in divers particulars apostatized from that faith which the Scriptures and Fathers do own in this case Would you not confess that you are guilty of Idolatry Heresie and Apostasie Pop. If it were so and you could really bring as you falsely pretend you can but indeed cannot any such solid proofs I must and will confess it For all our Writers agree that although we must believe many things that are not contained in the Scripture yet we must believe nothing contrary to the Scriptures nor to the consent of the antient Fathers Prot. Very well hence then I gather that the only question between you and me is Whether we can evidently and solidly prove the particulars now mentioned which if we can do as I am satisfied our Ministers have done you are convicted in your own Conscience and will confess your self and your Church guilty of Heresie Idolatry and Apostasie whether I can tell the manner or time or Authors of this doctrine or no. Therefore leaving these frivolous and impertinent questions let me hear what you have to say more against our Religion and whereas your discourse I observe hath wholly run upon Generals I beseech you come to some particulars and shew me the falshood of the Doctrines of our Church But it doth not a little confirm me in my Religion that you confess as I shewed before most of our Doctrines to be true and grounded upon Scripture whereas yours are additions of your own devising Now if things be thus you shall not need to trouble your self about many particulars But if you please single out some of our principal Heresies as you call them and let me hear what evidences you can bring against them Pop. Your Heresies are very many but I shall mention one which may be instead of all and that is your rule of Faith and Iudge of Controversies which you make to be the Scripture only Prot I am glad you have fallen upon so material a point the deciding whereof may make other Disputes in great part useless Tell me then what you have to say against this Doctrine Pop. I will urge four Arguments against it 1. Scripture hath no authority over us but from the Church 2. You cannot know what Books are the holy Scriptures or part of it but by the Churches report 3. If neither of these were true yet Scripture is not a sufficient rule for your faith without Tradition 4. If it were sufficient yet it is so obscure that you cannot know the sense of it without the interpretation of the Church You see here is a fourfold cord which you will find is not easily broken Prot. Make these things good and I confess you do your work in a great measure Let me hear your Proofs Pop. For the first then I say that Scripture hath no authority over us but from the Church neither you nor I are bound to believe the Scripture to be the word of God nor can any man know it or prove it to be so but from the testimony of our Church concerning it Prot. I pray tell me if you were to discourse with an Atheist who utterly denies the holy Scriptures and the Church too Could you not prove against him that the Scriptures are the Word of God Pop. God forbid but that I should be able to defend the truth of the Scriptures against any adversary whatsoever Prot. How then I pray you would you prove it Pop. I need not tell you the Arguments which in this case our Doctors use and I stand by them in it they alledge for the truth of the holy Scriptures the testimony of all ages and all sorts of persons the miracles wrought for it acknowledged even by the Enemies of it the martyrdom that so many thousands and many of them wise and learned men did run upon in the defence of them who living so near the time of the writing of them were best able do discern the truth and the wonderful power that goes along with them in convincing converting and comforting or terrifying sinners Prot. Do you believe these are solid Arguments
the council of Trent it self when one would expect they should have grown wiser though not better prove the unequal power of Popes Bishops and Priests from Rom. 13. 1. The powers that be are ordained of God that is digested into order I hope ere you have done you will put forth an entire Comment upon the whole Bible which I assure you will be the rarest book that ever saw the light But further I desire to know of you how your Church comes to have this true and certain sense of Scripture hath she it by Revelation or Inspiration Pop. No we pretend to no such thing but she comes to know it by the diligent use of means by prayer by reading and comparing Scripture by consulting ancient Interpreters Analogy of Faith the coherence c. and even the Pope himself when he set forth his Translation of the Bible He professes to all the world that he did it in the very same manner and by the same helps that other Translators do that is by advising with learned Men and consulting Antient Copies and the like Prot. Very good Then I pray you tell me why a Protestant Minister being oft times both a learneder and better man than the Pope may not as certainly hit upon the true sense of the Scripture as the Pope himself Pop. The reason is plain because the Pope is guided by the infallible assistance of Gods Spirit Prot. You ought not to rant at this height until you have solidly answered what our Divines have wrote against this Infallibility And I heard before the woful weakness of your arguments for it is to me the vainest thing in the world to pretend a promise of the Spirit of God infallibly to guide such men as if the Scripture be true have not the Spirit of Christ in them being as you confess many of your Popes and Bishops were sensual not having the Spirit and having apparently no other spirit in them but the spirit of the world the spirit that lusteth to envy and all wickedness But since you pretend the Scripture is so dark I pray you tell me what was the end for which God designed the Scripture Sure I think it was for our understanding my Bible tells me that whatsoever things were written aforetime were written for our learning Rom. 15. 