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
as well as their English which may be good counsel for many of them that have so little to spare But seriously can you or any rational man think these reasons of sufficient weight to oppose against that great Scripture rule of Edification and the express words and plain arguments of St. Paul God deliver me from such a besotting Religion Besides what I have said I shall leave this with you at parting that you do not only oppose Scripture but also that Antient Church which you pretend to reverence and to follow her steps and your practice is contrary to the Church in all antient times The Prayers of the Iews in publick were alwayes made in the Hebrew tongue and in that Tongue God gave them those forms of Prayer and blessing which were then used Numb 6. 10. God gave the gift of Languages to that end that the Apostles might establish the Worship of God in every Nation in their own Language And I am told that Origen reports this to be the practice of the Church in this time as well as his own Judgment That every one did pray to God in his own dialect Greeks in Greek and Latines in Latin c. Besides I am told that your own Authors Lyra Aquinas and Harding and others confess this was the practice of the antient Church and that one of your own Councils that of Lateran in the year 1215. did make this order that Whereas in many places there were mixed people of divers Languages and customs the Bishops should take care to provide fit men that should perform divine Service amongst them according to this difference of Rites and Languages Moreover that your great Cardinal Cajetan confesseth that Prayers ought to be in a known tongue Are these things so Pop. I cannot deny it Their Books are extant Prot. Then by this I see how far your Church is not only from Infallibility but from common honesty that dare pretend they hold nothing But what hath been by constant Tradition conveyed to them from the Apostles times until this day And by this I shall judge of all your other brags of Antiquity in your Doctrine So I see you are obstinate and incorrigible and therefore I shall trouble my self no further to talk with you FINIS * Concil Trident. †See my Nullity of Romish Faith Chap. 2. Sect. 4. * De Pontifice l. 4. c. 2. * Cressy in Exomolog In the Appendix Chap. 4. num 7. Holden de Resolutione fidei l. 2. c. 1. * Lib. 5. Cap. 1. * See Potter and Chillingworth * De Pontific l. 4. c. 2. * De Eccl siâ militante l. 3. c. 16. †Chron. l. 4. * De Pontif. l. 3. c. 7. Denique quod * De verbo Dei l. 1. c. 10. Itaque non dicimus * See Nullity of Rom. faith ch 2. †Hist. l. 310. b Contra Appionem lib. 1. c In Annot. adversus Cajet de libris Maccab. d Enchir. c. de scrip de num lib. e In Scholiis ad Epist. 116. Hieronymi f De Verbo Dei l. 1. c. 10. In principio g Loc. Theol. l. 2. c. 11. * Rainoldus in his Praelections concerning the Apocryphal Books proves this out of their own words see Praelect 40 41 42 43. * See Rainoldus Spanhem de libris Apocryphis * De Tradit cap. 9. * Of which see Nulliâ—y Append. p. 92. * Sixtus the Fifth Pope tells us in his Preface to his Translation of the Bible that He pickt out of the Cardinals and almost out of all Nations a Colledge of most learnned men who advised him in that work They saith he consulted and I chose that which was best And he adds these remarkable words It is most evident that there is no surer nor stronger Argument than the comparing of ancient and approved Copies And he tells us that he carefully corrected it with his own hands And then the Pope imposeth this Translation upon all the world to be followed without adding or diminishing or altering under pain of Excommunication And yet that you may see how they abuse the peoples credulity to make them believe the Popes Infallibility which themselves do not in earnest believe About two years after comes Clement the Eighth and he puts forth another Edition and Translation of the Bible differing from and contrary to the former Edition in two thousand places as Doctor James hath proved by producing the places as they are in both Editions And which is more than all this in the Preface to his last Bible of Clement the Eighth we have these words Receive Christian Reader this old and vulgar Edition of the Scripture corrected with all possible diligence which though in respect of humane weakness it be hard to affirm that it is every way compleat yet it is not to be doubted but it is more pure and corrected than all that hath gone before it I think this were sufficient evidence if there were no other how great a cheat it is that you pretend the Pope to be the infallible Interpreter of Scripture For here we have one of those infallibles directly contradicting and overturning the other and besides instead of that Divine or after a sort divine infallibility which you ascribe to the Pope we have here a publick acknowledgment of his imbecillity nor dare he affirm his work to be perfect which it must needs have been if he had been infallibly guided in it as you pretend he was nor would he have said so if he had believed his own infallibiliy * In his Bellum Papale and defence of it a De expresso Dei Verbo a Enchiridion cap. 1. b De primatu Romanae Ecclesiae fol 92. c Eccles. Hierarch lib. 2. cap. 2. d Ibid. l. 3. c. 3. fol. 103. * Contra haereses l. 5. c. 6. * In fine Concil