Pâ—â— 26 16 〈…〉 Deut 32. v. 7. Psal. 43 1. Prov. 3 8 〈◊〉 6 â—6 〈◊〉 8 1◠〈◊〉 4 4 3. 2 Thes. 2 15. 2 〈◊〉 2 1. so we saâ— the proposing of the word of God by the church and the 〈◊〉 of the Church bâ— hâ—r hâ—ad councells and hâ—lfe ancient faâ—â—â—â—◠〈◊〉 not resist but rather help the scriptures And aâ— to â—â—plicate the law 〈◊〉 neither 〈◊〉 deâ—itâ—e to tâ—e right hand or to the lâ—ft no more 〈◊〉 â—â— to 〈◊〉 the scripture according to vâ—â—â—ersalitie antiquitiâ— and consâ—nt And here 〈◊〉 â—â— to be understood that such an addition is prohibited that to 〈◊〉 to the law of God as appeareth vp 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 chap. v. 3. where he brings in before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how he did 〈◊〉 Bâ—al phâ—gor for 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 for adding or 〈◊〉 as the teâ—t â—â—pâ—ies v 2 â— 4 Deut. Againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Deut. 12. â—2 That 〈◊〉 I coâ—â—aund thee that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 Lord thou 〈◊〉 â—â—t adde o◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is here 〈◊〉 but an heath 〈◊〉 and an 〈◊〉 of their children to God as they did to their idols as appeareth out of the 30 verse of the same chapter Is here any prohibition of câ—nsicating the true sense of the law And in the self â—â—me sense â— prohibition of an idolatrous or falâ—â—fying addition is prohibited Deut. 4 v. 2. â—â—u shall not adde unto the word I speak unto you and in this sense that of the â—poâ— the last chap. v. 18 et â—9 and first of S. Paul to the Gal. chap. 1 v 8 as S. Aug teacheth vs in tract 98. in Johannem 10. Now wheras you retort my reasoÌ„ vrged against you showes you have good will to maintayn the tennis plaie how unpractised soever you are therein For as I remember I reasoned thus taking occasion out of Deu. 5 v. 32. no man may ad unto the fourth coÌ„maÌ„demeÌ„t it is to be kept therfore the 4 coÌ„mandemeÌ„t is to be kept onely to be kept As it should follow by the selfe same reason No man may adde in that â—â—â—â—d to any particular scripture and this or each parcel of scripture is the word of God therfore this or each parcell of scripture is onely scripture or the word of God Or thus the scripture is a sufficient rule in that kind for that which it teacheth therfore it is the onely sufficient rule where you may plainly see if you will not blinâ—â— that I conclude sufficiently against you But you complayn that my redditum or conclusion doth not showe his head I answer we doe not use ever in the schooles the premises being presupposed veâ—â—â—lliâ— to inferr the conclusion which followes necessarily As if I should argue thus Whosoever builds his religion onely on the privat spirit is a flat hereriche But Mr. Henry Ayns worth doth this the go without any more I know will excuse me from inferring a lame conclusion in that every one that hath common sense wil see what followes 11. Now to answer to that of the Gal. 1. v. 8. But though we or an Angel from heaven should euangelise to you besides that I have euangelised un to you be he an anathema which text makes much against you dooth nothing prove that which you would inferr viz. that the written word of God is sole sufficient For first there it is sayd besydes that which I euangelize that is eyther in writing or word of mouth so that you see tradition is not obscurely implied 2. we may note out of these words that the text doth not prohibit any explicatioÌ„ or true glosse on the text but onely that which is contrarie for verse 6. he marvails that they should be transported to another gospel So that you see all additions not contrary additions are forbidden in this and the like place But first here your gospelling is against S. August lib. 17. contra FaustuÌ„ where he teacheth that the Apostle saies not more theÌ„ you have received but besides that you have received or else S. Aug saies he should have prejudicated himself that did desire to come to preâ—ch to the Thessalonians and he concludes he that supplies that which was too litle doth not take away that which was too litle or wâ—nting 12. And S. Augustin in his 98 tract notes that the word besides doth not prohibit more or other preaching or teaching as the trabitioâ—â— and explications of the church bee but such as are contrarie or disagreeing to the rule of faith and S. Augustine notes that the Apostle both not say if any doe euangelize to you more theÌ„ you have received but besides For if he had forbidden any more S. John had synned that wrote after the Apocalyps 13. You upbraide me in saying this answ is none of the word of God but my owne saying that I have not a tittle of the word of God to prove it which you have and for to prove pour purpose you â—â—te the 30 of the Proverbs the 6. v adde nothing unto his wordes least he reproove thee which text proves no more theÌ„ the other text explicated that coÌ„rrarie doctrine â— not explicatioÌ„s aâ— here prohibited so that we see our archer hath lost another bolt shot at randâ—Ì„ to seek his brother 14. But wheras you say my answer is not warranted of God is not true For read RoÌ„ the last v. 17. Observe diligeÌ„tly those that cause division and diffention besides the doctrine you have learned where Erasâ—us turnes it in his translation contra against and your Bezaes translation reades so if contrarie S. Ambrose also reades si contra so that we see repugnant and not explicating doctrine contrarie and not more doctrine of the self same kind is prohibited 15. Wheras you say my reasoÌ„ is against myself in that the Prophets did not adde of their own but of Gods no more I say the definitions of the church be mans own but Gods ther being one self samâ—… of Christ and hiâ— Church He that heareth you heareth me and he that contemneth you contemneth me S. Luke 10 16. which is true also of particular churches but so fart forth as their doctrine accordeth with the Romane catholik church 16 But where you say you will inlighten my eyes with the lamp oil that stincketh by your false interpretation of the holy fathers sense I am litle beholden to you For S Chrysost and S. Ambrose in those places cited by you wil have nothing else understood but that the expositors must applie theÌ„selves to the true sense of the scripture the law â— not to corrupt the sense though on good pretences But you 〈◊〉 H. A. if you would haâ— the dust wiped of your spectacles might have seen Dyonisius Areopagita in the yeare of our Lord 100 and the Apostles schollar in his first chapter of his celestial Hierarchie show how the Apostles did declare their doctrin partly by writing partly not by
