Dialogue Between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant, Dialogue

Dialogue Between a Popish Priest and an English Protestant · Dialogue

p. 1A 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 p. 2time 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, p. 3than 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 p. 4the 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?

p. 5Prot.

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 p. 6the 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 (**Concil. Trident. 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††See my Nullity of Romish Faith, Chap. 2. Sect. 4. p. 7By this it apears, that you have no reason to boast of the safeness of your way. And as for your threats of Damnation to all that do not submit themselves to your Church and Pope, however they may terrifie silly people; yet toke it from me, to prudent men it is rather an argument of the falseness of your Religion. For such will be apt to conclude, that your Faith is not right, because your uncharitableness is so notorious, and monstrous, in condemning all the world besides your selves, and that too upon such frivolous pretences. This argument therefore of yours hath little weight.

Let me hear what further you have to say against our Religion.

Pop.

Then consider seriously of this, that your Church confesses, that she is Fallible, and that you have no Infallible Iudge among you, whereby Controversies may be ended; but our Church is Infallible.

Prot.

I confess now you speak home; make this good, That it is necessary the Church should be Infallible, and that yours is so, and I shall ease you of the trouble of further Arguments: But I must ask you two Questions: 1. What is the meaning of this Proposition? and, 2. How you will prove it? For the first, p. 8I 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**De Pontifice, l. 4. c. 2.) and among the rest a Pope, Adrian by name, denies it, and even they that seem p. 9to 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 **Cressy in Exomolog. In the Appendix, Chap. 4. num. 7. Holden de Resolutione fidei, l. 2. c. 1..

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 p. 10Scripture 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 p. 11your 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, p. 12another, 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 p. 13in that supposed universal Headship, which will be very hard to perswade any understanding Man, for, 1. That authority which the Apostles had over all Churches, was peculiar to them, and died with them: we see God did not think it necessary to leave a successour to Moses, (in his full and absolute Authority) no more was it necessary to leave any after Peter and the Apostles: and the reason is the same, because the work of Lawgiving was finish'd, and those that came after were tyed to the execution of their Laws. 2. Besides, if Peter did leave a Successour, what prudent man can believe, that he would not have left some notice, thereof to the world in one of his Epistles? I find he saith, I will endeavour that you may be able after my decease, to have these things in remembrance, 2 Pet. 1. 15. How easie had it been to have added, to that end I leave a Successour, whom you must hear in all things? I find Moses was very careful to leave a Successour, and so was Elias, and David, and Christ (as my Father sent me, so send I you): Was Peter the only careless person, that would not be at the expence of a word to prevent all those Heresies, Schisms, and Contentions which were even then p. 14broached, and most likely to increase after the death of the Apostles in the Christian world?

3. If any did succeed St. Peter in his Head-ship, one would think it should have been one of the surviving Apostles, especially St. Iohn, who lived above 20 years after him; for who can believe (that regards what he believes) that Linus or Clemens who is said to be St. Peters successour, should be superiour to St. Iohn; yet the foundation of all your Religion is built upon this nonsensical opinion: And if this priviledge did belong not only to Peter, but some of his successours; yet to say, it belongs to all following Popes (divers of which are acknowledged to be Apostatical and most wicked wretches) and that such Monsters as were the true slaves of the Devil, and brands of Hell, should be the foundations of the Church, by whom the Church was to be secured from the gates of Hell, will not find belief with serious Men till East and West meet together: and besides, when our Divines say, The Pope is Antichrist, and the Man of sin; you use to answer, that these expressions, the Antichrist, and the Man of sin, must needs point at a particular p. 15Man, and not a whole Order of Men; which if it be true, the expression there used of this Rock (especially being so particularly levell'd at Peter, as you will needs have it) cannot with any colour be thought to mean a succession of many hundreds of persons. And sure I am, whatever the Text speaks of Peter, it speaks not one word of Peters Successours, and therefore it is as easie for me to deny it, as you to affirm it.