Trident. Reg. 4. * De Sacris vernaculis * Cap. cum ex injuncta Extra de haeres * Triplicatio contra Whitak c. 17. * See Nullity †De Pont. l. 4. c. 5. * Roffensis contra Oecolampadiam c. 2. fol. 3. * De indulgentiis cap. 4. sub finem * See Nullity Chap 5. * Greg. de Valentiâ a Diligenter nota quod eujusmodi gratia non dantur pauperibus quia non sunt ideo non possunt consolari Taxa Cancellariae Apostolicae Tit. De Matrimoniali b Nam Indulgentiae fiunt ad relevandam indigentiam Ecclesiae quae non relevatur per solam voluntatem dandi sed per datum De Potestate Papoe quest 30. art 3. c Quantum ad remissionem poenae quae acquiritur per indulgentiam in tali causa non est inconveniens quod dives sit melioris conditionis quâm pauper Ibi enim non dicitur Venite emite sine pecuniâ Ibid. * Maulin Reinolds against Hart and others * Ses. 22. cap. 9. Can. 2 3 * De Missâ l. 6. 1. 12. Sextum * In part 3.
Errours I shall comfort my self in this that I have delivered my own soul your blood be upon your own head for there it will assuredly fall and not upon the Priests only Mr. POOLE'S Dialogue A DIALOGUE BETWEEN A Popish Priest AND An English Protestant Pop. DEar Friend I am glad to meet with you after so long a separation for I remember we were brought up at the same School and I rejoyce in the opportunity of renewing our acquaintance I desire a little discourse with you to understand how it is with you in point of Religion Prot. I am of the Protestant reformed Religion Pop. I am heartily sorry for it in regard of our old intimacy but if you will give me leave I do not question but in a very little time to give you such reasons as will force you to leave those damnable Errors and to return to your antient Mother the Church of Rome Prot. With a very good will shall I yield my self to your Instruction I desire nothing more than true Information I know I have a Soul to save which is of infinite worth and I am not fond of damnation therefore if you give me better grounds than I have you shall not finde me obstinate but this I must tell you you must not put me off with fancies and bare affirmations but I shall expect solid proof of what you say from Scripture or Reason and now speak what you please Pop. First my dear Friend I must intreat you to consider that which your own Ministers teach you to wit That there is no Salvation to be had out of the true Catholick Church which is the Church of Rome Prot. That none is saved out of the true Catholick Church I grant for the Catholick Church includes all Believers in the world but a man may be saved that is no Member of the Roman nor of any particular Church for although you ingross to your selves the name of the Catholick Church nothing is more clear than that the Church of Rome is at best but a part of the Catholick Church and that a very unsound one too and there is a false Church in which salvation cannot ordinarily be had as well as a true Church out of which it cannot ordinarily be had and I have heard more to prove yours to be this false Church than I am able to answer or you either as I suppose therefore this being only a general and so an unconcluding Argument I desire you to come closer to the point Pop. Then I intreat you to consider the danger of your way and the safety of ours since all your Ministers confess That a Roman Catholick may be saved in his Religion but all our Church unanimously declare That you are damned if you live and dye in your Religion Prot. You call us Schismaticks but by this Argument you prove your selves to be so For I have oft heard it that in the very same manner those infamous Schismaticks the Donatists argued against St. Austin and the Catholick Church that he confessed Salvation was to be had in their Churches which they affirmed was not to be had in the Catholick Church and this very thing was by St. Austin and the Church of that age condemned as their great Schismatical Principle But let that pass To come to your Argument Remember the condition I made with you that you do not put me off with Fancies and bare Affirmations for I expect you shall make good every word you say Now here I find you under a great Mistake and though I have heard it most confidently delivered by divers of your Brethren yet you must give me leave to believe my own eyes and ears I read it in divers Books of our Learned English Divines and I have heard it from divers very able Scholars and Ministers That Popery in these times and places of light is to those that may see that light and will not not only dangerous but damnable nor do I pin my Faith upon their sleeves but they have given me not meer Affirmations as you do but such Arguments as I confess I cannot answer yet if you can I shall be ready to hearken to you Pop. It is easie to say in general that our Religion is dangerous or damnable but I beseech you shew me wherein which are those Doctrines and Practices of ours wherein the danger lies Prot. I will instance in few of many particulars First That Idolatry is a damnable sin your own Authors grant and Scripture expresly affirms Idolaters shall not inherit the Kingdom of God 1 Cor. 6. 9 10. and Rev. 21. 8. 22. 15. And that your Church is guilty of Idolatry especially in the Worship of Images and of the Host or Consecrated Bread in the Sacrament is the Doctrine of all Protestant Churches and I shall prove it before you and I have done Secondly That the Worshippers of the Babylonish Beast Rev. 13. and 14. are in a damnable condition you all grant and it is affirmed by God himself Rev. 14. 