4 But if you say true it seems God meant only to put forth riddles Gods Law was designed by him for a light and that even to the simple Psal. 19. 7 8 9. and 119 105. And in a word the Gospel is so clear that Saint Paul pronounceth it is hid from none but them that perish 2 Cor. 4. 3 4. And Saint Luke wrote his Gospel that Theophilus and with him other Christians might know the certainty of those things wherein they had been instructed Luke 1. 4. and generally every discreet man that writes a Book writes it so as it may be understood especially if it be for the benefit of the ignorant as well as the learned which the Scripture assuredly was Tell me then I pray you why should God write his mind so darkly and doubtfully as you know whose Oracles are said to be delivered was it because God could not write plainer and wanted the gift of utterance or because he would not Pop. Notwithstanding all this it is certain the Scripture is full of obscure places Prot. I do not deny this but those things which are obscurely delivered in one place are more clearly delivered in another and those dark places generally are about Prophecies and such other things the knowledge of which is not necessary to salvation But for necessaries the Scripture is plain and I am told that divers of your Authors acknowledge so much Is that true Pop. I confess Costerus hath this expression that things which are necessary to be known by all Christians are plainly and clearly delivered in the writings of the Apostles and some others of our Doctors say as much * See nullity of Rom. faith chap. 7. sect 4. Prot. It could be nothing but the evidence of the truth which forced such an acknowledgment from its greatest Adversaries therefore let this go and let me hear what further you have to say against our Religion Pop. I find you are an obstinate Heretick and setled upon the lees and therefore it will be needless to discourse further with you if any thing could have convinced you surely the Arguments I have offered would have done it for I assure you I have pickt out the strength and marrow of the Catholick Cause in the Points we have discoursed And since I see you turn a deaf ear to my counsel I shall give you over as incorrigible Prot. You see I have heard you with great patience and given you all the freedom you could desire now I have one request to you that you would allow me the same priviledge with patience to hear and if you can answer what I shall object against your Religion Pop. With a very good will I 'le meet you here to morrow at this time so at present adieu The SECOND CONFERENCE Prot. WEll met Sir I see you are as good as your word and I hope you will allow me as much freedom and patience as I did you Pop. I shall willingly do it therefore speak freely and so will I and if truth be on your side let it prevail Prot. I shall divide my discourse into two Parts 1. Some General Considerations which indeed do very much set me against your Religion 2. I shall examine the grounds of your Principal Points of Doctrine for to meddle with all will be needless If your Pillars fall the rest cannot stand For the first there are several weighty Considerations against your Religion I shall give you them in order The first General Consideration is this 1. That your Church declines all Judgment but her own and makes her self Judge in her own Cause you do not allow Scripture to be Judge nor the Antient Fathers for all your talk of Antiquity nor indeed any but your selves the Pope or a Council of your own and your Church it seems must determine whether she be a true Church or no and whether she be pure or corrupted or whether she be Infallible or no Is this so Pop. I confess this is our Doctrine and I think grounded upon Reason Prot. You speak against the common sense of all men In all Controversies or Differences between men and men we generally suspect that party who will submit to no judgment but his own and he who is willing to refer himself to any third indifferent party is generally presumed to have the best cause and thâ—s is our case Protestants do not make themselves and their own Church the only Judge though they might as justly and reasonably do it as you but they are very willing to submit to other Judges they refer themselves to be judged by the Scripture which is acknowledged to be a most indifferent Judge If