3. Whatever this promise or priviledge is, it belongs no more to the Church of Rome, than to the Church of England, the name of one is heer as clear as the other; It is a general promise extending to the Church at all times and places, signifying, that God will have and maintain a Church to the end of the World: And if this place concerns only those that are built upon St. Peter, you grant the Church of England once was, as the Church of Rome now is, built upon him too, when it was subject to the Pope. And if their being built upon St. Peter did not secure them from Fallibility and Apostacy (as you say it did not) then consequently the building of the Church of Rome upon St. Peter did not make them infallible, but they might p. 16(as we say and prove they did) fall away. And certainly one of these two things must be granted, either that every Church which did once adhere to Peter, or the Pope, are secured by this Text from falling away; or else, that notwithstanding this Promise, every Church that now is subject to the Pope may fall away from him, and so the Pope may be a head without a Body, a Shepherd without so much as one sheep: For if this Text did prove what they desire, that all that do adhere to the Pope, whilst they do so, are Infallible; yet it doth not prove, that they all shall constantly adhere to him (which is quite another thing.)

4. If this Promise and Priviledge did belong to any particular Church, and to yours (in a special manner) yet it doth not prove your Infallibility: This place concerns Doctrines no more than Manners, and secures your Church no more against damnable Heresies, than against damnable Practices, since the gates of Hell prevail by one as well as by the other, and since you acknowledge that Peters successours have lived and died in damnable sins, they might as well die in damnable Heresies: Besides, if this Text did prove the Popes Supremacy, yet here p. 17is not one word concerning his Infallibility, which is quite another thing.

5. If this Text did prove any Infallibility, it doth not prove the Popes Infallibility (which you alledge this Text for) but the Infallibility of the Church which is built upon it.

Pop.

But that Church is Infallible because they adhere to the Rock, viz. the Pope who therefore must needs be more Infallible.

Prot.

Then it seems the foundation of all your Infallibility is in the Pope, as Peters Successour, whom multitudes of your own Learned and approved Doctors acknowledge to be Fallible. I have heard you all confess, That your Popes may erre in Manners and Practice. Is it so?

Pop.

Yes.

Prot.

Then whatsoever he thinks, he may speak lyes, and deceive the World, in telling them he is Infallible; and surely if a Man will deceive for any thing, he will do it for such an Empire as the Pope holds: but I have heard also your Popes may erre in matters of Fact.

Pop.

That we do all agree in.

Prot.

Then he may mistake and erre p. 18in these Questions, whether Peter left a Successour? and, whether the Bishop of Rome be the person? and, whether there hath been that uninterrupted succession in the Papal Chair, which you pretend to be necessary, which must be Infallibly certain, or else the Pope holds his Authority only upon courtesie; so this place will not stand you in much stead. Let me hear if you have any better Argument.

Pop.

There is another place, which if you were not an obstinate sort of Men, would satisfie you all, and that is, 1 Tim. 3. 15. where the Church is called, The pillar and ground of truth, and therefore is Infallible.

Prot.

Let me first ask you, What Church is there spoken of, which you say is Infallible? Is it the Church of Rome? Was Timothy Bishop of Rome or no?

Pop.

No, he was Bishop of Ephesus: But why do you ask that Question?

Prot.

This place apparently speaks of that Church, in, and over which Timothy was set: so if it speak of any particular Church, it must be that of Ephesus (which you confess was Fallible) not that of Rome; or if it speak of the Universal p. 19Church, that might be Infallible, though the Pope and all the Church of Rome (truly so called) should fail and perish. Tell me, I beseech you, in particular, What is that Church, which from this and other places, you conclude to be Infallible?

Pop.

It is the Pope with the General Council, as I have told you.

Prot.

Then I pray you make sense of the verse; for to me it is meer nonsense—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 p. 20in 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.

p. 21Prot.

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, **Lib. 5. Cap. 1.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.

p. 22Prot.

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 p. 23truth, 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?

p. 24Pop.

I did before acknowledge that we are divided in that point.