8 9 10 11. And that Rome is that Babylon the most and Learnedest of your Doctors agree only some of them pretend it is Rome Heathen as it was and others that it is Rome Iewish as it shall be in the end of the world both which conceits are fully refuted by divers of our Authors Thirdly that it is highly dangerous to trust in Man and to trust in our own Righteousness sufficiently appears from Ier. 17. 5. Cursed is he that trusteth in Man and from that dreadful example of the Iews who going about to establish their own righteousness did not submit to and therefore lost the benefit of the righteousness of Faith Rom. 10. 3. and that you are guilty of this sin in trusting to Saints and to your own Merits shall appear in the following Discourse Fourthly It is dangerous to add to the Word of God and this your Church is not only deeply guilty of in adding their Traditions to be received with equal reverence to the holy Scriptures but obligeth all its Members to justifie those additions and thereby intitle them to the same plagues with themselves Fifthly to name no more it is highly dangerous to break any of Gods commands and to teach men so and to make the word of God of none effect by humane Traditions we know what woes Christ pronounceth against the Pharisees for these things And this your Church is deeply guilty of as in many other particulars so most eminently in this that you profess no men are obliged to receive the Scriptures as the word of God nor to believe any thing in it but for the testimony of your Church By this it apears that you have no reason to boast of the safeness of your way And as for your threats of Damnation to all that do not submit themselves to your Church and Pope however they may terrifie silly people yet toke it from me to prudent men it is rather an argument of
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
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
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
no less than murder all your people by robbing them of that which is necessary to their life Pop. Not so for as I shall shew you you have the blood in the body or bread Prot. If it be so yet my taking it in that manner cannot be called a drinking it unless you will say that every man that eats rawish meat may be said to drink the blood which he eats in it but further I think we have as great right to the cup as your Priests we have Christs do this and you pretend no more in short we have both the legacy and command of Christ fortified with this strong reason this cup is the new Testament in my blood which is shed for many for the remission of sins whereby it sufficiently appears that the signe belongs to all that have interest in the thing and are capable of discerning the Lords body and this command of Christ is express and positive Mat. 26. Drink ye ALL of it it is remarkable that he doth not say eat ye all though they were to do so but drink ye all of it as foreseeing the sacriledge of your Church what can you say to this Pop. First I say here is no command but an institution only Prot. I understand no subtilties but if you say this was no command of drinking then it was no command of eating to say take eat and so the Sacrament is not commanded but people may receive or refuse it as they please and Christs do this is no more than do as you list for my part I shall never know when Christ commands any thing if this be not a command for no command can run in more express words Pop. If this be a command it concerns only Priests for such the Apostles were and they only were present Prot. Since it is evident that eating and drinking belong to the same persons if the one be restrained to the Apostles so is the other and because you confess the eating belongs to the people by vertue of this precept Eat of it by the same reason also doth the drinking reach to them also by vertue of that precept Drink of it Besides the Apostles though they were Ministers yet in this act they were in the peoples stead and Christ was the Minister or dispenser of the Sacrament and they only the receivers of it at this time Besides as they were Ministers he bad them do this that is take and distribute bread and wine to the people as he had to them If Ministers be under any command of administring and giving the Sacrament certainly it is here for no command can be more express and if they are commanded to give the bread to the people they are commanded to give the wine also for here is no difference at all Adde to this that St. Paul hath put this out of doubt and he expounds this of and applies it to the people for thus he writes to all the Corinthians Let a man examine himself and so let him eat of that bread and drink of that Cup 1 Cor. 11. 