which the Apostles had over all Churches was peculiar to them and died with them we see God did not think it necessary to leave a successour to Moses in his full and absolute Authority no more was it necessary to leave any after Peter and the Apostles and the reason is the same because the work of Law-giving was finish'd and those that came after were tyed to the execution of their Laws 2. Besides if Peter did leave a Successour what prudent man can believe that he would not have left some notice thereof to the world in one of his Epistles I find he saith I will endeavour that you may be able after my decease to have these things in remembrance 2 Pet. 1. 15. How easie had it been to have added to that end I leave a Successour whom you must hear in all things I find Moses was very careful to leave a Successour and so was Elias and David and Christ as my Father sent me so send I you Was Peter the only careless person that would not be at the expence of a word to prevent all those Heresies Schisms and Contentions which were even then broached and most likely to increase after the death of the Apostles in the Christian world 3. If any did succeed St. Peter in his Head-ship one would think it should have been one of the surviving Apostles especially St. Iohn who lived above 20 years after him for who can believe that regards what he believes that Linus or Clemens who is said to be St. Peters successour should be superiour to St. Iohn yet the foundation of all your Religion is built upon this nonsensical opinion And if this priviledge did belong not only to Peter but some of his successours yet to say it belongs to all following Popes divers of which are acknowledged to be Apostatical and most wicked wretches and that such Monsters as were the true slaves of the Devil and brands of Hell should be the foundations of the Church by whom the Church was to be secured from the gates of Hell will not find belief with serious Men till East and West meet together and besides when our Divines say The Pope is Antichrist and the Man of sin you use to answer that these expressions the Antichrist and the Man of sin must needs point at a particular Man and not a whole Order of Men which if it be true the expression there used of this Rock especially being so particularly levell'd at Peter as you will needs have it cannot with any colour be thought to mean a succession of many hundreds of persons And sure I am whatever the Text speaks of Peter it speaks not one word of Peters Successours and therefore it is as easie for me to deny it as you to affirm it 3. Whatever this promise or priviledge is it belongs no more to the Church of Rome than to the Church of England the name of one is heer as clear as the other It is a general promise extending to the Church at all times and places signifying that God will have and maintain a Church to the end of the World And if this place concerns only those that are built upon St. Peter you grant the Church of England once was as the Church of Rome now is built upon him too when it was subject to the Pope And if their being built upon St. Peter did not secure them from Fallibility and Apostacy as you say it did not then consequently the building of the Church of Rome upon St. Peter did not make them infallible but they might as we say and prove they did fall away And certainly one of these two things must be granted either that every Church which did once adhere to Peter or the Pope are secured by this Text from falling away or else that notwithstanding this Promise every Church that now is subject to the Pope may fall away from him and so the Pope may be a head without a Body a Shepherd without so much as one sheep For if this Text did prove what they desire that all that do adhere to the Pope whilst they do so are Infallible yet it doth not prove that they all shall constantly adhere to him which is quite another thing 4. If this Promise and Priviledge did belong to any particular Church and to yours in a special manner yet it doth not prove your Infallibility This place concerns Doctrines no more than Manners and secures your Church no more against damnable Heresies than against damnable Practices since the gates of Hell prevail by one as well as by the other and since you acknowledge that Peters successours have lived and died in damnable sins they might as well die in damnable Heresies Besides if this Text did prove the Popes Supremacy yet here is not one word concerning his Infallibility which is quite another thing 5. If this Text did prove any Infallibility it doth not prove the Popes Infallibility which you alledge this Text for but the Infallibility of the Church which is built upon it Pop. But that Church is Infallible because they adhere to the Rock viz. the Pope who therefore must needs be more Infallible Prot. Then it seems the foundation of all your Infallibility is in the Pope as Peters Successour whom multitudes of your own Learned and approved Doctors acknowledge to be Fallible I have heard you all confess That your Popes may erre in Manners and Practice Is it so Pop. Yes Prot. Then whatsoever he thinks he may speak lyes and deceive the World in telling them he is Infallible and surely if a Man will deceive for any thing he will do it for such an Empire as the Pope holds but I have heard also your Popes may erre in matters of Fact Pop. That we do all agree in Prot. Then he may mistake and erre in these Questions whether Peter left a Successour and whether the Bishop of Rome be the person and whether there hath been that uninterrupted succession in the Papal Chair which you pretend to be necessary which must be Infallibly certain or else the Pope holds his Authority only upon courtesie so this place will not stand you in much stead Let me hear if you have any better Argument Pop. There is another place which if you were not an obstinate sort of Men would satisfie you all and that is 1 Tim. 3. 15. where the Church is called The pillar and ground of truth and therefore is Infallible Prot. Let me first ask you What Church is there spoken of which you say is Infallible Is it the Church of Rome Was Timothy Bishop of Rome or no Pop. No he was Bishop of Ephesus But why do you ask that Question Prot. This place apparently speaks of that Church in and over which Timothy was set so if it speak of any particular Church it must be that of Ephesus which you confess was Fallible not that of Rome or if it speak of the Universal Church that might be
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