besides prohibits onely that which is contrarie S. Iohn himself otherwise by M. H. A. should sin The like showed My doctrin warranted by Gods own word The desinatioÌ„s of the church are Gods Mat. 18 17. et 1â— Deâ— 19 15. In opere imperfecto c. 7. Math. D. Ambrose lib. de Paâ—adiso c. 12. Nihil igitur l. quod bonum videtur Mark vvel Deut. 32. vers 7. Psal. 43 1. Prov. 1 8. Esa. 38. 19. Ier. 6 16. Eccle. 8 11. 4. Esdr. 14. 3. 2. Thes. 2 15. 1. Tim. 6 20. 2 Tim 2 1. and see whether unvvritten traditions are not to be observed seen 〈◊〉 S. Chrys. plaine vvords for tradition See 〈◊〉 lib. 3. c. 4. Clemens Alexand lib. 5. Streat c. 2. Orig. lib. 5. super numeros Athanas. epistolâ ad Epictetum D. Ambrosius lib. de â—ide 3. c. 7. epistola 83. D. Aug lib. contra Cresco Grammat c. 33 lib contra epistolam Manich quaÌ„ vocant fundamentum c. 5. et epistola â—6 ad Casul vide n. â—1 THE II. PART The rule of our faith the writteÌ„ vnwritteÌ„ word jointly Traâ—it was once the total rule therfore it may be thâ— partial The â—h of God taught onely by tradition 2470 yeres Tradition directed men after writteÌ„ law vide n. 16. Many places of the old testamâ— for tradit 2â— S Dyon Arâ—opag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clâ—meas Alex. Thâ—ancâ—â—â— fathers most plain for the allowing of tradition Origen S. Athanasius S. Basil. The 2. coâ—cel of Nice S. Hierom â— S. August 22. yea our â—aâ— adversarâ—oâ— confirm this M. Luther Iohn Calv. Ph MeliÌ„c Diverse reasons whiâ— God vseth traditions D. Hyll supra 2. Psal. Orig. homil 5. Num lib. 4. Esdras c. 14. v. 5 Dyonis Areopag 1. Cor. 3. 2 Hebr 5. 1â— The secoÌ„d third parts conâ—ined THE 3. PART 1. Ratio Major Minor Conclusio My Major proved 27. Stil it is Gods word whether it be mediat or immediat spokeÌ„ or written My Miner proved S. August saying Pâ—oved also by Protestants What S. Pa meanâ— by his â—epositum Platform of words phrase over above the scripture to be observed D. Aug l. 10. de â—iv Dâ—i c â—3 His ans to my â—â—st aâ—â— I did rightly infer out of his wordes The writte word not proved by another written word go by traditioÌ„ A place of script produced ans Another answered Mr H A. his first answ how the word of God is known so to be How Christ both hath no need hath need of mans testimoniâ— Scriptures in actu 2. not in 1. needs witness His 2. answer What he means by the 〈…〉 in all people That this spirit is not in the church of Amsterda His third Answer What is to be understood by comparing one place with another Collatione in diverse times in the self maÌ„ often causeth divers judgments Hereticks have had stil this coÌ„parison oâ— places Your grouÌ„d not able to coÌ„fute an Arâ—an What the seale of your pâ—it is His ground tâ—achâ—th â— mâ—â— beleâ—ves before he reades the scripture Another aâ—s of his Calv. â— inst c. 7. S. â— 2. 4 〈◊〉 â— Al heretiks doe bâ—ag of their private spirit How I distinguish hereticks The Iewes cannot object against us the law and the Prophets Generall motives to conâ—â—nce a Iew. How the high preist hood did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many places oâ—â—olâ— scripture to prove the visibilitie of the church That the church of God hath never erred AdaÌ„ did not err in doctrine if he did against our adversaries owne grounds Moses al the Levites free froÌ„â—dolatrie Iudg. 2. How the word all is to be understood In what sense Elias was said to be left alone A breif râ—â— so that the ch of God is and hath been stilâ— visible The resolution of my religioÌ„ the same with S. Cypr. How the word of God the Church may depâ—â— I doe not deny for my witness the spirit of God The difficultie and hardness of thâ— scriptures in principal matters Parvus error in principio magnus est in fine His answer refuted Not onely the matter but the manner of proving is difficult The brasen serpent before an image became an idol a. Cor. 6 16 Our adversaries ignorance like that of the Moabites 〈◊〉 Latria Dulia All the Apostles alike in power of order but not in jurisdictioÌ„ The Popes confirmation of the CouÌ„cel of Châ—lc required contra hereticum Eutich This was a judicial coÌ„firmation Diverse Councelâ—s confirmed by Popes Act. 15. against M. H A. Note The 19 v. examined S. Hieron Also v. 15. 16. Act. 15. The reason why S. Iames did speak S. Peter did not speak risen but rising Why Gamaliel rose up Gamaliel spoke rather as a â—â—â—ind then as a judge Gamaliel did use rather a favorable perswasion then a definitive sentence Act. 17 16. makes against him His similitude against him self The First of Pope Stephen examined Pope Formosus witnessed for a holy man Decret 40 examined Boniface no flattâ—â—er of the Pope ad â— 6. distinct 〈◊〉 How the P. dispenseth against the law of nature in som sense â—â— My third Argumenâ— M. H. A. contented to be drie beaten The uniform consent of the church may easilie distinguish whether scriptures 〈◊〉 â—acked Many thinges beleeved not expressed in the 〈…〉 Thatâ—… Intriâ—secal he the word of God is so of it self but to bee knowen of us it depends of the tradition of the Church THE FOVRTH PART Mr. M. A. walkes in a circle Ioh. 15 16. Ioh. 16. 14. Ioh. 3. 9. 11 Here it is proved that he doth petere principium Mr H. A. walkes in a circle Jo. 10. 27. His discourse is unprofitable Mr H. A. to solution circular fruitless endlesse He cannot tell what this inward testificatioÌ„ is Mr H. A. resolution uncertain Many absurdities sequeles of his doctrin No parcel of scripture affirms the whole scripture to be scripture What should authorise that scripture that should give autheÌ„tickness to all the rest By his opinion Gods providâ—ce is weakned Whether the holie fathers had this spirit or not makes against him That the auncient fathers had this spirit Mr H. A. places of scripture retorted on himself His spirit not Apostolical His answ pretended General groundes reselling the privat spirits proofe A threefold difference between the old and new testament The Catholicke opinion defended from such a idle proofe A general doctrine first to be presupposed The motives of our religioÌ„ of evident credibility The author of our religion the first motive This argument S. Chrysost orat 2 et 3. contra Iâ—â— a os et D. Augustin lib. decaâ—â—chisandis rudibus The second motive The third motive antiquitie Our Antiquitie in cluded in the name Catholick Beza in praefatione novi testa printed 1565. calls the name catholick a vaine word Humfrei in vita Iuelli a vaine terme pag 113. Sutlcif in his chalenge pag 1. fruictless name the like did Gaudentius as appeareth out of S. Aug. lib. 2 contra Gaud. c. 25. Muscul in
not understand the scripture vvithout a master I ansvver as before this proveth no insufficiencie in the scripture but in the reader I vvil further confirm it by your ovvn position vvher aftervvards you undertake to prove That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith But these definitive sentences say I are some of them hard to be understood at least by the ignorant and many cannot understand them vvithout a master if therfore your argument be good your position is naught and you must seek a nevv rule in matters of faith Your humane testimonies say no more then is alreadie heard and ansvvered if they did say more and you pressed it I vvould make ansvver as to you but leave the Fathers to sleep in peace You procede vvith the second branch of your antecedent saying that the scripture hath many senses literal many senses spiritual vvherupon you gather siure is the old law when any difficultie happened the Preist was to decide it therfore with a farr greater interest the Prâ—ist of the new law that hath the spirit of interpretatioÌ„ redoubled and ratiâ—ication of his doctrine assigned and confirmed by Christ Jesus himself is to eâ—pound the hidden senses of scripture I ansvver first that ther be so many senses literal spiritual as you doo say resteth for you to prove in your next for in this you make none I hold the sense of scripture to be one though applied to many tymes places and persons Pentheus in the Poet thought he savv tvvo suns in the firmâ—ment when ther was in deed but one it was but the difâ—â—râ—perature of his own senses that made him so to think You suppose the word which shineth as the sâ—n in the firmament of the church hath many meanings when it is but the dazeling of your eyes Secondly though it were granted to haue many senses yet the law in Deut. 11. maketh nothing against my faith For I graunt the scriptures are to be expounded by the Preists and Ministers of God Deut. 33. 