28. in four verses together viz. 26 27 28 29. eating and drinking are inseparably joyned together which you have so wickedly divided If it be a Command Let a man examine himself which none will deny then it is a Command which immediately follows so let him eat this Bread and drink this Cup. Pop. It doth not appear that there is an absolute command of drinking but only that as oft as they do drink it they should drink it in remembrance of Christ. Prot. If this be so then here is no command for the Priest either to Consecrate the Cup or to Receive it And further then here is no command for his Consecrating or receiving the Bread neither for there is no more than a Do this and that is for the Wine as well as for the Bread Pop. Here is a difference for he saith of the Body simply Do this in remembrance of me but of the Cup This do ye as oft as you drink it Prot. If you lay any stress upon these words as oft as you do it I beseech you make use of your eyes and you shall read that it is said of the Bread as well as of the Cup Vers. 26. For as oft as ye eat this Bread and drink this Cup. Well I am sorry to see that you dare oppose such plain Scripture upon such pitiful pretences But I pray you let me ask you I have been told that your famous Council of Censtance in their Canon for the receiving the Sacrament in one kind have these expressions Although Christ did Minister this Sacrament undâ—r the forms of Bread and Wine And although in the Primitive Church this Sacrament was received by the faithful under both kinds Yet they make a Canon that it shall be received under one kinde only Is this so Pop. It is true they are the very words of the Council Prot. This was a wise Council indeed wiser than Christ and all his Apostles but I should think we are on the safest side having Christ and all the Primitive Churches for our patterns and by this I see what to judge of your glorious pretences that yours is the Antient and Apostolical Faith and ours forsooth but a new Religion But I pray let me hear what you have to say for this fact of yours in taking away the Cup I see Scripture is against you and the Antient Church at least so far that for 1400. years together the people might drink of the Cup if they would as I am told your Becanus confesseth Pop. You are greatly mistaken we have Scripture for us we have examples there of receiving the Sacrament in one kind Acts 2. 42. They continued in the Apostles Doctrine and breaking of Bread and Acts 20. 17. They came together to break Bread Prot. It is usual to express an whole Feast by this one thing Christ went into the Pharisees house to eat bread Luk. 14. 2. I suppose you think it was not a dry feast Ioseph's Brethren sat to eat Gen. 37. 25. so Act. 27. 35. Paul and the rest took bread and eat it yet none doubts but they had drink with it Besides here is as much said of the People as of the Ministers drinking of the Cup that is neither is here mentioned and if the silence concerning the Cup be a good Argument it proves that neither did partake of it if it be not then both might partake of it But what have you more to say Pop. You need not be troubled so much at the loss of the Cup since the blood is contained in the Bread that is in the Body by concomitancy Prot. This is in effect to tell Christ the Cup was a superfluous device Besides we are commanded to drink the Cup If I should dip bread in drink and eat it no man will say I drink the bread Again this destroys the main end of the Sacrament which is to shew forth Christs
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
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
Tell me I pray you do you not hold that there are two kinds of Religious Worship namely absolute which you give to God or the Saints and relative which you give to their Images Pop. I must own it Prot. Then it is horrible impudence to say you do not give worship to the Images since you give one of these two kinds unto them and unto them only besides if all you say were true this would not acquit you from Idolatry for your Church professeth and commandeth the Worship of the Images of Saints as well as of God and Christ and since it is Idolatry to give Divine Honour to any creature as I before proved you are no less guilty in giving it to the Saints themselves than to their Images and so you are double-dy'd Idolaters My second Argument is taken from the second Commandment Thou shalt not make any graven Image But first I pray you tell me true hath your Church left out this second Commandment in divers of her Breviaries and Offices of Prayer or do our Ministers slander them I hear that In the Hours of our Lady Printed at Paris An 1611. The Commandments of the first Table are set down in these words and no other 1. Commandment I am the Lord thy God thou shalt not have nor worship any other God but me 2. Commandment Thou shalt not take the Name of the Lord thy God in vain 3. Commandment Remember to keep holy the Sabbath Day and Feasts And that the Council of Ausburg Ann. 1548. delivering the Commandments in Dutch for the People leave out the mention of Images and that their cheat might not be discovered that the people might have their full number they make use of the mistake of one of the Fathers and divide the last Command into two against Sense and Reason and the practice of the whole ancient Church Are these things so Pop. It is true it is left out in some of our Books but we leave it in in all Bibles and divers of our Catechisms Prot. Very well I see you had wit in your anger I commend your discretion that you did not your work so grosly that all the world should cry shame of you But that you blotted it out in any is an evidence of your guilt but what say you to this Argument Pop. Then my first answer is That this Command was peculiar to the Iews who were most prone to Idolatry Prot. This is not true It sufficiently appears that the Gentiles were under the obligation of this Law from those punishments which God inflicted upon them for their transgression or breach of it by Idolatry Rom. 1. But where there is no Law there is no transgression Besides Christ tell us He came not to destroy the Law the Moral Law but to fulfil it Mat. 5. 