that do not please you they refer themselves to the Fathers for the first six hundred years till your abominations had leavened the world according to what was foretold Rev. 13. 8. II. My second consideration is this You do not only decline the Scriptures judgment but you infinitely disparage and vilifie it I meet with several passages quoted out of your Authors to that purpose Pop. Possibly you may out of some inconsiderable ones but not out of any of note and name in our Church Prot. Yes out of your prime Authors I read that Cardinal Hosius in his Advertisement to King Sigismund hath this expression If they that is the Hereticks say It is written that is the voice of the Devil speaking in his members But that it is below a Cardinal to read the Bible he would have found the words also in Christs mouth I read that Costerus calls the Scripture by way of contempt Paper and Parchment God saith he would noâ— have his Church by which always understand the Papists themselves now depend upon Paper and Parchment as Moses made the carnal Israelites And again That which is written in the heart of the Church doth by many degrees excel the Scriptures First because that was written by the finger of God but this by the Apostles as if the Writings of the Apostles were only a device of man I read that Cardinal Pool writing to Henry the Eighth saith thus What an absurd thing is this that thou dost attribute more authority to the Scripture than to the Church since the Scripture hath no authority but for the decree of the Church He means the Roman Church I see we are highly concerned to please your Church else we are like to have no Scriptures I read that Pighius saith The Apostles did never intend to subject our faith to their writings but rather their writings to our faith And afterward he saith The Scriptures are as one said not more pleasantly than truly a nose of wax which suffers it self to be drawn hither or thither as a man pleaseth I read that your Bullenger saith The Scripture is the Daughter the Church the Mother which gives being and sufficiency to her she begets No wonder then the Church makes bold with the Scripture to add or alter or dispense with it We all know the Mother may correct the Daughter I confess when I read those passages produced by our Writers I suspected they wronged them Are these things true Pop. I acknowledge it and it is a vain thing for me to deny it for the Books and those passages in them are extant under their own hands And I must confess these Authors are as considerable and approved as any we have But you ought to put a favourable sense upon them Prot. I would not strain them nor make them worse than they are Take them as you will they are abominable expressions and to me a great evidence that the Scripture is no friend to your Church And I conclude this to be one accomplishment of what Christ hath said Every one that doth evil hateth the light neither cometh to the light lest his deeds should be reproved John 3. 20. And if this be the spirit by which your Church is guided I am sure it is not the Spirit of God and of Truth for that teacheth men reverence and love to the Scriptures You seem to do like Herod who being convinced that he was not of the Royal race of the Iews did burn their Genealogies and Records that his false pretences might not be confuted by them And just so do you endeavour to do by the Scriptures III. My third Consideration against your Religion is this That your Cause is such as dares not abide tryal This is the honour and happiness of our Religion We are allowed to examine all that our Ministers say and we have a Rule which we may peruse to try them by viz. the holy Scriptures which you dare not suffer your people to read And this I take to be a secret confession of your guilt and I am told your Alphonsus de Castro saith That from the reading of the Scripture all Heresies come Pop. I think your experience hath justified that expression You see what you get by the reading of the Scriptures even this that you are crumbled into a thousand Sects Prot. Our Saviour was not of your mind for he thought not acquaintance with but ignorance of the Scriptures was the cause of Error Ye erre not knowing the Scriptures Mat. 22. 29. Nor did he only allow but command the Iews to search the Scriptures without any fear of this inconvenience Iohn 5. 39. Had S. Paul been of your mind he would not have commended but reproved the Beraans for searching the Scriptures and examining his Doctrine by them Act. 17. 11. If any of your people should do as the Beraeans did they would be sent to the Inquisition I do not deny but too many make a bad use of the Scripture and wrest it to wicked purposes which is to me no better an argument than this Wine makes many men drunk therefore no Wine must be sold. The Doctrine of Free Grace was abused by thousands as we read therefore S. Paul did ill in preaching of it The light of the Sun hurts sore eyes therefore Solomon was mistaken when he said It is a pleasant thing to behold the Sun But since you speak of this I pray you let me ask you one question Were not most of the Heresies that ever were in the Church brought in by learned men Pop. I cannot deny that for it is notoriously known Prot. Then you shut up the wrong door for it seems it is not the unlearned mans reading but the learned mans perverting the Scripture which is the true cause and fountain of Heresies And besides you must not do evil that good may come out of it nor defraud people of their greatest treasure nor keep them from their duty for fear of some inconveniencies