Prot.

Can you think to convince me with that argument that does not satisfie your own Brethren? Moreover, tell me, I pray you, What was the Faith of Peter which was struck at by the Devil, and pray'd for by Christ?

Pop.

The event shews that; for the Devil tempted him, and prevailed with him to deny his Master.

Prot.

Did Peter deny Christ doctrinally, and fall into the damnable error of disbelieving Christ to be the Messias, or was it only an error or miscarriage of his tongue, which spoke against his Conscience and Judgment?

Pop.

Far be it from me, to say that Peter did so damnably erre in his judgment, I know no Catholick who saith so; all do all agree that it was only an error of his tongue and conversation, and practical denial of Christ.

Prot.

Very well: Hence then I gather, that Christ prayed for his practical, not for his doctrinal Faith, and that his grace of faith might not be utterly lost by his fall: so that, if this Text and Prayer reach to your Popes, it should rather secure them from damnable Apostacies in practice (which you confess many of them p. 25fell into and died in) then from Heresies (of which this Text speaks not at all.) But have you no other Arguments?

Pop.

Yes, there is one more, which were sufficient if there were no other, and that is from Gods Providence; It is unbecoming the wisdom of God to leave his Church without a guide, or infallible Iudge, by which means there would be no end of Controversies: and since you do not pretend to have any such in your Church, it must be in ours, or else there is none in the world.

Prot.

I had thought you would have only taught me, but now it seems you will teach God how to govern the World. It should seem to me, that God was not of your mind; he did not think fit to end all Controversies, but to permit that there should be Heresies, 1 Cor. 11. 19. And if God in his wisdom thought an Infallible Judge necessary, certainly that same Wisdom would have named the place, person, or persons, where people should have found this Infallibility. Was it ever known, since the beginning of the world, that any Prince constituted Judges in his Kingdom, not so much as giving notice to his people who they were, to whom they must resort for Justice? this God hath not done; for you do not pretend p. 26a particular place which settles this infallible Judge at Rome, but only some general and fallacious Arguments, as I have proved; and besides, it is so far from being evident, that your selves are not agreed about it: but some seek for this infallible judgement in the Pope, others in a General Council; and these do as fiercely dispute one against another in this point, as you do against us in many others; and therefore it is much more rational for me to conclude thus; God hath not nominated and appointed such an infallible Judge in the Church; therefore there is none, and it is not fit there should be one, than sawcily to undertake to be the Counsellor of the Almighty, and to tell him what is fit to be done, and then conclude that it is done. In short, For Controversies about Fundamental and necessary things, God hath provided sufficient meanes for the ending of them, having clearly enough determined them in his Word for the satisfaction of all that are diligent and humble, and teachable: And for Controversies of lesser moment there is no necessity of having them ended, nor would they be much prejudicial to the peace of the world and the Church if men would learn to give any allowance p. 27for the infirmities of humane nature, and exercise that great and necessary duty of Charity and mutual forbearance. But since this is all you can say upon this particular, I pray you, let me hear what other Arguments you have against our Church and Doctrine.

Pop.

Then another Argument against your Church and way, is taken from the Novelty of it; As for our Religion, it hath had possession in the world ever since the Apostles days; but you are of Yesterday, and know nothing; your Religion is an upstart Religion, never heard of in the world till Luthers days.

Prot.