10. Ephâ— 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet not by mans owne judgment or at the wil of any mortal 〈…〉 but by the spirit of God and by the scripture it self as did the 〈◊〉 in Israel For no minister of Christ no not the Apostles haue deâ—â—â—nion over our faith but are in declaration of the teach to approve themselves to every mans conscience in the sight of God as Paul sayâ—th Neither mought the Preists of old decide controversies as they 〈◊〉 themselves their words were not oracles but they were to inform the people according to the law which the Lord explaineth by the preist Ezekiel thus In controversies they shall stand to judge and they shall judge it according to my judgements c. Ezek 44 â—4 Thus Gods law is the rule of judgement and the scriptures are not so bare naked as to need the raggs of mens inventions to array them If you yeeld not in this I pray you what answer will you make to the Iewes that shall plead vvith you against Christ and alledgâ— how their high Preists and Rulers which were to decide all controversies Deut. 17. decided this controversie of Iesus of Nazareth thus that he was a seducer a blasphemer a traytor therfore to dye the death If the bare and naked scripture as you call it help you not against their pontifical decrees and expositions you wil hav but a bare and naked faith the shame wherof no â—igleaves wil hide But the Preist of the new law you say is to decide vvith a farr greater interest I grant it for Christ being come the high Preist of good things that were to come hath farr greater privilege and power then any legal Preist and him we are commanded to hear But he is not the Preist you mean for you allege from Iohn 2â— that Christ biddeth S. Peter and his successors feed his flock with the spirit of interpretation c. I marvel hovv this wil make for your opinion that the bare word of God is not an infallible rule or square of truth For doo you think in good â—arnest that Christ would haâ—â—â—th Apostle feed his flock with ought save Gods word because he bad him feed then all other Pastors must doo so too For the same Apostle writeth afterward thus The Elders which arâ— among you I besâ—ech who am a coâ—lder c. seed the flock of God another Apostle sayth to the Elders of an other church Take hâ—ed to your selves and to all the flock wherof the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God c. If the commandement to feed privileged S. Peter above the law and word of God then all Christian Bishops or Elders haue like privilege because they haue like commandement But I deny eyther that Peter alone was to feed Christs sheep or that he mought feed them with any thing save Gods word For the Apostles doctrines were the commandements of the Lord. 1 Cor. 14 37. not their own counsels and if S. Peter or any other taught or practised contrary to the word he was to be withstood and reproved Gal. â— 11. Whâ—rfore â—ven Peter himself who knew wel the meaning of his coÌ„mission taught the church that their new birth was not of mortal feed but of immortal by the vvord of God and that was the word which was preached among them and which he exhorted them stil to desire that they mought grow therby willed theÌ„ that if any man spake it should be as the words of God and referreth them to the sure word of the prophets as to a light that shineth in a dark place that strange it is you should gather any thing against the auctoritie or sufficiencie of the scriptures because the Apostle was willed to feed the sheep of Christ vnlesse you think they should not have wheat but â—haff to feed upon And if your châ—if shepheard of Rome use so to feed his flock gather such doctrines from Christs commandement I will never goe over the Alpes to setch my food from him You next allege Act. 15. where the Apostles meaning to decide a coÌ„troversie repayred not you say to their private spirits interprctatioÌ„ but to a council gathered in Jerusalem where S Peter was head wher al was concluded with It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to vs. I answer you hold not to the point which you took upon you to prove viz. that the bare word of God is not an infallible rule of truth the scripture you cite maketh against you for the Apostles were publishers not of their own word but of Gods 1. Thes. 2 13. 1. Pet. 1. 25. 2. Pet 1. 16. They confirmed their sayings in this Council by the former scriptures Act 15 15 16. They expounded and applyed the scriptures to their present questioÌ„ by the same spirit which wrote them which
may say to him vvhy doe you this and that whosoever obeyes not his precepts incures the syn of idolatrie paganisme You may tell me that the Pope hath not dominion over your faith but your Canonist tel me that he can dispense against the law of God that he can dispense against the law of nature that he can dispense against an Apostle that he can dispense against the new testament yea that he can dispense concerning all the precepts of the old and nevv testament And may vve novv think that he hath not dominion over your saith or may wee think that vvhen he is come which should sit as God in the Temple of God that he wil doe greater things then these But of your Popes preeminence wee are to speak in another place To return therfore to the scripture which you deney to be an indeficient rule of our faith you objected that it had many senses and stil you stand to it as proved well I am content to leave it unto judgement But though it were so yet this is not proved that therfore it is no sure rule of our faith save by your churches exposition For why might not the church in Corinth which were made rich by Christ in all kind of speech and in all knowledge so that they were not destitute of any gift why might not that church I say declare the many senses of scripture as well as the church of Rome Or rather why may not the holy ghost shew any church or any member or Christs church the meanings of the scripture and so it remayn as a firm rule of faith and the Spirit of God the sole authentik expositor of the same But here you urge agayn your bastard phrase falsly fathered upon S. Peter that no prophesie of scripture is made by a private spirits interpretatioÌ„ though I blamed you before for speaking in such sort If you can not perceive heavenly things consider earthly Your one body hath but one spirit which gives life to the vvhole and to every member of the body The same spirit dooth quicken the hand and foot that quickneth the head and hart although a greater measure is in the principal members then in the inferiour Even so by the scriptures we learn that the catholik church is one bodie and hath one spirite and though the many members of this bodie have not one work but have received diversities of giftes yet it is the same spirit To one by the spirit is given the word of vvisdom to an other the word of knowledge by the same spirit and to an other faith by the same spirit and so all the gifts to all the members This is the most publick spirit that the church hath and every member of the church hath the same so there is no privat spirit which Christians have as you by tradition it seemes have learned Now seeing all Christians have the same spirit that the Pope himself unlesse he have the spirit of Satan how is it