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
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
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
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
denying of the reading of Scriptures to the people and others And will you yet brag of the Antiquity of your Religion 3. These Doctrines wherein we differ from you have been not only proved from Scripture but from the plain testimony of Antient Fathers as I think none can doubt that laying aside prejudices shall read what our Iewel and Morton and Field and others have written How then can you have the confidence to charge us with Novelty Pop. Your Church is new in this respect that although some others before you might own some of your Doctrines there was no Church that owned all your Doctrines both positive and negative Prot. That is not necessary I hope every alteration of Doctrines of less moment doth not make the Church new if it doth it is most certain that your Church is new also for nothing can be more plain than that the Catholick Church nay even your own Church of Rome did not antiently in former ages hold all these Doctrines which now she owns as your own greatest Authors confess this is sufficient that the Church of God in most former ages hath owned all our Substantial Doctrines But what have you further to say Pop. It is sufficient against you that your Church is Schismatical and you are all guilty of Schism in departing from the true Catholick Church which is but one and that is the Roman Prot. I desire to know of you Whether in no case a man may separate from the Church whereof he was a member without Schism Pop. Yes certainly if there be sufficient cause for it for the Apostles did separate from the Church of the Jews after Christs death and the Orthodox separated from the Arrian Churches and all Communion with them yet none ever charged them with Schism Prot. Since you mention that instance I pray you tell me Why they separated from the Arrians Pop. Because they held this Heresie That Christ was a Creature and not the true God Prot. Very well hence then I conclude That if your Church do hold any Heresie and require all her members to own it too it is no Schism for us to separate from you Pop. That must needs be granted but this is but a slander of yours for our Church holds no such Heresies Prot. Your Church doth not hold one but many dangerous Errours and Heresies as I do not doubt to manifest e're you and I part And if you please we will leave the present Argumeut to this issue if I do not prove your Church guilty of Heresie and the imposition of it too I am content you should charge us with Schism if I do you shall mention it no more Pop. You speak reason let it rest there Prot. Besides methinks you deal barbarously with us you drive us out from you by your tyranny and then you blame us for departing as if Sarah had call'd Hagar a Schismatick for going out of Abraham's family from which she forced her Tell me I pray you if the case be so that I must depart from the Roman Church or from God What must I do Pop. The case is plain you must rather depart from that Church Prot. This is the case If I do not depart from your Church she will force me to live in many mortal sins I must believe a hundred lies I must worship the Cross and Relicks and Images which God commands me under pain of his highest displeasure not to worship I must worship the Sacrament with divine worship which I am assured is no other for substance than bread for your Church is not content to hold these opinions but she enjoyns these practices to all her members And if things be thus I think you will not have the confidence any more to charge us with Schism for obeying the command of God to come out of Babylon since you force all your members to partake with you in your sins Rev. 18. 4. Besides all this let me ask you upon what account you charge us with Schism Pop. For departing from the Catholick Church and from your Mother Church of Rome and from the Pope whose Subjects once you were Prot. If then I can prove that we are not departed from the Catholick Church nor from our Mother Church nor from any of that subjection we owe to the Pope I hope you will acquit us from Schism Pop. That I cannot deny Prot. Then this danger is over For 1. We never did depart from the Catholick Church which is not your particular Roman Church as you most ridiculously call it but the whole multitude of Believers and Christians in the world Nay the truth is you are the Schismaticks in renouncing all Communion with all the Christian Churches in the world except your own which are equal to yours in number and many of them far superiour in true piety Next we do not own you for our Mother Ierusalem which is above not Babylon that is beneath is the Mother of us all If we grant now you are a true Church yet you are but a sister Church Pop. You forget that you received the Gospel from our hands Prot. Suppose we did really so Doth that give you authority over us If it did not Rome but Ierusalem should be the Mother Church from whom you also received the Gospel This you deny which shews that you do not believe your own Argument to be good And for the Popes Universal and Infallible Authority which he pretends over all Christians I have diligently