First, let me ask you this Question, If you had lived in the days of Christ, or of the Apostles, or of the Primitive Fathers, what would you have Answered for your self? you know better than I, that this was the very Argument, which Iews and Heathens urged against the Christians then; they charged Christ with not walking after the Traditions of the Elders, Matth. 7. 5. And the Athenians said to Paul, May we know what this new Doctrine is? Act. 17. 19. And the Pharisees had Antiquity on their side, being zealous for the Traditions of the Fathers, Gal. 1. 14. And though it be true, p. 28that the Apostles had the first Antiquity for them, delivering nothing but what for substance was in Moses and the Prophets, Act. 26. 22. (which also is our case) yet the immediate and latter antiquity was against them, and for divers ages together these Doctrines had been in great measure obscured and unknown. What then would you have Answered to a Iew or a Heathen, objecting this Novelty to you? Learn from Christ, who when the Iews pleaded for the continuance of their old practice in the matter of Divorces; he accounted it sufficient confutation, that from the beginning it was not so, Mat. 19. 7. And to all the pretences of the Pharisees from antiquity, he opposeth this one thing, Search the Scriptures, John 5. 39. So you dispute against us with the arguments which the Pharisees used against Christ, and we answer you as He answered them: Besides let me ask you this Question, If I could clearly prove to you all the points of our Faith, and disprove the points of yours, from the Holy Scriptures, tell me, Would you then acknowledge the truth of the Protestant Religion, notwithstanding all this pretended Novelty?

p. 29Pop.

Yes certainly, for we all confess the truth of all that is contained in the holy Scriptures.

Prot.

Hence then it follows undeniably, that the main thing that you and I must look to in our faith is, that it be agreeable to the holy Scriptures; and if ours be so, (as I am fully perswaded it is) and yours the contrary, neither antiquity is any argument for you, nor Novelty against us. Besides, when you charge our Church with Novelty, I suppose you mean that our Doctrines are new.

Pop.

I do so.

Prot.

Then you cannot justly charge us with Novelty; for,

1. You confess the Antiquity and verity of most of our Fundamental Doctrines, and your selves do approve them, only you make additions of your own to them; you own all the Scriptures in our Bible, only you add the Apocrypha: you acknowledge Scripture the rule of Faith, only you add Tradition: we believe all the Articles of the Apostles Creed (the **See Potter and Chillingworth.belief whereof the Antient Fathers thought sufficient to Salvation). And the Doctrine of the four first General Councils, p. 30as you do also: You own our Doctrine of Christs satisfaction and Justification by Christ and Faith, only you add your own works and satisfaction: Our two Sacraments you approve, only you add five more: Our Doctrine of the two states of Men in heaven and Hell you own, only you add Purgatory: You own Christ for your Mediatour and Prayers to God through him, only you add other Mediatours; Our worship of God you own, only you add Images. These are the principal points of our Religion, and dare you now say that our Doctrines are new?

2. Many of your ablest Doctors confess, that divers of the peculiar Doctrines of your Church are new and unknown to the Antient Fathers; and it is most evident and undeniable concerning Indulgences, Purgatory, Communion in one kind, Worship in a strange tongue, the receiving some of your Apocryphal books, Transubstantiation (especially as an Article of Faith) the Popes Infallibility, Worship of Images, denying of the reading of Scriptures to the people and others. And will you yet brag of the Antiquity of your Religion?

p. 313. 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?

p. 32Pop.

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.

p. 33Prot.

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 p. 34must 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 p. 35call 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 p. 36to 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?

p. 37Pop.

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 p. 38all 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?

p. 39Pop.

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 p. 40than 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, p. 41Essenes, &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 p. 42justice 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 it; and for the Pope, I have heard p. 43that Bellarmin reckons up the several opinions, and amongst others, that the Pope (if he be without a general Council) may be an Heretick, and teach Heresie: and this (saith he) is the opinion of divers Papists, and is determined by a Pope himself, Adrian the 6th by name, in his question about Confirmation: Is this true, or is Bellarmin bely'd?

Pop.

It is true, Bellarmin doth say so much,**De Pontific. l. 4. c. 2. and moreover, that this opinion is not heretical, and is tolerated by the Church: but withall he tells you, that he is of another opinion, which is also the common opinion.

Prot.

However, that is sufficient for my purpose. This one difference among you being far more considerable, than all those points wherein Protestants differ among themselves: for though they differ in other and lesser things, they all agree in this great means of Union, that they own the Holy Scriptures to be the Iudge (or more properly the Rule) of Controversies: and therefore if you please, let this pass, and let me hear what further you have to say against us, or for your selves?

p. 44Pop.