that he onely must be the publik spirit and interpreter of the word Because say you he is the head of the church and hath the promise of our Saviour that his faith should not fayl him This I deney Now you beleeve it because the Pope himself tells it you for your ovvn privat spirit may assure you of nothing I wil disprove it by your next words and knowen experience For you say he may err in matter of fact and syn aswell as an other man then say I he may goe to the Divil for his facts and synns as vvell as an other man then is he the successor of Iudas Iscariot not of Simon Peter then the gates of hel prevaile against him And thus your Rock is rent in peeces and your building is on the sands You rely upoÌ„ one whom you know not but he may be a reprobate a child of the Divil yea a divil incarnate as Pope Iohn the 23. was found and judged to be by the Council of Constance and then he may lye as well as his father the Divil and then if you take not heed he may murder your soul as well as his father the Divil And how then dare you make him your rock your hope your confidence to beleeve all that he sayth not to beleeve Gods word unlesse he tell you it is Gods word not to beleeve any meaning of the scriptures but as he tell you the meaning is If men were bruite beasts without understanding they could not be more overruled then thus but the Lord sayth be not as the horse and as the mule And if the inhabitants of the earth had not been druncken with the wine of her fornication the great whore could never thus have benummed their senses and bereft them of heavenly light If you deney that your Popes may be reprobates and Heariots though they may syn your own popish records will teach you by as undoubted marks upon them as ever had Cain the dearest lovers of your catholik chaire branding their holy fathers with titles of prodigious wonders monsters for their beastly lives so some of them are knowen to have dyed without repentaÌ„ce or faith in God that eyther they never had faith or els their faith failed and then Christ prayed not for them as he did for Peter so their pretended priviledge lieth in the dust The 15. of the Acts alledged for Peters primacie I have before answered and leav it unto judgment yow urge now againe vers 7. that Pâ—â—er rose up shewing therby that he was head c. a strange collection that if a man rise up to speak in an assembly he must need therfore be head you mought better have gathered so if he had sitten stil spoken for sitting of the two rather argues auctoritie then standing up But tel me I pray you in earnest when Gamaliel is sayd to rise up in the council of the Iewes in Ierusalem would you gather from this that he was the head of them all Or when Paul rose up in the synagogue of Antiochia was he therefore the head If not why dally you thus with the holy scriptures to gather such conclusions as common sense wil not bear But if you would plead for no other headship then this that your Pope may rise up and speak in councils it wil easily be granted but then if others should judge and give sentence froÌ„ the scripture as Iames there did your chair of Rome would soon be overthrown Like weight is in your next words that the first gentils were chosen by his mouth for that you should say God chose that the gentils by his mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and beleev What primacie of power you can build hereon I cannot tell order I am sure ther must be in al things so ther was with them and is with us we grant unto you
may recover your self from your imnâ—nent precipitium that dying out of the church of God you doe not eternally burne in the quenchless flames from Justice hall Julie 24 1613. Iohn Aynsworth To this letter H. A. gave no answer but exspected the promised large reply from I. A. which now followeth as the third in defense of the Church of Rome To Mr Henry Aynsworth at Amsterdam 6. 16. Ierem. State super vias et videte et interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona et ambulate in eâ et invenietis refrigerium animabus vestris ALthough your replie was slight and wilie rather seeking to transfer the questioÌ„ then to examin it to the true ground bespangling the rough rugge of your doctrine with multiplicitie of wrested places of holy scripture which makes me fitly resemble you to some AEthiopian behanged all over eares â—yes nose lippes and armes with Jewels and pearles that by their lustre beautie and misplacing makes the Nigroes fowllness the uglier Yet of such importance is the decision of this question being the keye and Master-spring to all the other doctrinall and controversall questions of religioÌ„ That howsoever your exploded doctrine and shuffling replication needes no answer being like a Comet that consumeth it self yet to complie with the worth of the question and to satisfy your followers desires I have once agayne returned you an answer In which I will showe that your reasons being rather seming reflections then true beames as you say of the word of God doe vanish of themselves 2. I wil prove that the true indeficient rule of our faith is not onely the written word of God but also the unwritten word of God traditioÌ„ the authoritie of the church of God in Councels â— Fathers is the ultimate decyder of all matters of controversie 3. I will show how my reasons for all your pretended answers remaine in full force 4 I wil prove that in your opinion you walk in a virious circle proâ—â— iâ— the self same by the 〈◊〉 the word of God by the privat spirit and the private spirit by the word of God 5 I wilâ— defend our Catholick opinion to be free from any such circular and râ—diculous proof 6 I 〈◊〉 show the Popes definitive sentence togither with a generall Court 〈◊〉 atleast to be a firme and an assured groundwork rock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7 And lastly I wil demonstrate to you or to any indifferent judgment that your building is on sands or spâ—ders â—â—ks your arcâ—uÌ„â—â— and resâ—â—uâ—â—oÌ„ of your faith at the last day of judgment to be groundless and fuâ—l of feare 8 First then to begin with your reasons which 〈◊〉 I maintâ—yne to be nothing els but aâ—â—er aâ—â—ous of scripture fâ—â—sty applyed I do think it 〈◊〉 before I answere your reasons grounded on the bareterts of scripture to signifie what a worthy most reverend esâ—eme we have of the scriptures and of each part of them We reverence them as Gods holy word derived from the fulness of truth â—â—e hold this volume worâ—â—â— to be meditated on day and night Jos. 1 8 Psalm 1 2 〈◊〉 hold it as seven times refined sâ—â—ver Psal. 11 7. A most cleare light illuminating our eyes Psal. 8 8 that it is a light 〈◊〉 our steppes Psal. 1. 8. â—2 v 105 130. 140. Wee hold all the holy scriptures to be most just 8. 8. Prov. to be a frerie speech and buckler of defense We also defend that the holy scriptures are diligently to be searched unto Joh. 5 39. â—â—om 1. 1. â—â—om 15 4. that whatsoever is writt in them is writ to our edificatioÌ„ that all the scriptures are profitable unto us 2 â—un 3 16 2. Pet. 1 21. that men delivered this scripture inspired by the holy Ghost Yet wee hold also though we worthâ—ly esteeme of them yet wee can not â—â—clude the eâ—plications of the holy church in the holy Fathers and Councels guided and directed by the self same truth And S. Augustin did oppose by the authoritie of the holy fathers his predecessors against Pe lagius and other â—ereticks saying â—ragâ—lis â—t arguta eorum novitas eâ—c The weake and wâ—â—â— noveltiâ— of hereticks is to be coâ—fâ—nÌ„ded by the authoritie of holy Fathers and a little after this great Doctor and holy Fatherâ— acknowledged by Calvin himself to be the faithful wriness of antiquitiâ— 4. 