read your Arguments for it and I freely profess to you I find your pretences both from Scripture and Fathers so weak and frivolous that I durst commend it to any understanding and disinterested person as a most likely means to convince him of the vanity and falseness of that Doctrine that he would peruse any of your best Authors and the very sight of the weakness and impertinency of your Arguments would abundantly satisfie him of the badness of your cause Pop. You have no Ministers because you have no uninterrupted succession from the Apostles as we have and therefore you have on Church and therefore no Salvation Prot. I observe you take the same course that the Adversaries of the Gospel ever did who when they could not reprove the Doctrine of Christ and his Apostles they quarrelled with them for want of a Calling as you may see Iohn 1. 25. Mat. 21. 23. Act. 4. 7. But the good Christians of that time took another course and examined not so much the Call of the persons as the truth of the Doctrine Act. 8. 17. It seems to me a secret confession of your guilt and the Error of your Doctrine that you are so careful to turn off mens eyes from that to a far meaner point But tell me Do you believe that such an uninterrupted Succession of Ministers from the Apostles is absolutely necessary to the being of a Church Pop. Yes verily or else this Argument signifies nothing Prot. How then can you convince me
or any other Christian that you have had such an uninterrupted Succession in your Church You must produce and it seems I must read all those many hundreds of great Volumes wherein such passages are mentioned In those you must shew me a perfect catalogue of the several names of those Popes and others who have without interruption succeeded one another ever since the Apostles days and this catalogue must be such that all your Authors are agreed in whereas I am told for certain they differ very much in their reports therein and are not so much as agreed among themselves who was Peter's next Successor whether Linus or Clemens or some other person they know not who and those Historians that report these things you must assure me that they were infallible which you do not pretend they were or else they might mistake the things themselves and mis-report them to me and I have heard and read that there have been divers interruptions and Schisms even in your Church one Pope set up against another and each pretending to be the true Pope and disannulling all the Acts of the other and that the Christian people were then wofully divided some cleaving to one others to another but it may be this was a mistake of our Ministers therefore tell me Was this true or no Pop. I confess it was true after the year of Christ 1300. there were several Popes at the same time one at Rome another at Avignon Prot. And how long did this difference last Pop. For about 50. years Prot. And is it true that I have heard that your great Baronius reports that for 150 years together the Popes were rather Apostates than Apostolicks and that they were thrust into the Papal Chair by the power of Harlots and the violences of the Princes of Tuscany Pop. I must be true to you Baronius doth say so at the year 897. Prot. Then never hence forward be so impudent to pretend to such a lawful clear and uninterrupted succession but blush that ever you mentioned it But besides I have heard that divers of our first reformed and reforming Ministers too were such as had received Ordination from and in the Church of Rome and from your Bishiops Is it true or is it not Pop. I will be ingenuous Our Doctors confess it but if your Ministers or some of them had a call from our Church yet they were only called to Preach not to overturn the world as they did and to undertake the Reformation of the whole Church Prot. You have said enough if they were called to the Ministry their Work and Office was to bear witness to the Truth and therefore to undeceive the world in those many Errors and Heresies which you had brought into the Church and Ministers are set for the defence of the Gospel they were therefore bound by their Office to edeavour the Reformation of the Church and salvation of Souls and as in a great Fire especially where the publick Officers neglect their Duty every man brings his Bucket to quench it so in that miserable estate into which you had brought the Church when the Pope and Bishops would not do their duty it was the duty of every Minister to endeavour and to stir up the Kings and Magistrates of the World to endeavour a Reformation Surely you cannot pretend to an higher priviledge than St. Paul and yet he gives all Ministers and Christians this leave and charge that if he himself should bring any other doctrine than what he had delivered any Minister though happily such a one as received his calling from him or Christian might not only forsake him but judge him accursed I shall only adde this our Ministers are in a very hard case I have discoursed with Anabaptists who have reasoned against our Ministers as no Ministers because they had their calling from Rome and now you will make them no Ministers because they had no Calling from Rome How shall they please you and them too But what have you further to say Pop. I have this further which is indeed unanswerable namely the horrible