and that the Atheist ought to yield to them Pop. Yes doubtless for every man is bound to receive the truth especially when it is so proposed and proved to him Prot. It seems then by this when you list you can prove the Scripture to be the Word of God without taking in the Churches Authority I hope you will allow me the same benefit But again let me ask you your Church that you talk of which believes the Scripture to be the Word of God Doth she believe it to be the Word of God upon solid grounds or no Pop. Yes doubtless our Church is not so irrational as to believe without grounds nor do we pretend Revelation but she believes it upon solid Arguments Prot. I wish you would give me a list of their Arguments But whatever they be that are sufficient to convince your Church why should they not be sufficient to convince any private man Popish or Protestant or Atheist And therefore there is no need of the Churches testimony Or will you say the Church hath no other sufficient reason to believe the Scriptures but her own testimony that is she believes because she will believe Pop. God forbid that I should disparage the Church or give Atheists that occasion to scoff at the Stripture Prot. Then I also may be satisfied without the Churches testimony that the Scriptures are the Word of God and I am so by such Arguments as your self mentioned but really I cannot but smile to see what cunning sophisters you are how you play at fast and loose The same Arguments for the Scriptures are strong and undeniable when you talk with an Atheist and are all of a sudden become weak as water when a Protestant brings them Pop. But if you can prove in the General That the Scriptures are the Word of God yet you cannnot without the Churches Authority tell what Books of Scripture or which are Canonical and so you are never the nearer Prot. Here also I must ask you again How doth your Church know which Books are Scripture and Canonical doth she know this by Revelation Pop. No we leave such fancies to your Church Prot. How then doth she know this and why doth she determine it Is it with reason or without it Pop. With reason doubtless being induced to believe and determine it upon clear and undoubted Evidences Prot. I pray you tell me what are those Evidences upon which she goes Pop. I will be true to you our great Bellarmine mentions these three The Church saith he knows and declares a Canonical Book 1. From the testimonies of the Antients 2. From its likeness and agreement with other Books 3. From the common sense and taste of Christian people Prot. Since a private man especially one that besides learning and experience hath the Spirit of God to guide him which is that anointing given to all Believers which teaches them all things 1 Joh. 2. 27. may examine and apprehend these things as well as the Pope himself and better too considering what kind of creatures divers of your Popes are confest to have been he may therefore know without the Churches Authority what Books are indeed Canonical but I pray you tell me Do not you acknowledge those books to be the Word of God which we do that are in this Bible Pop. I must be true to you we do own every Book you have there but you should receive the Books which you call Apocryphal so that indeed your Bible is not compleat for you believe but a part of the written Word of God which I must tell you is of dangerous consequence Prot. If these Books be a part of Gods Word I confess we are guilty of a great sin in taking away from Gods Word and if they be not you are no less guilty in adding to it so that the only question is Whether these Books be a part of the holy Scripture or no Now that if you please we will try Bellarmines rules Pop. The motion is fair and reasonable Prot. First then for the judgment of the Antient Church let us try that I know you hold the Churches judgment infallible especially in matters of this moment and I suppose you think the Iewish Church was infallible before Christ as the Christian Church now is Pop. We do so and the Infallibility of the Iewish Church and High Priest Deut. 17. is one of our principal Arguments for the Infallibility of our Church Prot. Then only these Books of the old Testament were Canonical which the Jewish Church did own Pop. That must necessarily follow Prot. Then your cause is lost for it is certain the Jews rejected these Apocryphal Books which you receive and they reckoned only 22. Iosephus his words acknowledged for his by Eusebius are most express for us The Iews have only 22 Books to which they deservedly give credit which contains things written from the beginning of the World to the times of Artaxerxes other things were written afterward so the Apocryphal Books are granted to have been but they are not of the same credit with the former because There was no certain succession of Prophets and I am told divers of your learned Authors confess it as Catharinus Costerus Marianus Victor and Bellarmine himself whose words are these All those Books which the Protestants do not receive the Iews also did not receive and this is more considerable because to the Iews were committed the Oracles of God Rom. 3. 2. And neither Christ nor his Apostles did accuse them of breach of trust in this matter Moreover I am told and surely in all reason it must needs be true that the Canonical Books of the Iewish Church were written in the Iewish or Hebrew language whereas these were written in Greek only Are these things so Pop. What is true I will acknowledge It is so The Jewish Church indeed did not receive them nor yet did they reject them as our Canus well answers Prot. Either that Church did believe them to be Canonical or they did not if they did then they lived in a mortal sin against Conscience in not receiving them if they did not they were of our opinion Pop. Well what soever the Jewish Church did I am sure the Antient Christians and Fathers did receive these Books as a part of the Canonical Scriptures Prot. I doubt I shall take you tardy there too I am told that the Council of Laodicea in the year of our Lord 364. drew up a Catalogue of the Books of the Scripture in which as in ours the Apocryphal Books are rejected Pop. It is true they did not receive them nor yet reject them Prot. If they did not receive them that undeniably shews that they did not believe them to be Canonical and yet they diligently scanned the point and the Books had then been extant some hundred of years and they were far more likely to know the truth than we at this distance having then