〈◊〉 stitut â— 14 sess 25 and Bâ—za calls him the Prince of aâ— Divines concerning dogmaticall poâ—â—cis in c. 3. â—â—om v. 12 as if on purpose he did answer your barbarous contempt of them calling them dust and athes â—et onely in regard of their mortaliâ—e as the scriptures calles them but when the vniforme consent of the Fathers Greek and Latin was objected against â—â—u What saâ—es D. Augustin shall light be darkness and darkness light that 〈◊〉 aclestius Julia should on ly see and that Hyllarie Greg. Ambâ—â—se â—ier August should bâ— blyndâ— So wee see how two worthy champions of yours hath raised S. August a Samnâ—l 〈◊〉 confound a 〈◊〉 not at Endor but at Amsterdam â— But wheras by your submission you would seemâ— to 〈◊〉 amâ—nd 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 that you 〈◊〉 thâ—re be a thoâ—â—aâ—d of theÌ„ that I sa◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you preâ—â—â— for 〈◊〉 trutâ— and holyness before 〈◊〉 For if you understand this of the 〈◊〉 fathers before 〈◊〉 I proâ—â— that you cannot 〈◊〉 that without â— visard to 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 since I wil prove that in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dogmatical 〈◊〉 they differ from you and so by your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—inpeere except you will be wilfully blind they 〈…〉 before you If you understand Jewel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the Protestant Doctors these in truth by your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neyther doe or can prefer before your self since by your 〈…〉 have no true church as I heare you teach against Mr. 〈◊〉 and so there difference must rather be hereticall then 〈◊〉 and if it be a true church why make you a schâ—mâ— in dâ—parting from them Now to come to the solution of your arguments if there were any There be 4 â—n number cited as you saye grounded on the holy scriptures but not one appearing in substance or in the true sense of the scriptures First you object out of Deut. â— 32. Keep and doe that 〈…〉 God commanded you â—e shall neyther 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 but by that our Lord God commaunded you 〈◊〉 you 〈…〉 What can you inferr hence but that the lawe ought strictly to be kept and that we â—ught neyther to adde or to take from the 10 commandements that is to make the 10. commandements 〈◊〉 oâ— superaâ—undant what is this to your purpose to prove that the written word alone is sufficient to decyde all controversâ—es For as here 〈◊〉 testification of the law or â—rpâ—icatiâ—n of the law was 〈◊〉 And that it was the office of the Preists to explicate the 〈◊〉 of the law appâ—ares Deut. 1â— v. 8 2 Paral. 19 1â— 2
the signes which Iesus did which signes are written that we may beleeve And the 1. of Timothie â— 16. 17 Where all scripture is inspired of God etc. is said to be profitable for doctrine for reprehension for correction for instruction c. These places prove nothing for your purpose The first proves not that all things or sayings of our Saviour that he did or said are written though those signes were for all the signes the whole world could not contayn see a little after S. John 21. v. 25. 31. And the second place proves no more but that the scripture is good for these ends but it proves not that scripture is sufficient without tradition etc. and ecclesiastical lawes to all these ends And one might deduce out of these wordes to better reason then you each parcel of scripture in the old and new testament were sufficient for al this without any other So that you see I doe not fight with the holie ghost but with the perverter of the holy ghost 32. 3. You desire me to deale distinctly and plainly with your words I answer I hope I doe Then you beginne to answere distinctly to my wordes vidz the written word is not proved by another written word You answer first that the scriptures of God doe approve and confirme one another and his spirit that is in them and in all people doth seale that they are true For proof wherof you cite the first of S. John 5 9. The witness of God is greater and John 8 13. 14 I answer that Christ needed no testimonie for himself John 5 33. But I receive no testimonie of man meaning that he is greater then man that his divinitie doth not depend of mans witness yet for the benefit of others S. John is sayd to give testimonie of him 1. John through the whole chapter almost Acts 1 8. Christ say unto his Apostles that they shall be witness unto him in Jerusalem and in all Jewrie and in Samaria also Martyrs are sayd to be witnesses But now we doe not say that scriptures in themselves needs any witness for in actu 1. and in regard of themselves they are scripture by themselves proceeding from God but as they be in act 1 secundo and to be beleeved of others so they need testimonie of others 33. After he sees this dâ—fective he flies unto the privat spirit though he sayes it is in all people to unseale the authoritie of his word For if he understand by that spirit in all people that is of all ages times persons then must he accept of those bookes of holie scripture and of that sense and explication that by consent of holie Councills Fathers Doctors and expositors haith bene received 34. If he vnderstand this spirit in all people virtuallie and actuallie if they doe applie themselves to the right vnderstanding thereof This spirit by just reason they can not vnderstand since then wee must rather beleive St. Hierome that spent all his tyme and labor retyring himself to the desert for the vnderstaÌ„ding of the scriptures 35. What must Mr. H. A. understand else then that this spirit is in all the illuminated brethren of the church of Amsterdamâ— and yet this can not bee well understood since I heare Mr. H. A. stiffly maintains by the word of God with his coÌ„panie against Mr. Johnson there and his that this present church of England is not a scismaticall but an haeretical church What is then one of these cleare Eagle sight teachers blinded so in spirit that he can not discerne by the word of God what makes a church or a man haereticall 36. But now to prove that the comparing of one place with another which is your other refuge is not sufficient to distinguish what is true scripture or the true sence therof For if it bee so to bee vnderstood that after the collation of one place to another that by the nature of the scripture compared so the true sence shall bee vnderstood I inferr no but rather by this comparison the difficultie is often increased by a seeming contradiction If it bee vnderstood that by comparing of one that by a little and a little If it bee vnderstood that vy comparing one place with another by a little discourse the true sence and the scripture will be discerned I saie mens discourses are verie erroneous without the especiall assistance of gods holie grace which the church of God hath promised in her defining yea the verie selfe same man in divers times out of the self same confereÌ„ces of places of scripture hath inferred divers conclusions If you say the spirit to distinguish this is to be had by prayer I demand where these infallible promises are to be had for these infallible illuminations and what more certaine whether wee praie as wee ought And since Novatus Donatus Sabellius Arrius Cunomius Macedo Jovinianus Pelag Caelest Nestorius have had for their heresies diverse texts and coÌ„ferences with others to grownde heresies how should one vnfallibly to their judgments overthrow them in this For if you obiect to the Arian I and my Father am one he will object out of the selfe same St. John My father is greater then I If you saiâ— this by â—â—llation of scripture is to be vnderstood in regard of his humanâ—â—â—â— and not of his divinitâ—e He will 〈◊〉 likewise that vnitie signified in the other place is to bee vnderstood by references of other places of scripture in regard of consent and vniâ—y of wilâ— and not of nature 37. 