divisions of and in your Churches Here is Luther an and Calvinist Episcopal and Presbyterian Independent and Anabaptist and Quaker and Socinian and Familist and what not so that a man that would turn to your Church knows not which to turn to but our Church is one and entire at perfect unity in it self Prot. I pray you tell me in the first place are divisions a certain Argument to prove any Church not to be true Pop. I cannot say so for it is plain the Iewish Church in Christs time was full of Divisions there were Pharisees Sadduces Essenes c. And so was the Church of Corinth in St. Pauls time while some said I am of Paul others I of Apollo others I of Cephas and some denyed Pauls Ministry and Apostleship and some denyed the Resurrection Prot. Very well then you may blush to use such an Argument I am told that the old Heathens did use this very Argument against the Primitive Christians Pop. It is true they did Prot. What a shame is it that you are forced to defend your cause with such weapons as were used by the Pagans and wrested out of their hands by the Antient Fathers But besides you talk of our Divisions I pray you let me ask you will you allow me to father all the opinions of every Papist I read or talk with upon your Church Pop. No in no wise Let our Church speak for her self It is one great fault of your Ministers they catch up every particular Opinion of any Private Doctor and presently charge our Church with it though it be such as she hath condemned whereas they should judge of our Church only by her own Decrees and Councils Prot. Very well I desire only the same justice from you Do not father upon our Church those Opinions which she dislikes and abhors Socinians Quakers c. are yours rather than ours and joyn with you in abundance of your Doctrins Judge of our Churches by their publick Confessions and there also you would find that our divisions are generally inconsiderable being almost all about a Form of Government or oft-times but a manner of expression and none of them in fundamental Points But since you talk of Divisions let me ask you are all the Members of your Church of one mind I have been told otherwise We hear great talk every day of the difference between the Jansenists and the Jesuits and if we may believe either of them it is a Fundamental difference and such as concerns the very life of Religion I will not trouble you with other things But are you agreed in that which is the foundation of your unity I mean concerning the Supream Infallible Judge of Controversies I remember your self told me that some of you thought it was the Pope and others a Council And I have read that Popish Nations and Universities and Doctors are all together divided about
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
such special opportunities of knowing the judgement of the antient Church both Iewish and Christian Besides I am informed that the famous Bishop of Sardis Melito a man of great judgment and venerable holiness as your Sixtus Senensis saith did take a journey to the Eastern Churches where the Apostles principally preached to find out the true Canon of the Scripture and returned with the same Canon that we own but for the Apochrypha brought home a Non est inventus And moreover that divers of your greatest Champions do confess that a great number of the Antient Fathers were of our opinion among which themselves reckon Melito Origen Athanasius Eusebius Ruffinus Hierom and Amphilocius so say Canus and Bellarmine and Andradius and in the General Sixtus Senensis confesseth that the Antient Fathers were of our opinion Are these things so Pop. I will not deny the truth it is so but you must know that other Fathers were of another minde as Clemens Cyprian and Ambrose and especially St. Austin and the Council of Carthage Prot. The Fathers of our opinion were both far more numerous and such as lived nearest the Apostolical Times and Churches The Council of Laodicea was more antient than that of Carthage and therefore of greater Authority and besides the sixth Council of Constantinople doth expresly confirm all the Decrees of the Council of Laodicea among which this was one and the Council of Carthage too doth not your work For in their Catalogue there is both more than you own to wit the third Book of Esdras although they call it the second as the Greeks did and less too for they shut out Baruch and the Maccabees But besides all this I am told that very many of your most eminent Doctors have disowned these Books which we reject as the Parisian Divines and Cardinal Ximenius with the Complutensian University and Aquinas and Lyra and Pagnim and many others Is it so Pop. I confess this is true Prot. Then I am sure this may satisfie any rational man concerning the Testimony of the Antient Church and for the next point viz. their agreement with the Canonical Books I think it is plain enough that they do grosly contradict them and the truth too that fact of Simeon and Levi which good Iacob acted by Gods Spirit detesteth Iudith commends Chap. 9. Tobit is said to have lived 202. years Chap. 14. whereas if he said true he must have lived twice as long for he saith he was taken captive by Salmanasser Chap. 1. and 2. and 14. and when he was about to die he saith the time was near for the return of the Israelites from their Captivity and the re-building of the Temple which was burn'd If the Books of the Maccabees say true Antiochus his soul had a lease of his body for three lives and he was killed thrice over I commend the Author he was resolved to make sure work of him 1. He dies at Babylon in his bed 1 Mac. 2. 