This is to make your selves wiser than God Pop. But indeed you slander us in this point We do not absolutely forbid reading of the Scriptures The Council of Trent allows it provided you can get the Bishops leave Prot It is true that Council pretends to give some such liberty but they take away with one hand what they gave with the other for in their Index of forbidden Books they have this passage Since experience sheweth that the promiscuous reading of the Bible brings more evil than good therefore if any man shall dare to read or have a Bible without license from the Bishop or Inquisitor he shall not be capable of absolution unless he part with his Bible But in truth this pretended License is but an handsome blind For in that very place there is this Observation added to that Rule That the power of giving such Licenses of reading or keeping the vulgar Bibles is taken away from such Bishops and Inquisitors by
of the Churches Rev. 1. 20. the seven heads are seven Mountains Rev. 17. 9. So Christ saith I AM the way the door c. So Zach. 5. 7 8. This woman is wickedness and a thousand such expressions How do you understand these places Pop. The sense is plain they signifie those things the Stars signifie the Angels and so for the rest Prot. Then certainly we have the advantage of you in this point for we take is for signifies as you confess it is commonly taken nor have the Jews as I have been assured by learned men any proper word for signifie as the Greeks and Lutines have but generally express it in this manner But you must take it if the Particle this denote the Bread as I shall plainly prove it doth for is converted into a sense which you cannot give one example of in all Scripture I see it was not without reason that you took the interpretation of Scripture into the Churches hands for if you had left it in Gods hands and left one Scripture to do that friendly office to expound another you had certainly lost an Article of your Faith And whereas you say that Christ would speak so as the Disciples might understand him that sufficiently shews that yours is not the true sense for they could never have understood it and would doubtless have been as much puzled then as all the World now is to apprehend that the body of Christ was contained under the species of Bread and Wine invisibly and undiscoverably after the manner of a Spirit to conceive of a body without bigness long without length broad without breadth broken whilest it remains whole all which you profess to believe This is to turn Christs plain speech into a bundle of Riddles and to call this the plain sense of the words which is as you see a heap of Figures is a greater figure than all the rest but they did well enough understand the words in our sense because they were well read in Scripture wherein as you grant that sense of the words is usual Pop. If we grant it is used so in other cases yet not in Sacramental Texts for there Christ would speak properly Prot. Yes It is usual even in the Sacraments Is not Circumcision called the Covenant This is my Covenant Gen. 17. 10. though proprerly it was not the Covenant but the Seal of it Rom. 4. 11. Is not the Lamb called the Lords Passeover Exod. 12. though all men knew it was not the Lamb nor the ceremony of eating it which was or could be properly the Lords passing over the houses of the Israelites thus 1 Cor. 10. The Rock that followed the Israelites is Christ though it was so only Figuratively and Sacramentally Moreover I am told that divers of your own brethren acknowledge figures here Tapperus saith It is not inconvenient to admit of Tropes here provided they be such as do not exclude the true presence of Christs body And that the Bishop of Eureux owns three Figures in the words of this Sacrament and that Suarez Bellarmine and divers others confess as much Pop. It is true they do say so Prot. Besides you cannot think strange if there be Figures in the first part This is my Body since it is most apparent there are Figures in the last part This is the New Testament in my bloud Here are not one but divers Figures in it The Cup you grant is taken for the liquor in it there is one figure The Wine in the Cup is taken for the Bloud which was not in the Cup there is a strange figure indeed Logicians call it Non-sense This Cup or Wine or Bloud if you please is the New Testament or Covenant whereas it was only the Seal of the New Testament as is most manifest because it is called The Bloud of the New Testament and the New Testament in my Bloud Besides other strange figures which I shall have occasion to speak to by and by Here is figure upon figure and yet you have the impudence to reproach us for putting in but one figure which you confess to be very frequent Wonder O Heavens and judge O Earth whether these men do not strain at Gnats and swallow Camels And nothing doth more confirm the truth in this point than to consider into what absurdities this Doctrine hath forced you even to say that the Bloud of Christ is properly the Covenant or Testament And that there are two sorts of Christs Bloud the one in the Cup the other shed on the Cross And that the Bloud of Christ is shed in the Sacrament and yet never stirreth out of the veins Did ever God or man speak of such bloud-shed therefore for shame never charge us with