2 And that the seale of your spirit can not distinguish this truth 〈◊〉 yea not so much as probablie I move For frist I aske what this seale of the spirit is Doth iâ— coâ—â—â—st onely of Gods perticular illumination that yee should have this touchstone to discerne scripture If so you contradict your selfe Mr. H A for so you grant that a man hath a divine faith and the spirit of discerning all before he readâ—s the scriptures for this spirit must distinguish them and so you have built without your grounde and guided your faith without your ruler the written word of God 38. If you answer this spirit consists in the evidence of the thing reaveled as you seeme to graâ—nt When you bidd me aske your proof that ther is a light in the same seeming so with Calvin to graunt that the scriptures are distinguished by themselves as light from darkness sweetness from sowrness this is most false for then everie one that had but natural perfection of the organ and free proposing of the object should distinguish this light and sweetness 39. If yee answer this spirit consists in the authoritie of God how will you prove this in particular to bee revealed of God and not the other part of scripture If you replie you can prove it by the Majestie of the writing How will you answer and show to everie particular mans cie
vs and whose judgment you saie you preferr before your selfe For first you intangle your selfe in an endless circle For you prove the privat spirit to be true in that the written word saies as interpreted by you that it is true and you prove the writteÌ„ word to bee true by the private spirit both which wee denie since we will have neither the writteÌ„ word alone or privat spirit to be the rule of our faith And you doe not only coÌ„mit a circle but perswade against your owne perswasion since you would have me to beleeve you onely citing scriptures before thowsand Fathers citing scriptures also whose worth by so many titles you preferr before your selfe suerly suerly you have no guift in perswasion 152. And not onely thus vnreasonablie doe you proceed but as the Manichies to S. August you object many places of scripture whose infereÌ„ces still â—re Nolâ— Catholicis credere doe not beleeve the Catholicks I can then returne you this answer with St. Aug. noÌ„ rectè facies per EuaÌ„geliuÌ„ me cogere ad Manichaei fidem q. ipsi EvaÌ„gelio Catholicis praedicantibus credidi You doe not wel by scriptures cited from the gospel to vrge me to beleeve your Brownisme against the Catholick faith For this Gospel out of which you cite these wordes and wrested places I received froÌ„â—he Catholick church from whence you would diâ—â—wade me 153. The â— thing that I am to shew is that the Popes definiâ—tive sentence at least with a generall counsel is sufficient to determine all controversies and is a sufficient groundworke of faith This you saie I propound faintly in that I did alleage I did not of purpose dispute it though as you object it was the maine question 154. I answer most true it is according to my answer wherin I did voluntarily yeild to this to which by force of argument I was never vrged so it is the maine drift of the question But in regard of the satisfaction of you or your arguments it is not the maine question For when I saie there is something els required besides the writteÌ„ word to make it a compleat rule of faith I did not answer faintly when I graunted more then that to which I was vrged For your Argument required to know how the judgment of the church and in what sence might be infallible might have a manifold sence For if you take the definition of the church for the consent of all the fathers doctors of the church so it is infallible If you take it for a general CouÌ„cel coÌ„firmed by the Pope so it is also of infallible authoritie If you take it for the definition of the Pope with the councel of Cardinals defining ex cathedra so it is of infallible authoritie And since in all these sences the Catholick church is an indeficient rule to determine a matter of faith and to interpret the scriptures I did not therefore faintly answer when I insisted on the last 155 As for your rhethoricall flourish and forged resolution of my faith I have sufficiently excluded our opinion from that circle in which you stick fast Nervaeus wheÌ„ he saies the Pope is virtualy the whole church meanes nothing else but that he is the spiritual head to direct the whole church by the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost 156. As for my vellitation those few that I brought were sufficient to overthrow your groundles opinioÌ„ As for my reasons in the armadoe of mine as you terme theÌ„ that you saie wil never enter the feild It may be well they scorn to oppose one that lies at their fellowes mercie already 157. Now you come to examin the prerogatives of S. Peter Out of the whole series of which the circuÌ„stances therof not onely out-of each particular I drawe an infallible Argument but you in an swering them rather seeke to shun or avoid a blow then to give any 158. First you graunt that ever almost S. Peter is named first of the Apostles you except some 3. or 4. places but you cite none though otherwise most frequent in multiplicitie of cited places to no purpose Hence you graunt that primacie of order and not of authoritie maie be gathered You saie this gratis But since the holy Ghost both not repeat this prunacie to no purpose surely there his authoritie above his other brethreÌ„ is argued thence And since to be named still first through the whol scripture rather argues primacie of autority then of order Why should not wee rather iâ—ferâ— the vsual then the vnusual significatioÌ„ especiallie since in all records wee see the prioritie of the place is given to the preheminencie of the person 159. But let us examin one place the 10. of Mat 2. And the names of the 12. Apostles be thâ—se The first Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother and so Marci 3. Luc. 6. he is still named first Which cannot bee vnderstood of prioritie of your order you vnderstaÌ„ding therby prioritie of yeares or vocatioÌ„ Since S. Andrew that is named next excelled S. Peter in yeares was first called As S. Ambr. witnesseth on the 2. of the Cor. 12. and he inferreth then that although S. Andrew was his elder yet S. Peter was his superior This place made so much for this that Theodorus Beza although he coÌ„fessed all copies agreed herein yet he would have this word first to be â—oisted in see Beza in the annotations of the new testameÌ„t 556. As for that of the Galatians where S. Paul not numbring or reckoning the Apostles of set purpose as the 3. Euangelists doe meÌ„tioneth first S. James Bishop of Jerusalem whom first he met and who led him vnto the other Apostles as it appeareth Act 21. I. Calvin seing in his conscience the force of this Argument at which you wink grants that hence may be gathered that he was first of the 12. Apostles but not the head of the whole world 160. As for that which you object the 21. of the Apocalyps 19. where the foundation of the wall of the citie is described to be adorned with pretious stones And then you inferr in that in the Preists habit or ornament the Jasper which is as you say the stone of Benjamin by his place makes against you if I would plaie the part of a Cabbalist or naturalist But the scripture it self Exod. 28 v. 18 19. confutes you For there in the first place is said to be placed the stone Sardius Topazius and Smaragdus In the second the Carbunâ—â—â— the Saphyrus and the Jaspis So that we see the Jaspis or the stone Benjamin by your doctrine should not have the first place 161. Secondly against my congruitie alleaged for S. Peters primacie Math. 14. 29. where S. Peter walkes vpon the water Out of which place S. Chrysostom homil 57. and S. Bernard lib. 2. de consider ad EugeniuÌ„ doth inferr S. Peters prerogative above the other Apostles you saie rather argues his
