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
Body of Christ Do not you profess that as soon as ever it ceaseth to be Bread it becomes the Body of Christ Pop. We do so Prot. Then surely if it be a substance according to you it must be either Bread or the Body of Christ but you allow it to be neither and therefore it is no substance at all In the next place for the word is I have shewed you do not understand that properly neither but for the word Body also do you understand that properly Pop. Yes without doubt Prot. I am told that your Church professeth to believe that Christs body is there after the manner of a spirit taking up no room that head hands feet are altogether in the least crumb of the Host. Is this true Pop. Yes we all agree in that Prot. Then sure I am the word Body is most improperly taken A learned man well observes that you plead for the propriety of words and destroy the propriety of things How can you say that it is properly a body which wants the essential property of a body which is to have quantity and take up room Take away this and the body may be properly a spirit for it is that only which differenceth it from a spirit So now I see you neither do nor can understand these words properly and upon the whole matter that this Doctrine is false and your Proofs most weak and frivolous you shall see that I have better arguments against your Doctrine than you have for it Pop. I pray you let me hear them but be brief in them Prot. I have only three Arguments your Doctrine is against Sense against Reason and against Scripture Pop. Let me see how you will make these things good Prot. For the first I ask you if I am as sure that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation is false as you are sure that the Christian Religion is true will you desire more evidence Pop. If I should I were an unreasonable person Prot. And have you any greater assurance now of the truth of the Christian Religion than you could have had if you had lived in Christs dayes Pop. That were impudence to affirm but what do you mean Prot. If you had lived then what greater evidence could you have had of it than what your senses afforded for since the great Argument for Christianity as all agree was the words that Christ spake and the works that Christ did how could you be sure that he did so speak or so work if you may not credit the reports of your eyes and ears This was S. Lukes great evidence of the truth of what he writes that it was delivered to him by eye-witnesses S. Luke 1. 1 2. and St. Johns what we have seen with our eyes and our hands have handled of the Word of life 1 John 1. And St. Paul for Christs Resurrection that he was seen of Cephas then of the twelve then of the 500 1 Cor. 15. 5 6. Even Thomas his Infidelity yielded to this argument that if he did thrust his hand into Christs side he would believe John 20. 25. Christ judged this a convincing argument when the Apostles thought he had been a Spirit handle me and see for a Spirit hath not flesh and bones as you see me have Luk. 24. 39. Are these things true Pop. I cannot deny it they are not yours but Scripture assertions Prot. And do not all my senses tell me that this is Bread Pop. I must grant that but your sense is deceived Prot. Then your senses also might have been deceived about the words and works of Christ and so the greatest evidence of Christian Religion is lost but for my part it makes me abhor your Religion that so you may but seem to defend your own opinions you care not if you shake the pillars of Christianity My second Argument is that your Doctrine of Transubstantiation is against reason Tell me I pray you do you think any of the Articles of Christian Religion are contrary to reason Pop. No they may be above reason but God forbid I should be so injurious to Christianity to say any of them are against reason Prot. But your doctrine is as much against reason as sense for it makes you believe things absolutely impossible and gross contradictions Pop. You may imagine many things impossible that really are not so but if you can prove any real impossibilities which this doctrine forceth us to believe I must yield for we joyn with you in condemning the Lutheran opinion that Christs Body is every where because it is an impossibility and we therefore expound those words I am the Vine I am a door c. figuratively because it is impossible for him who is a man to be a vine or a door Prot. And it is no less impossible for the Bread to be Christs Body Why might not the Vine as well as the Wine be by Transubstantiation converted into Christs Substance I think the Mother is as good as the Daughter and especially since Christ saith I am the true Vine you might as well have devised another transubstantiation to make Christs words good I know what work you would have made of it if he had said This is my TRVE Body or my TRVE Blood But to give that over I will shew you that there is such an heap of contradictions as never met together in the most absurd opinion that ever was in the world I profess when I set my wit at work I cannot devise greater absurdities than you believe Tell me do you hold that the whole Body of Christ is present in every crumb of the Bread and in every drop of the Wine Pop. Yes doubtless Christ is there entire and undivided Prot. I suppose you believe that Christs Body is in Heaven in such a proportion or bigness as he had upon Earth Pop. No doubt of that Prot. Then the same Body of Christ is bigger than it self and longer than its self and which is yet worse Christ is divided from himself I know not what can be more impossible than to say that all Christ is at Rome and all at London and all in Heaven and yet not in the places between Pop All this is by Gods Almighty Power Prot. Then I suppose by the same Almighty Power it is possible for any other man to be in so many places for it matters not that Christ be invisibly in so many places and another should be there visibly or that Christ is there in so little a bulk and another must be in a greater Pop. I must needs grant that and I affirm it is not absolutely impossible for any other man to be at several places at once by Gods Power Prot. Then mark what monsters follow from this suppose now Iohn to be by divine Power at the same time at Rome at Paris and at London where ever Iohn is alive I suppose he hath a power to move himself Pop. That must needs be else he were not a