17. Belike you are not of his mind and dare you say the Jews as soon they believed in Christ were discharged from this command and allowed to worship the Images which that command forbad Pop. I will not say so but I have a second Answer The thing prohibited here is not Images which are representations of real things as you falsly render it but Idols which are the Images of false gods which are not and never were in the world Prot. The Text its self is full against you for the Images there prohibited are not said to be the Images of the false gods of the Heathens whereof many never had any being but the Images of any thing in heaven or earth c. Moreover divers of the Heathen gods were men whom they deified I hope their Pictures were Pictures of real things yet these are Idols Pop. Though they really were Men yet their pictures were made to represent them as gods and such they were not really and therefore were Idols Prot. The learned Heathens knew as well as you and I do that Iupiter and Mars and Mercury and the rest were meer Men and they smiled at the ignorance of their Vulgar that thought otherwise only they thought of them just as you do of the Saints that the great God had put some of his honour upon them and therefore they might worship them you cannot be so silly to think the learned Heathens thought Augustus was a god really when he was dead yet their worship of his Image was Idolatry And they that worshipped the Image of Caligula while he lived were not so sottish to take him for a god whom they knew to be a foolish and wicked man yet I hope you will not excuse them from Idolatry But further as the Jews did universally understand this to be a prohibition of all manner of Images so all the Prophets and Christ and the Apostles were so far from reproving them which they would have done if it had been an Error that they every where strengthen them in this opinion by declaiming against all worship of Images without any distinction And tell me I pray you if any Jew had at that time made for instance an Image of the Sun not looking on it as God but as a glorious creature of God and therefore fit to be religiously worshipped as you think of the Saints and Angels and had bowed down to it and worshipped it Do you think he had not broken this Law Pop. I dare not deny but he had broken it Prot. Yet this had been no Idol but an Image according to your sense of it Besides I find that all manner of Images are forbidden Lev. 26. 1. howsoever to me you seem to venture your salvation upon a nice point for the Hebrew word is neither Image nor Idol but Pesel as a Divine told me and this I understand is diversly translated some render it an Image others an Idol Now you ventrue your soul upon it that the last is the only true Translation which is a dreadful hazard because it is otherwise rendred not only by Protestants but by the most and best ancient interpreters even those whom your Vulgar Translation very oft follows in other places These render it not an Idol but a graven Image and the Seventy Interpreters I am assured po promiscuously render the word sometimes an Idol sometimes a graven Image Nay more than this that it may appear how desperately our cause is I am informed your own Vulgar Translation from which you are obliged not to swerve doth frequently render it not Idol but a graven Image Sculptile particularly in Exod 20. 4. Levit. 26. 1. and Deut. 4. 16 25. and 5. 8. Are these things so Pop. I cannot deny it for the Authors themselves would confute me But one thing I have to say you must understand one Scripture so as to agree with another Now I find God himself allows and prescribes some Images as those of the Cherubims either then he contradicts himself or he doth not forbid all Images but Idols only Prot. Though I might say God may make an exception to some of his Laws when no man can as
in the case of Abraham's offering up Isaac and the Israelites spoiling the Aegyptians of their Jewels yet I need no other answer but this I directly deny that here is any contradiction at all For our question is not about the making of Images whether by Gods order or Mans but about the worshipping of them And albeit there were such Images made yet they were not made to be worshipped as I before proved nor was there any danger the people should worship them because they were not admitted to see them But I pray you answer me this one question I am told that divers of your own Authors confess that the Jews indeed were though Christians are not forbidden the use of Images by this command Is it so Pop. These indeed are the words of our famous Vasquez after he hath mentioned divers Authors for the contrary opinion There are saith he other Authors neither fewer nor inferiour to them who are of the contrary opinion which to me alwayes seemed most probable to wit that all the use of Images is here forbidden to the Jews and for this he quotes many of our approved Authors and Salmeron saith no less Prot. And you need say no more for then all these