understanding this Text figuratively But again let me ask you Will you affirm that these words This is my body are to be taken properly Doth your Church understand them so Pop. Yes surely or else we do ill to reproach you for taking them improperly Prot. The words are not true in a proper sense nor indeed do you understand them so Pop. Make that good and I must give up this cause for ever Prot. First for the word this it is most evident that it is meant of Bread It is impossible for words to express any thing more plainly than that by this is meant the Bread It is said expresly that Christ took Bread and brake it and gave it and said Take eat THIS is my Body Where this necessarily relates to that which Christ took and brake and gave After Christ came the Apostles and particularly Saint Paul and he expounds the mind of Christ and I hope you do not think he was so bad an Expositor that his Comment was harder than the Text and he tells us thrice in a breath that it is Bread 1 Cor. 11. 26. As oft as you eat this Bread and whosoever shall eat this Bread and so let him eat of that Bread And again 1 Cor. 10. 16. The Bread which we break is it not the Communion of the Body of Christ And the participation of the Sacrament is called breaking of Bread Acts 2. 46. 20. 7. which your Authors undertand of the Sacrament and besides this whatever it is is broken as it follows but you dare not say Christs Body is broken Now then since it is most evident that this is meant of the Bread I hope you will not say this is properly Christs Body Pop. No We are not so absurd to say this Bread is Christs body for that is false and against common sense as Bellarmine well saith Prot. What then do you mean by the word this Pop. By This I understand neither the Bread nor Christs Body but in general this substance which is contained under this species Prot. What do you mean by that I pray you tell me Do you believe that there are any more substances under those species besides the Bread first and afterward the
no less than murder all your people by robbing them of that which is necessary to their life Pop. Not so for as I shall shew you you have the blood in the body or bread Prot. If it be so yet my taking it in that manner cannot be called a drinking it unless you will say that every man that eats rawish meat may be said to drink the blood which he eats in it but further I think we have as great right to the cup as your Priests we have Christs do this and you pretend no more in short we have both the legacy and command of Christ fortified with this strong reason this cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins whereby it sufficiently appears that the signe belongs to all that have interest in the thing and are capable of discerning the Lords body and this command of Christ is express and positive Mat. 26. Drink ye ALL of it it is remarkable that he doth not say eat ye all though they were to do so but drink ye all of it as foreseeing the sacriledge of your Church what can you say to this Pop. First I say here is no command but an institution only Prot. I understand no subtilties but if you say this was no command of drinking then it was no command of eating to say take eat and so the Sacrament is not commanded but people may receive or refuse it as they please and Christs do this is no more than do as you list for my part I shall never know when Christ commands any thing if this be not a command for no command can run in more express words Pop. If this be a command it concerns only Priests for such the Apostles were and they only were present Prot. Since it is evident that eating and drinking belong to the same persons if the one be restrained to the Apostles so is the other and because you confess the eating belongs to the people by vertue of this precept Eat of it by the same reason also doth the drinking reach to them also by vertue of that precept Drink of it Besides the Apostles though they were Ministers yet in this act they were in the peoples stead and Christ was the Minister or dispenser of the Sacrament and they only the receivers of it at this time Besides as they were Ministers he bad them do this that is take and distribute bread and wine to the people as he had to them If Ministers be under any command of administring and giving the Sacrament certainly it is here for no command can be more express and if they are commanded to give the bread to the people they are commanded to give the wine also for here is no difference at all Adde to this that St. Paul hath put this out of doubt and he expounds this of and applies it to the people for thus he writes to all the Corinthians Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup 1 Cor. 11. 28. in four verses together viz. 26 27 28 29. eating and drinking are inseparably joyned together which you have so wickedly divided If it be a Command Let a man examine himself which none will deny then it is a Command which immediately follows so let him eat this Bread and drink this Cup. Pop. It doth not appear that there is an absolute command of drinking but only that as oft as they do drink it they should drink it in remembrance of Christ. Prot. If this be so then here is no command for the Priest either to Consecrate the Cup or to Receive it And further then here is no command for his Consecrating or receiving the Bread neither for there is no more than a Do this and that is for the Wine as well as for the Bread Pop. Here is a difference for he saith of the Body simply Do this in remembrance of me but of the Cup This do ye as oft as you drink it Prot. If you lay any stress upon these words as oft as you do it I beseech you make use of your eyes and you shall read that it is said of the Bread as well as of the Cup Vers. 26. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup. Well I am sorry to see that you dare oppose such plain Scripture upon such pitiful pretences But I pray you let me ask you I have been told that your famous Council of Censtance in their Canon for the receiving the Sacrament in one kind have these expressions Although Christ did Minister this Sacrament undâ—r the forms of Bread and Wine And although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds Yet they make a Canon that it shall be received under one kinde only Is this so Pop. It is true they are the very words of the Council Prot. This was a wise Council indeed wiser than Christ and all his Apostles but I should think we are on the safest side having Christ and all the Primitive Churches for our patterns and by this I see what to judge of your glorious pretences that yours is the Antient and Apostolical Faith and ours forsooth but a new Religion But I pray let me hear what you have to say for this fact of yours in taking away the Cup I see Scripture is against you and the Antient Church at least so far that for 1400. years together the people might drink of the Cup if they would as I am told your Becanus confesseth Pop. You are greatly mistaken we have Scripture for us we have examples there of receiving the Sacrament in one kind Acts 2. 42. They continued in the Apostles Doctrine and breaking of Bread and Acts 20. 17. They came together to break Bread Prot. It is usual to express an whole Feast by this one thing Christ went into the Pharisees house to eat bread Luk. 14. 2. I suppose you think it was not a dry feast Ioseph's Brethren sat to eat Gen. 37. 25. so Act. 27. 35. Paul and the rest took bread and eat it yet none doubts but they had drink with it Besides here is as much said of the People as of the Ministers drinking of the Cup that is neither is here mentioned and if the silence concerning the Cup be a good Argument it proves that neither did partake of it if it be not then both might partake of it But what have you more to say Pop. You need not be troubled so much at the loss of the Cup since the blood is contained in the Bread that is in the Body by concomitancy Prot. This is in effect to tell Christ the Cup was a superfluous device Besides we are commanded to drink the Cup If I should dip bread in drink and eat it no man will say I drink the bread Again this destroys the main end of the Sacrament which is to shew forth Christs
Errours I shall comfort my self in this that I have delivered my own soul your blood be upon your own head for there it will assuredly fall and not upon the Priests only Mr. POOLE'S Dialogue A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A Popish Priest AND An English Protestant Pop. DEar Friend I am glad to meet with you after so long a separation for I remember we were brought up at the same School and I rejoyce in the opportunity of renewing our acquaintance I desire a little discourse with you to understand how it is with you in point of Religion Prot. I am of the Protestant reformed Religion Pop. I am heartily sorry for it in regard of our old intimacy but if you will give me leave I do not question but in a very little time to give you such reasons as will force you to leave those damnable Errors and to return to your antient Mother the Church of Rome Prot. With a very good will shall I yield my self to your Instruction I desire nothing more than true Information I know I have a Soul to save which is of infinite worth and I am not fond of damnation therefore if you give me better grounds than I have you shall not finde me obstinate but this I must tell you you must not put me off with fancies and bare affirmations but I shall expect solid proof of what you say from Scripture or Reason and now speak what you please Pop. First my dear Friend I must intreat you to consider that which your own Ministers teach you to wit That there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Catholick Church which is the Church of Rome Prot. That none is saved out of the true Catholick Church I grant for the Catholick Church includes all Believers in the world but a man may be saved that is no Member of the Roman nor of any particular Church for although you ingross to your selves the name of the Catholick Church nothing is more clear than that the Church of Rome is at best but a part of the Catholick Church and that a very unsound one too and there is a false Church in which salvation cannot ordinarily be had as well as a true Church out of which it cannot ordinarily be had and I have heard more to prove yours to be this false Church than I am able to answer or you either as I suppose therefore this being only a general and so an unconcluding Argument I desire you to come closer to the point Pop. Then I intreat you to consider the danger of your way and the safety of