This further I say, the true Church must needs remain visible perpetually to the end of the world, such our Church hath been, whereas yours was invisible and (as I said before) unheard of in the world till Luthers dayes.

Prot.

I do not well understand you; Do you think the Church must needs be visible at all times to the whole world?

Pop.

I cannot say so, for she was not always visible to many great and famous parts of the world, as China and America; it may suffice, that she is visible in some Kingdom or part of the world, and that she remains so in all ages.

Prot.

Then the Church may remain invisible to the greatest part of the world, and so your argument reacheth but a small part of the world: How I pray you must the Church be always visible?

Pop.

There must be in all ages, in some eminent place, a great company of Christians visibly united together, in the worship of God in one body and Congregation, and governed by their successive Pastors under the Pope.

Prot.

Very well: now I know your mind: and first I deny, that it is necessary p. 45for the true Church to be so visible in all ages: Do you prove it?

Pop.

That I shall easily prove, from those many and glorious promises made to the Church; the Church is called a great Mountain, and said to be exalted above other mountains, Isa. 2. She is a City set upon a hill that cannot be hid, Mat. 5. Christ hath promised to be with her to the end of the world, Mat. 28. The gates of Hell shall not prevail against her; Christs Kingdom, is an everlasting Kingdom, Psal. 88. Dan. 2. A few invisible and dispersed Christians, cannot make a Kingdom.

Prot.

Your proofs are impertinent, Isa. 2. doth prove that the Church under the New Testament should be glorious (that is spiritually) and prevalent: so it was (and we trust will be) but he saith not, the Church should always continue in that condition (which is the point that you should prove) Mat. 5. If it speak of the Church, Christ only tells us what the Church then was, not that it should always remain such; besides he speaks of their duty, not their condition: and Mat. 28. proves that Christ will be with his Church, but not so as that it shall p. 46always be illustrious and united in a great body: this, neither that, nor any of your other Texts, prove, nor can you. But suppose that Christ had made such a promise that his Church should be visible in all Ages in a considerable body; How do you prove that our Church hath not been so visible in all ages?

Pop.

If you affirm that it hath been visible in all Ages, you are bound to produce a Catalogue of your Churches in all successive Ages.

Prot.

That is not necessary neither: If I did positively affirm that our Church had been visible in such manner in all Ages, then I confess I am bound to prove it. But if I leave it in doubt as a thing which (for ought you or I know) might be true or false, he that affirms it was not so, is bound to make it good; and if I deny your Proposition, by all Laws of dispute, you must prove it: I will shew by an instance how unconvincing your argument is; There are several Prophesies and Promises in Scripture, the execution whereof is not recorded there, nor any where else; suppose an Atheist comes to you, and offers this Argument against the Scripture; If the Scripture be true, and the Word of God, then all its Prophesies p. 47and Promises were accomplisht; but there are several Prophesies and Promises there which never were accomplished within the time appointed, therefore it is not true; What would you answer?

Pop.

I would deny this Proposition, viz. That there are any such Prophesies or Promises there which were not accomplisht.

Prot.

Suppose then he urge it thus, If they were accomplisht, then you must shew when and how they were accomplisht either in Scripture or other Stories, if you cannot, I shall conclude they never were accomplisht.

Pop.

I should tell him, That he is obliged to shew they were not accomplisht, not I to shew that they were accomplisht; I should tell him that they might be accomplisht, though the accomplishment of them were never put into any writing (and being but an Historical Tradition, might easily be lost) or if it were put into writing, that also might be lost by the injury of time, as thousands of other Books have been, so that no prudent man will believe this mad Proposition, That nothing was done in former Ages that was not mentioned in the Records which we have. But if it were possible that some particular things were not recorded, or w…re lost, yet it is probable p. 48that so eminent and publick a matter as a Succession of Churches should lie hid.

Prot.