6. then he is stoned in the Temple of Nanea 2 Mac. 1. Lastly he dyes in the Mountains by a fall out of his Chariot 2 Maccab. 9. And the fine fetches of your Authors to reconcile these gross contradictions put me in mind of a story we heard at School if you remember of a Gentleman that told this lye That he shot a Deer at one shot through his right ear and left hinder leg and you know how hard his man was put to it to help his Master out but I will not launch forth into the Sea of untruths and absurdities that are contained in those Books these may suffice to shew you that we do not without warrant reject them but howsoever it is sufficient for my purpose that you grant that my Bible as the Word of God and these Books in it Canonical and I can know this without the Churches Authority Pop. Do not make too much haste if I do grant that these Books in the Original Language are the Word of God yet yours is but a Translation Prot. Is it rightly translated for the substance or is it not What Bible is that which you have Pop. A Latin Bible Prot. Is that the Word of God and rightly translated Pop. Yes the Council of Trent hath decreed so Prot. Then I pray you let us try this Experiment do you pick out any 20. verses in several parts of the Bible and turn them into English out of your Bible Pop. The motion is fair I will do it Prot. I do not finde any substantial difference in all these places between your Translation and mine the difference is wholly in words not at all in sense so now I thank you for this occasion for I have heard some of your Priests ranting highly against our Translation and now I see they have no cause for it Pop. If all this were over yet the Scripture is not a sufficient Rule to guide you to Heaven of it self without Tradition Prot. Why so I beseech you Pop. Because you are also commanded there to hold the Tradition true in your Bible to 2 Thes. 2. 15. Hold the Traditions which ye have been taught whether by Word or Epistle Prot. How do you prove that he speaks of such Traditions as were not written in the Scripture Pop. Because he so plainly distinguisheth between what he taught them by word and what he taught them by Epistle or Writing Prot. That may be true that he speaks of some things of which he had not written to them and yet they might be written by him to others or by others at least after that time but besides notwithstanding this distinction between Word and Epistle divers of your own Authors affirm that Tradition is perfect and that St. Paul taught all things necessary by word of mouth and why may not I as well say that he taught all by Epistle But I pray you What do you mean by these Traditions Pop. I mean all the Traditions which either he or any other Apostles did deliver all these you are bound to receive Prot. I will not quarrel with you for that bring me solid proofs of any of your unwritten Traditions that they did indeed come from the Apostles I promise you I will joyfully receive them But I pray you what are these Traditions you speak of Pop. Such as these the Doctrine of Purgatory Invocation of Saints of the Popes Supremacy of the single life of Priests of the Fasts of the Church private Masses Worship of Images c. Prot. And do you think that all that did not believe and receive these Traditions shall be damned Pop. No by no means for then I should condemn many of the Holy Fathers and Martyrs who differed from us at least in some of these Points Prot. Then it is not necessary to salvation to receive these Traditions and the Scripture may be sufficient without them But further These unwritten Traditions you talk of I beseech you how came you to discover them and
discern the true from the false Pop. I altogether approve of Bellarmin 's Rule which is this That saith he is a true Tradition which all former Doctors have successively in their several Ages acknowledged to come from the Apostles and by their Doctrine or Practices have approved and which the Universal Church owneth as such and the reason is because the Universal Church cannot erre Prot. I see all depends upon this Foundation that the Catholick Church in your sense cannot erre which having disproved I need not trouble my self further But to wave that How I pray you do you know what former Doctors have successively owned by word or practice I presume none of your Popes have so good a memory as to remember all that hath been said or done in former Ages though in my opinion when your inventions were upon the wheel and you did confer upon the Pope an infallible judgment you should have given him also an all-sufficient memory and then you had done your work Pop. No Sir we pretend no such thing but we know this from the Writings which the Doctors have left It is true Bellarmine mentions another rule which is the continual usage of the Church in all ages but to deal candidly with you I cannot know what their use was but by their Writings so all must come to that Prot. First then I note you forsake your cause and it seems a writing