ours since all your Ministers confess That a Roman Catholick may be saved in his Religion but all our Church unanimously declare That you are damned if you live and dye in your Religion Prot. You call us Schismaticks but by this Argument you prove your selves to be so For I have oft heard it that in the very same manner those infamous Schismaticks the Donatists argued against St. Austin and the Catholick Church that he confessed Salvation was to be had in their Churches which they affirmed was not to be had in the Catholick Church and this very thing was by St. Austin and the Church of that age condemned as their great Schismatical Principle But let that pass To come to your Argument Remember the condition I made with you that you do not put me off with Fancies and bare Affirmations for I expect you shall make good every word you say Now here I find you under a great Mistake and though I have heard it most confidently delivered by divers of your Brethren yet you must give me leave to believe my own eyes and ears I read it in divers Books of our Learned English Divines and I have heard it from divers very able Scholars and Ministers That Popery in these times and places of light is to those that may see that light and will not not only dangerous but damnable nor do I pin my Faith upon their sleeves but they have given me not meer Affirmations as you do but such Arguments as I confess I cannot answer yet if you can I shall be ready to hearken to you Pop. It is easie to say in general that our Religion is dangerous or damnable but I beseech you shew me wherein which are those Doctrines and Practices of ours wherein the danger lies Prot. I will instance in few of many particulars First That Idolatry is a damnable sin your own Authors grant and Scripture expresly affirms Idolaters shall not inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. and Rev. 21. 8. 22. 15. And that your Church is guilty of Idolatry especially in the Worship of Images and of the Host or Consecrated Bread in the Sacrament is the Doctrine of all Protestant Churches and I shall prove it before you and I have done Secondly That the Worshippers of the Babylonish Beast Rev. 13. and 14. are in a damnable condition you all grant and it is affirmed by God himself Rev. 14. 8 9 10 11. And that Rome is that Babylon the most and Learnedest of your Doctors agree only some of them pretend it is Rome Heathen as it was and others that it is Rome Iewish as it shall be in the end of the world both which conceits are fully refuted by divers of our Authors Thirdly that it is highly dangerous to trust in Man and to trust in our own Righteousness sufficiently appears from Ier. 17. 5. Cursed is he that trusteth in Man and from that dreadful example of the Iews who going about to establish their own righteousness did not submit to and therefore lost the benefit of the righteousness of Faith Rom. 10. 3. and that you are guilty of this sin in trusting to Saints and to your own Merits shall appear in the following Discourse Fourthly It is dangerous to add to the Word of God and this your Church is not only deeply guilty of in adding their Traditions to be received with equal reverence to the holy Scriptures but obligeth all its Members to justifie those additions and thereby intitle them to the same plagues with themselves Fifthly to name no more it is highly dangerous to break any of Gods commands and to teach men so and to make the word of God of none effect by humane Traditions we know what woes Christ pronounceth against the Pharisees for these things And this your Church is deeply guilty of as in many other particulars so most eminently in this that you profess no men are obliged to receive the Scriptures as the word of God nor to believe any thing in it but for the testimony of your Church By this it apears that you have no reason to boast of the safeness of your way And as for your threats of Damnation to all that do not submit themselves to your Church and Pope however they may terrifie silly people yet toke it from me to prudent men it is rather an argument of
the falseness of your Religion For such will be apt to conclude that your Faith is not right because your uncharitableness is so notorious and monstrous in condemning all the world besides your selves and that too upon such frivolous pretences This argument therefore of yours hath little weight Let me hear what further you have to say against our Religion Pop. Then consider seriously of this that your Church confesses that she is Fallible and that you have no Infallible Iudge among you whereby Controversies may be ended but our Church is Infallible Prot. I confess now you speak home make this good That it is necessary the Church should be Infallible and that yours is so and I shall ease you of the trouble of further Arguments But I must ask you two Questions 1. What is the meaning of this Proposition and 2. How you will prove it For the first I ask you how you understand it What is this Church which you tell me is Infallible Are you agreed among your selves in that point To tell me of an Infallible Judge and not to give me infallible assurance who this Judge is is to deceive me with vain words and will no more end Controversies than to tell me there is an Infallible Judge in Heaven For where I pray you