A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A Popish Priest AND An English Protestant WHEREIN The Principal Points and Arguments of both RELIGIONS are truly Proposed and fully Examined By MATTHEW POOLE Minister of the Gospel The Last Edition corrected and amended LONDON Printed by E. Cotes and are to be sold by S. Tompson at the Bishops-Head in Duck Lane 1667. TO THE READER THE variety and differences of Religion between Protestant and Papist distract the minds and trouble the hearts of all that have any sense of Religious Concernments In this distraction every serious man that hath any care of his Souls health cannot choose but heartily desire and seek for resolution To obtain this there can be no better way than to understand and examine the Pretensions and Grounds of both Religions In order to this I have endeavoured faithfully to represent and duly to weigh them in the following Discourse Wherein though I have not discussed all the Points in Controversie between us and them yet I have selected the most material and have discoursed of most if not all their weighty and plausible Arguments against the Protestant Religion And this I may say and no knowing Papist I think will deny it all the other Points will follow the fate of those which are here examined and live or die with them I know it will be pretended that I have managed the Work with partiality and deceit and that I make the Papist speak what I please not what they think This must be said of course else the Romanists lose their old wont Nor shall I at all think it strange if in stead of solid Answers they return Calumnies their cause requires it and no wonder if they that want Truth in their Religion make lies their Refuge To silence all clamours and satisfie all jealousies will be impossible I shall never attempt it But for satisfaction of such as are rational and ingenuous I shall give this following account 1. God is my witness that I did diligently endeavour to pick out the strongest Arguments I could find in their best Authors in each Point nor have I willingly declined any thing of moment in the Questions here debated If any Papist think otherwise let him produce their greater strength and I hope he shall find it fairly examined 2. The several Discourses Arguments and Answers which I put into the Papists mouth are such as were first taken out of their mouths and so it is but a piece of Iustice and Restitution to return them thither They are generally such as are either known to be their opinions and by themselves owned or else delivered in the sense and very oft in the words of their most approved Authors whom I have quoted in the margent But here I expect the old clamour of false Quotations wherein they have been so often taken tardy that they must now look for the common infelicity of not to be believed if they should chance to stumble upon Truth All the relief I desire in that case is that the Reader who is able to do it would examine them with his own eyes and that will be my best justification I shall detain thee no longer but commend thee to the good Spirit of Truth to enable thee to discern between good and evil TO THE PEOPLE OF THE Romish Church THE Controversies between your Church and ours are by Gods blessing upon the endeavours of his Ministers brought to this pass that I am perswaded there is nothing wanting to the Conviction of divers of you but a free and diligent perusal of theri Books without prejudice and partiality This your Priests knowing it is their great design to keep you from looking into them and to that end to possess you with this Principle That you need not trouble your selves to inquire into Books you are safe enough so long you believe as the Church believes and follow the Guidance of your Priests and Fathers if this be an Errour it is a dangerous one and may prove Damnable That it is so and that it will prove but a broken reed when you lean upon it I hope you will see there is reason to believe if you will but do your souls that justice not prodigally to cast them away upon blind and wilful mistakes and take the pains to read these ensuing lines 1. If your Church be not infallible then this Principle is rotten howsoever you cannot with safety or discretion venture your souls on it till you have examined at least this one point of the Churches Infallibility do but examine that and if you do not stifle both Reason and Conscience you will see it is a meer cheat 2. If the Church that is a Pope with a Council were infallible which is all that your great Champions plead for yet all confess that your particular Priests upon whose conduct you hazard your eternal wel-fare are fallible and subject to mistakes It is most certain that divers of your Priests and Confessors lead you into many and some â—f them damnable Errours Thousands of â—our Priests and learned Doctors do charge the Iesuits with poysoning the souls of the people with divers pestilent and damnable errours such as these That a man may venture his soul upon any probable opinion and that is probable which but one of their learned Doctors affirm That a private man may kill his enemy to maintain his honour though not by way of revenge That a Priest may absolve even old and inveterate sinners and such as he believes incorrigible That affliction or sorrow for sin arising meerly from fear of punishments is sufficient for salvation and that the affection of loving God is not absolutely necessary to salvation All these and many more are clearly proved out of their own words and writings in the Provincial letters otherwise called the Mystery of Iesuitisme See the Latine Edition set forth and defended by Wendrockius Now if the Iesuits may and do so damnably deceive those thousands of you that depend upon their counsel and conduct why may not other Orders deceive you in other things Or what is there that can give you any reasonable security Is it their learning prudence pretended devotion or honesty or any other such like quality Why divers of the Iesuits have given as plausible testimony of those things so far as men can judge as most of the other Orders or will you say all other Orders are infallible the Iesuits only excepted 3. Nothing can be more evident if the Bible be the word of God than that the errour or misguidance of the Priest will not excuse the sin of the people To satisfie you in this I beseech you consider these few reasons 1. The Scripture condemns and God severely punished those people which did follow the errours of their Priests This did not excuse the Jews in Aarons time that they were misled by Aaron Exod. 32. nor those in the times of the wicked Kings of Israel and Judah that their Priests did universally deceive them and