weakness of faith Whereas indeed S. Peters words if thou be the sonn of God are an argument of confidence and beleeving manifested by the word following commaund me to come vpon the waters And that our Saviour argued S. Peter of little faith was when he feared the strong winde and began to sinck not for his walking vpon the waters before others no other having with that firmnes of faith asked or atteÌ„pted to come to our Saâ— though they saw him Those places cited 2 King 2. Dan. 3. 25. Heb. 11. 34. proves that ever such myracles doe not prove superioritie or of dignitie before others which wee intend not to prove but onely that this together with many other circumstances doe prove superiority of S. Peter 162. 3. Our Saviour calls S. Peter the rocke and saies on this rocke I will build my church and that hell gates shall not prevaile against him First you saie John the 10. 27. 28. 29. that hell gates shal not prevaile against the just which if you vnderstand in the Calvinistical sence that one once justified can not be againe the child of wrath which is a most horrible falsehood and against the holy scriptures Roma 11. 20. but thow by faith dooth stand be not highly wise but feare et 21 Revel 2. 5. But if not I come to the and will move thy candlestick out of his place 163. It is against the principles of faith since so all Christians being truely baptised and so regenerated in grace could not sinne to death and so all should bee saved 164. You take it for a great matter that I graunt the Pope maie sinne in matter of fact be reprovated if he die in mortal sinne It is our Catholick doctrine and the Pope goes to confession coÌ„monly oftener then any ordinarie Preist yet this proves nothing that the Divill prevailes against him as he is head of the church as he defines ex cathedra As for your blasphemous speeches torne out of the Apocalyps in his place I shall returne them on your owne head and of the hereticall sonnes your father 165. 4. You object against that which I cite out of S. Luk. 22 31. And our Lord said Simon Simon Behold Sathan hath required to have you to sift as wheat But I have praied for thee that thy faith maie not faile thee and thou once converted confirme thy brethreÌ„ you answer that the other Apostles were to coÌ„firm their brethreÌ„ I answer as particular pastors Act. 14. 22. et 15. 41. 32. 1 Thes. 3. 2. Apoc. 3. 2. but not as the supreame pastor by special assistance of Gods grace dissigned here to confirme his brethren S. Aug. lib. q. novi testamenti q. 75. to 4. teacheth that Christ praying for Peter praied for the rest because in the pastor and prelate the people are corrected or amended And S. Cyprian Epist 55. n 6. saies that hence infidelitie or a false faith cannot fasten on S. Peter and in the selfe same chap. he affirmes though there were 12. Apostles yet for keeping vnitie he would have one head of all You saie you will consent with the holie Fathers so farr forth as they agree with scripture 〈◊〉 bie will not you consent then vnto them when they alleage thus scripture for the Popes primacie But I proved that you admitted theÌ„ so farr as they agree to scripture that is to your owne phancie to which as guiltie you are altogither silent As for the places cited by you Act. 14. v. 22. I finde therein nothing to your purpose but a grosse corruption of the holie text in your opinioÌ„ translating presbyter Elder which soundes as well as if you would translate the Major of London the Elder against the common vnderstanding and vse of the word But in the old testament you translate sacerdos a Priest and yet here you translate Elder 166. That which you prove the 16. of the Act. 41. proves that S. Paul did coÌ„firme particular churches but not the whole church as head by office and in that he commanded them to keep the Apostles precepts and the ancients proves tradition against you And that particular pastors precepts are to bee kept not onely things expressed in the writteÌ„ word That the 32. ver affirmes that particular may particularly comfort others the 1 of the Thess. 3. 2. proves onely that Timothie was sent particularly onely to confirme them and the like can onely be inferred out of the third of the Apoc. 2. which is so farr from proving the speciall confirmation promised to S. Peter that the confirmation is by the vigilencie of one that had the name onely to live c. Thus wee though you object my objections bleede I am assured your wrested places as poore same souldiers are to retreate on crutchess 167. 5. I gathered by a congruencie that S. Peter was head in that his feet were first washed by our Saviour Ioh 13. 6. 7. where presently after he had spoke of washing the text saies He coÌ„meth therefore to Peter by therefore hath reference to washing and to S. Peters first washing you stand not much herevpon but according to the opinion of most of the ancient fathers you admitt S. Peter was first washed Onely you except that he shewed greater weakness then his brethren I answer that his refusing to wash was out of a respective love that he had to our Saviour but vnderstanding presently that of our Saviour If I wash the not v. S. S. Peter to show he had a perfect resignation not expressed by any of the rest he presently peâ—ldes Lord not onely my feet but also my hands and head 168. 6. I inferr that S. Peter onely received a revealed promise of his Martyrdome but here you that slights any thing objects that performaÌ„ce is more theÌ„ promise And S. StepheÌ„â— James Act. 12. 2. 7. 59. suffred Martyrdome before I answer that an assured promise absolutly to come is not worse but rather better then an accelerated performance if the performance of the other be differred for greater good as S. Peters was And the theife on the crosse for dying repentant maie challenge a crowne of glorie as Christ Jesus promised him and not to bee the head of the church as it was promised to S. Peter 169. 7. I gathered S Peters preheminence above others in that Act. 2. v. 14. S. Peter as the head of the rest made the first sermon when the Jewes objected they were ful of winâ— But Peter standing with the eleven lifted vp his voice and spake to them yee men Jewes and all that dwell at Hierusalem etc. v. 15. he answers for the rest For these are not drunck as you suppose and that he was not onely superior in age or order only I have showeÌ„ Therfore Mr. H. A. doth as it were graunt this and with that the Pope were as forward as S. Peter in these and such good offices I wiâ—â— alâ—o that wee had also that abundance of Gods