shall I finde your Infallible Judge Now I am in quest of him I intreat your counsel and direction Tell me then Is it the body of your Church and multitude of Catholicks that is your Infalible Judge Do you make your people the Judge of Controversies Pop. No For we all agreed the Government of the Church is Monarchical Prot. Are you then agreed that the Pope alone is the Infallible Judge speak the truth and the whole truth and nothing but the truth Pop. I will deal truly with you we are not all agreed in that point the French Catholicks generally deny it and divers of our eminent Doctors and Writers as Bellarmin confesses and among the rest a Pope Adrian by name denies it and even they that seem to be better minded towards the Pope acknowledge that it is no heresie to deny this and that divers good Catholicks deny it and that it is but a disputable point Prot. Is it then a General Council that is infallible Are you agreed in that deal truly and clearly with me Pop. Then I must confess we are not all agreed in that neither For the Pope will deny this and all the Iesuites and Italian Catholicks and others who ascribe this Infallibility to the Pope only Prot. Who then is this Infallible Judge Pop. The Pope and a General Council agreeing together Prot. Is there then at this time any General Council at Rome or elsewhere which doth agree with the Pope Pop. No but though there be no Council now in their persons yet there is in their writings and the Pope agreeing with them is infallible Prot. But I have been told that all your Doctors agree in this that no Writing can be a judge of Controversies If you deny this I should think the writing of God which you all acknowledge the Scripture to be might challenge this priviledge as well as the writings of any Council or men You all plead for the absolute necessity of a living Infallible Judge Pop. Though Catholicks are divided in the manner of expression yet all are agreed in this general Proposition That our Church is Infallible Prot. Call you this only a difference in manner of expression for one to say the Pope is Infallible another to say he is fallible for some of you to affirm the infallibility of Councils others utterly to deny it I beseech you remember I am inquiring after Particulars and therefore do not put me off with deceitful Generals who and where is the man or men to whom I must go to be infallibly resolved in all Controversies For if the King should tell his people he hath appointed a Judge to end all their civil Controversies this would be to no purpose unless he should tell who that Judge is So that till I hear you are agreed in this particular my doubts and perplexities must needs remain And then for the next point I ask you how you prove this Infallibility which you pretend to I must tell you since it is the very foundation of your Faith I expect very clear and undeniable Proofs I pray you bring me two or three of your strongest Arguments Pop. In this you speak reason and I shall comply with your desires I shall give you two or three plain and evident Scriptures to prove it 1. That of Mat. 16. 18. Hence I thus argue The Church is said to be built upon St. Peter he is the Rock spoken of and this Rock doth together with S. Peter include his Successours and the Church built upon this Rock that is united to and built upon the Pope is infallible for it is said The Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it Prot. Not one of all these things is true 1. It is more probable that not Peter's Person but his Doctrine or his Confession concerning Christ which now he made is the Rock upon which the Church is built Scripture is its own best Interpreter It is not Peter but Christ which is the foundation of the Church as he is called Isa. 28. 16. compared with 1 Pet. 2. 6 7 8. It is expresly 1 Cor. 3. 11. Other foundation can no man lay but that that is laid which is Iesus Christ and this is the more considerable because he speaks against those that made the Apostles foundations one saying I am of Paul another I of Apollos I of Cephas And if this were spoken of Peter no more is said of him here than is said of all the Prophets and Apostles Ephes. 2. 20. Ye are built upon the foundation of the Apostles and Prophets And besides if by this Text Peter had been made supreme and Infallible Head of the Church and Judge of all Controversies no Man in his wits can believe that St. Paul would have treated him so irreverently to speak the least as he doth Galat. 2. which is more considerable because then Christ was dead and Peter in the actual exercise of his Headship and Government and if we may believe you publickly and universally owned for such that he would have equalled himself with him as he doth Verse 7. The Gospel of the Vncircumcision was committed to me as the Gospel of the Circumcision to Peter And that he would have spoken promiscuously of Iames Cephas and Iohn that they all seemed to be pillars Ver. 9. and not a word of Peters being the rock and foundation and that he would have withstood St. Peter to his face as he did Verse 11. 2. If this were meant of Peter yet this is nothing to his Successours You must first prove that St. Peter had a Successour in that supposed universal Headship which will be very hard to perswade any understanding Man for 1. That authority