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
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
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
the command and usage of the Roman and universal Inquisition At best it seems I must not obey Christs command of searching the Scriptures unless the Bishop give me leave But I pray you tell me Do your people use to ask and the Bishops to give them leave to read the Bible Pop. I will not dissemble with you They do not And the truth is an approved Writer of ours Ledesima puts the question What if a man should come to the Bishop and desire liberty to read the Bible and that with a good intention to which he replies that the Bishop should answer him in the words of Christ Matt. 20. 20. Ye know not what ye ask and Indeed saith he and he saith it truly the root of this demand is an heretical disposition Prot. Then I perceive in this as well as in other things you are more careful to deceive people with pretences than to inform them But indeed you tell me no more than I had read or heard out of your own Authors It was the speech of your Pope Innocent That the Mountain which the Beasts must not touch is the high and holy Scriptures which the unlearned must not read and your Doctors commonly affirm that people must not be suffered to read the Scriptures because we must not give holy things to Dogs nor cast Pearls before swine My fourth General consideration against your Religion is this That it grosly contradicts the great designs and ends of the Christian Religion which all confess to be such as these the glorifying of God and his Son Jesus Christ and the humbling and abasing of men the beating down of all sin and the promoting of serious holiness Are not those the chief ends of Religion Pop. I do freely acknowledge they are and our Religion doth most answer these ends Prot. That you and I will now try And for the first Your Religion doth highly dishonour God sundry ways What can be a greater dishonour to God than to make the holy Scriptures which you confess to be the Word of God to depend upon the Testimony and Authority of your Pope or Church and to say that the Word of God is but a dead letter and hath no authority over us without their Interpretation and Approbation By which means malefactors for such all men are Rom. 3. 9 10. your Pope not excepted are made Judges of and superiour to that Law whereby they are condemned Tell me would not the French King take it for a great dishonour if any of his Subjects should say That his Edicts and Decrees had no Authority over his People without their approbation Pop. Yes doubtless he would Prot. Just so you deal with God and what can be a fouler dishonour to God than that which your great Stapleton affirmed and Gretser and others justified and your Church to this day have never disowned it That the Divinity of Christ and of God in respect of us depends upon the Authority of the Pope And what more dishonourable to God than what your great Champion Bellarmine saith That if the Pope should erre in forbidding Virtues which God hath commanded and commanding Vices which God hath forbidden And that he may so erre divers of your most famous and approved Authors confess the Church were bound to believe Vices to be good and Vertues bad unless she would sin against Conscience that is in plain terms the Pope is to be obeyed before God Again is it not highly dishonorable to God to give the Worship which is proper to God unto the Creature I confess the Prophet Isaiah hath convinced me of it Isa. 42 8. I am the Lord that is my Name and my glory will I not give to another neither my praise to graven Images Pop. I also am of the same mind but it is a scandal of your Ministers to say we give Gods honour to the Creature I know where about you are you mean it of Images whereas we worship them with a lower kind of Worship Prot. You worship them with such a kind of worship as neither Angels nor Saints durst receive Cornelius did not worship Peter with a Divine Worship as God for he knew he was but Gods Minister yet Peter durst not receive it It was an inferiour Worship which the Devil required of Christ for he acknowledges at the same time God to be his Superiour and the giver of that power he claimeth Luke 4. 6. And yet that was the Worship which Christ saith God hath forbidden to be given to any Creature You are a valiant man that dare venture your immortal soul upon a nice School distinction I pray you do you not worship the Bread in the Sacrament with that worship which you call Latria which is proper to God Pop. We do so and that upon very good reason because it is not Bread but the very Body of Christ into which the Bread is turned Prot. But what if the Bread be not converted in Christs Body Is it not then an high dishonour to God and indeed damnable Idolatry Pop. Yes our Fisher the famous Martyr and Bishop of Rochester saith No man can doubt if there be nothing in the Eucharist but Bread that the whole Church hath been guilty of Idolatry for a long time and therefore must needs be damned but we are well assured that it is no longer Bread and yet I must add this If peradventure it should still remain Bread yet for as much as we believe it to be the Body of our Lord our ignorance I hope would excuse us from Idolatry and God would not impute it to us Prot. Tell me I beseech you Will all kind of ignorance excuse a man Pop. No certainly There is a wilful and affected ignorance which because it is against clear light will not excuse Prot. Tell me farther Did this excuse the Iews from their sin of crucifying Christ and the damnation due to it that they did it ignorantly Act. 3. 17. Pop. No because they shut their eyes against the plain light and clear evidence of that truth that Christ was the Messias Prot. No less do you in the doctrine of the Sacrament for they had no greater evidences against them than Sense and Reason and Scripture all which you reject as I shall prove by Gods help And as your Religion dishonours God so doth it also highly dishonour Jesus Christ whom he hath sent who is expresly called the one Mediatour 1 Tim. 2. 5. But you have conferred that honour upon many others Saints and Angels Pop. True there is but one chief Mediatour but there may be other secondary Mediatours Prot. In like manner to that which the Apostle there saith there is but one God it might be said there are other secondary gods and so we might introduce the Heathen gods into the Church It is the great Prerogative of Jesus Christ that he is the Redeemer of the World yet your Bellarmine was not afraid to communicate this honour to