is now made a rule for your unwritten Traditions if it may be so let me beg your favourable opinion of the Apostles writings Besides those Writers which record these Traditions were they infallible Pop. No we do not hold any particular Writers Infallible especially not in matters of Fact such as reporting a Tradition or use of the Church undoubtedly is Prot. Then they might mistake false Traditions for true Besides how can I tell what the Antient Doctors did agree in since most of them never wrote and many of their writings are lost and yet all of them had equal liberty of voting in this case besides I have heard that divers of the Antient Fathers did report several things to be Apostolical Traditions which your Church now rejecteth as that Infants should receive the Communion and that Christ should reign on earth a thousand years and many others I am told also that your great Baronius writing concerning the Apostles professeth He despairs to find out the truth even in those matters which true Writers have recorded because there was nothing which remained sincere and incorrupted Is it so Pop. You shall find me ingenuous it is so Baronius saith it Anno 44. sect 42. Prot. Then truly I shall bid Tradition in your sense good night For as to your Traditions I see there is no certainty in them Shall I forsake the certain and acknowledged verity of the Scripture for such trash God forbid Again I pray you tell me doth not every wise man that makes any thing make it sufficient for its end If you build an house to live in will not you make it sufficient for that end If a man makes a Sword to cut with a Coat of Male to defend him c. is he not a fool if he doth not if he can make them sufficient for their end and use Pop. That must needs be granted Prot. And was not our Instruction and Salvation the end for which God wrote the Scripture Pop. How do you prove that it was Prot. God himself tells me so Iohn 20. 31. These things are written that you may believe that Iesus is the Christ the Son of God and that believing you might have life through his Name Pop. S. John speaks there of Miracles not of doctrines and so that is nothing to the purpose Prot. He speaks of Miracles which were done in confirmation of the Doctrine of Christ and so the Doctrine is not to be excluded besides I suppose you will not say that S. Iohn wrote the Doctrines of Christ for one end and the Miracles for another Moreover it plainly appears both that this was the end for which the Scripture was written and that it is sufficient for its end from that 2 Tim. 3. 15 16 17. he saith expresly The Scriptures are able to make a man of God wise unto salvation Pop. Well but if all these things be so yet since the Scripture is dark and doubtful and you can never apprehend the true meaning of it but from the Church you are never the nearer and the Scripture is not a convenient judge of Controversies Prot. Tell me I pray doth your Church understand the true meaning of the Scripture Pop. Yes doubtless because she hath the Spirit of God Prot. Then certainly she is most deeply guilty of uncharitableness or envy or cruelty to souls that she doth not put forth a clear and infallible Comment upon the whole Scripture but still suffers the whole world to live in contention about the true meaning of hundreds of Texts of Scripture Pop. She forbears that for reasons best known to her self But this is not much to the purpose Prot. Whereas you pretend your Church certainly knows the true sense of the Scripture and this Church you say is the Pope or a Council and if these be infallible you say they are so in their Decrees If this be so how comes it to pass that none do more grosly mistake and mis-apply Scripture than divers of your Popes and councils have done even in their Decrees and decretal Epistles which you reverence as the Gospel Your Pope Nicholas the first proves his Supremacy from that Text Arise Peter kill and eat small encouragement to us to become his sheep if he so use them and from hence that Peter drew to the shore his net full of Fishes your Pope Boniface the eighth proves it from Gen. 1. 1. In the beginning God created Heaven and Earth therefore the Pope hath power in Temporals and Spirituals and this saith he you must hold unless with the Manichees you hold two principles And your councils are not more happy Expositors The council of Lateran proves the Popes power from Psa. 72. which speaks of Solomon and Christ All Kings shall fall down before him The second council of Nice alledges these Scriptures for the Worship of Images that God created man in his own Image Gen. 1. Let me see thy countenance Cant. 2. No man when he hath lighted a Candle covereth it under a vessel Luk. 8. 16. In my opinion they spoke like a council expecting that the world should receive their Decrees not for any solidity of Argument that had been pedantick but meerly for the Churches Majesty and Authority Nay the jest is when their Adversaries had taken notice of these absurd impertinencies up steps Pater Noster Pope Adrian and he saith he will maintain it in spite of fate that they alledged them rightly and excellently So here we have a Pope and council joyning together and therefore undoubtedly infallible in these Expositions Nay
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