Authors thought your distinction of Image and Idol frivolous and that the word Pâ—sel is meant of any Images and not of Idols only as you foolishly distinguish and so your principal refuge is lost and you are convicted Idolaters and then if you repent not you know where your portion will be Go now and brag of the safeness of your Religion I see how little it is that you can say for your Worship of the Dead Saints and their Images let me hear whether you have any better Arguments for your Prayers for the Dead and Purgatory Pop. I am glad you mention that since all your Divines do agree that Prayer for the Dead was the practice of the Antient Church and Fathers Prot. If that be true it is not sufficient for your purpose for I am fully satisfied that the Fathers were not infallible and your own greatest Doctors think so too But Besides I am told that their Prayers for the dead were quite of another nature than yours and for other purposes and they were grounded upon some private opinions of theirs which you disown for they prayed not only for those whom you suppose to be in Purgatory but for those who you confess many of them never did come there they pray for all the Saints from the righteous Abel to this day they pray for all their Ancestors Patriarchs Prophets and Martyrs as I have heard it in some of their Liturgies Is it so Pop. It is so Prot. I pray you tell me what do you pray for the Dead Pop. We pray that God would deliver them from those dreadful pains of Purgatory Prot. Then if there be no Purgatory the foundation of your Prayers for the dead is gone Pop. I grant it Prot. Then let us discourse of the most fundamental point as we have hitherto done the rest will fall of course Therefore First I pray tell me your opinion concerning Purgatory Pop. Our Doctrine in brief is this That though God freely gives to all that are truly penitent forgiveness of their sins and freedom from eternal death yet since they have much venial sin and corruption in them in which oft-times they die therefore it is necessary that they should for the expiation of those sins and for the satisfaction of Gods Justice either do or suffer such Penances Fastings Prayers c. as are enjoyned them here or where those are not sufficient suffer the pains of Purgatorie Prot. I understand your Doctrine now let me hear two of your strongest Arguments to prove it I hear that Bellarmin threatens us that whosoever doth not believe Purgatory shall be tormented in Hell Is it true Pop. He doth say so and I am of his mind Prot. Then I hope you have very clear Arguments for it because you lay so great a stress upon it But first I have heard that this Doctrine of Purgatory is confessed by divers of your own Brethren to be but a new Doctrine Is it so Pop. I will not dissemble with you several of our Doctors have unadvisedly blurted out such expressions as these our famous English Martyr Fisher Bishop of Rochester confesseth That Purgatory was for a long time unknown and either never or very seldom mentioned among the Antient Fathers and Alphonsus de Castro saith That many things are known to us of which the Antient Writers were altogether ignorant and amongst them he reckons Purgatory which saith he the Greek Writers mentioned not and even to this day it is not believed by the Greek Church Prot. I suppose you do not think all these Antient Fathers were damned Pop. No God forbid for many of them were glorious Confessors and Martyrs Prot. Then I see Bellarmines threats are not very formidable But to let this pass How do you prove this Doctrine Pop. From plain Scripture 1. From Mat. 12. 32. Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost it shall not be forgiven him neither in this world neither in the world to come Which clearly implies that some sins not forgiven in this world are forgiven in the next and that must be in Purgatory Prot. I pray you tell me what sins are they which are forgiven in Purgatory Pop. Not great and mortal but small and venial sins as we all agree Prot. Is not blasphemy against the Son of Man a mortal sin Pop. Yes doubtless But what of that Prot. If this Text proves the pardon of any sins it proves the pardon of that sin no less than others because the sin against the Holy Ghost is here spoken of as the only sin which is unpardonable in both worlds Besides Christ speaks thus in opposition to a corrupt opinion which I have heard now is and then was rife among the Jews to wit that divers of their sins were pardoned after this life and that this was one of their antient Prayers Let my death be the expiation of all my sins for they thought the sufferings of this life and death the last of them did free them from the punishments of the other life And I have heard that it was one of their sayings That every Israelite hath a part in the future life Are these things so Pop. To deal freely with you This is not only true but it is one of our Arguments for Purgatory that Jason the Cyrenian who lived long before Christs time expresly affirms that it is profitable to pray for the dead that their sins may be pardoned 2 Mac. 12. Prot. I think that is impertinently alledged for Purgatory for the sin those men died in was a mortal sin as you confess and therefore not pardonable in Purgatory But I thank you for this for now I am satisfied that it was an antient opinion among the Iews and so Christ had just