I confess it is not so probable that a large and glorious Church should so lie hid; but since it was sufficient for the making good of Christs promise of being ever with his Church; if there were some few Congregations and Ministers, though scattered in divers places, that these should not be recorded, is not at all strange nor improbable to any one who considers, 1. How many matters of far greater note are recorded only in some single Author, which if he had been lost (and that he was as lyable to, as they that were lost) the memory of those things had perished with him. 2. How wofully dark and ignorant some ages of the Church were, as you all confess, wherein there was not much reading, but to be sure, there was little or no writing. and that little that was written, was written by men of the times, who would not do their Enemies that honour or right to put them into their Histories: 3. If any did mention such things, it is not at all improbable, that such Book or Books wherein they were recorded, might either be lost by the injury of time, (as thousands of other Books were, which was much p. 49more 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 p. 50in Athanasius, Hilary, Eusebius, and two or three more whom he mentions:**De Eccl siâ militante, l. 3. c. 16. 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 ††Chron. l. 4., 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 p. 51the 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 p. 52there 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 p. 53this 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 t…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 p. 54the 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**De Pontif. l. 3. c. 7. Denique quod,, 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 p. 55that 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.

p. 56Pop.

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 p. 57worshipping 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 p. 58hath 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. p. 593. 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 p. 60stand 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 p. 61do 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, p. 62yet 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**De verbo Dei. l. 1. c. 10. Ita que non dicimus..

Prot.

Since a private man especially one that besides learning and experience p. 63hath 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.

p. 64Prot.

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**See Nullity of Rom. faith. ch. 2..

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 ††Hist. l. 310.), 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 p. 65There was no certain succession of Prophets, bbContra Appionem, lib. 1.and I am told divers of your learned Authors confess it, as Catharinus, ccIn Annot. adversus Cajet. de libris Maccab.Costerus, ddEnchir. c. de scrip. de num. lib.Marianus Victor, eeIn Scholiis ad Epist. 116. Hieronymi.and Bellarmine himself, whose words are these; All those Books which the Protestants do not receive, the Iews also did not receive: ffDe Verbo Dei, l. 1. c. 10. In principio.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.ggLoc. Theol. l. 2. c. 11.

Prot.

Either that Church did believe them to be Canonical, or they did not; p. 66if 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 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 p. 67journey 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 p. 68this 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.**Rainoldus in his Praelections concerning the Apocryphal Books, proves this out of their own words, see Praelect. 40, 41, 42, 43.

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 p. 69true, 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,**See Rainoldus & Spanhem de libris Apocryphis▪ 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 p. 70warrant 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 p. 71I 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?

p. 72Pop.

I mean all the Traditions which either he, or any other Apostles did deliver: all these you are bound to receive.

Prot.

I will not quarrel with you for that, bring me solid proofs of any of your unwritten Traditions, that they did indeed come from the Apostles, I promise you I will joyfully receive them; But I pray you, what are these Traditions you speak of?

Pop.

Such as these, the Doctrine of Purgatory, Invocation of Saints, of the Popes Supremacy, of the single life of Priests, of the Fasts of the Church, private Masses, Worship of Images, &c.

Prot.

And do you think, that all that did not believe and receive these Traditions shall be damned?

Pop.

No, by no means, for, then I should condemn many of the Holy Fathers and Martyrs who differed from us at least in some of these Points.

Prot.

Then it is not necessary to salvation to receive these Traditions; and the Scripture may be sufficient without them: But further, These unwritten Traditions you talk of, I beseech you how came you to discover them, and discern the true from the false?

p. 73Pop.

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**De Tradit. cap. 9..

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 p. 74Doctors 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 p. 75told 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 p. 76may 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.**Of which see Nulli…y, Append. p. 92.

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.

p. 77Prot.

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, p. 78therefore 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, the council of Trent it self (when one would expect they should have grown wiser, though not better) p. 79prove 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**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 In his Bellum Papale, and defence of it. 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..

p. 81Prot.

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 p. 82what 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 p. 83wherein 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 p. 84Apostles, 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.