replie unto Act. 26 22. that in tradition nothing is spoken besides that is contrarie to the Apostles speeches First this is untrue many of your church traditioÌ„s are both besides coÌ„ntrary to the scriptures as when we examine the particulars wil appear and yow dare not subject your church and traditions to the trial by the scriptures but yow wil haue mens fayth extrinsecally to depend upoÌ„ your church Secondly you wind away by terms of your owne besides that is contrary vvhereas the Apostle sayth nothing without or except that vvhich the Prophets and Moses sayd none other thing Your allegation from 2. 2. Thes. 2. is answered in my former vvritings You further allege for traditions Act. 15. 41. 16. 4. I answer all Apostolicall decrees such as are ther mentioned we doo receiv but yours decreed by the Pope are Apostaticall Secondly you may see that those which they delivered vvere vvritten before Act. 15. 23 -25 28. c. You say they are uncertayn let the prudent judge And if so they be then are they not necessary for salvation for all such are vvritten Ioh. 20. 30. 31. 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. Here you interlace 2. other points compâ—â—ing the grounds that vve and that you doe goe vpon and you handle them largely in 55. sections I vvill first follow on vvith your 6. part at S. 153. both because that vvas the course of our former vvritings and the examining of the things alleged for your Pope vvil give light touching these other points which also I vvill consider of after in his place The second of your assertions vvhich now you make the 6. part of your longsome pamphlet vvas That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith To this now as a man fearful of your cause you have added the Popes definitive sentence at least with a generall council And this you say you are to show and vve say I are ready to behold your showes Here I find no argument by you set down to conclude your assertion as vvas in the former points vvhich is an other declaration of the weaknes of your cause Heretofore to help the Pope you fled to S. Peters prerogatives vvhich vvere they as great as you feign them to be yet as I told you there is no more proved for the Bishop of Rome then for the Bishop of Babylon or Patriarch of Constantinople Yet having no better grounds you agayn flee to them and labour to repayr your showes of Peters preeminence vvhich I by the scriptures had pulled down And first you say that out of the whole series of them and the circumstances and not onely out of each particular you draw an infallible argument I answer the particulars I have proved to be by you wrested so the vvhole series and rank of them can conclude not hing soundly for you Your 1 show vvas S. Peters naming first I told you this is usual but not alwayes and to help you because you complaynâ— cited not the 〈…〉 see Ioh. 1. 45. vvhere Andrew is named before him Gal. 2. 9. vvhere Iames is named before him Mar 16. â— vvhere mention is made oâ— the disciples and Peter so 1 Cor. 9. 5. the Apostles brethren of the Lord and Cephas Though if he had been alvvayes first named it proves him not to be the head of the church more then the first foundation Rev. 21. 19. vvill prove Paul as I shewed you Here you boast that Exod. 28. 18. 19. confutes me vvhere the Iasper you think is the sirt stone and so not the 12. for Benjamin I answer an yll translation hath deceived you For Moses there sheweth that the stone Iaspeh whereof the Greek Iaspis Arabik Iasp Latine Iaspis and English Iasper are naturally derived vvas the â—2 and last in the brestplate and so for Benjamin vvho vvas the last born of the patriarchs to be graved vpon Exod. 28. 9. 10. 21. This your own learned Linguists as Arias Montanus and others doo acknowledge and so correct your translation So the best of the Iewish Rabbines as Maimony vvho sayth Benjamin was written on the Iaspeh Misn. lib. 8. Treat of the vessels of the Sanctuary chapt 9 S. â— And thus Paul of Benjamin hath colour to be the head of the church as vvell as Peter You press Mat 10. 2. the first Simon caled Peter Andrew as you think vvas first in yeres first in caling for proof you cite Ambrose on 2. Cor. 12. I answer first Ambroses humane â—uthority is no proof for Peters pretended divine headship Secondly Ambrose saith not that he vvas first in yeres put that therfore amoÌ„g your own traditioÌ„s but ChrysostoÌ„ if you vvil rely upoÌ„ men maketh Peter elder then Andrew That which Ambrose sayth is Andrew folowed our Sav before Peter this I hold true by Ioh. 1. 40. 41. but it is one thing to folow Christ as a disciple an other thing to be chosen an Apostle as reason teacheth and you may read Mar. 3. 13. 14. 16. compared with Mar. 1. 16. Luk. 6. 12. 13. 14. vvith Luk. 5. 8. 10. That Andrew therefore vvas an Apostle before Peter I deny by vvarrant of scripture thus I wink not as you vvrite but vvith Calvin I confess Peter to be first of the Apostles You grant by that I alleged from 2. King 2. Dan. 3. that such miracles as Peters walking on the water prove no headship of the church so then this also you brought but for a show 3 I corrected your error in translating him for it in Mat. 16. 18. restreyning that to Peter vvhich Christ promised to his vvhole church You stand to it stil. But first against humane learning for autes the feminine gender cannot accord with Petros the malculine as it can and dooth vvith Ecclesias the Church You plead also against true religion for I proved by Ioâ— â—0 27. 28. 29. that all true Christians are invincible of hâ—l gâ—â—â—s and not Peter onely Here you burst out and cry that if I vnderstaÌ„d it in the Calvinisticall sense that one once justified can not be again the child of wrath it is you say a most horrible falshood and against the holy scriptures Rom. 11. 20. 21. Rev. 2. 5 I answer I understand plainly as Christ sayth that his sheep shall never pâ—rish neyther shall any pluck them out of his hand but he vvill give them eâ—er â—al life Ioh. 10. 28. that it is not possible the elect should be seduced 〈…〉 Christ Mat. 24 24. for God putteth his fear in their harts that they shall not depart from him Ier. 32. 40 and Gods gifts and caling are without repentance Rom. 11. 29. and they that are born of God cannot syn vnto death 1 Ioh. 3. 9. And these things accord vvell with Rom. 11. 20. 21. c. for by faith we stand but all men have not faith 2 Thes. 3. 2. there is a vayne fayth
invincible as my rule is uncorrigible Now vnto the point to be decided I breifly answer That a man may eliciâ—t a supâ—rnaturall act of faith many things are required first there must be motiva evidentis credibilitatis prudential motives of evident credibilitie viz. that all nations and men of principall giftes zeal and sanctity and â—â—dowments have beleeved so that it hath stood inviolable against so many and infinite heresies and persecutioÌ„s that it is so ancient so visible so constant and vniforme in all essentiall poincts of doctrine That it hath been sealed and confirmed with the blood of so many glorious Martyrs c. Secondly There must be Ecclesia proponens the Church propounding what is scripture and what is not scripture what is unwritten word viz. tradition and what is not Thirdly there must be prima veritas the first verity â—r Gods veracity that must be ratio formalis the formal reasoÌ„ why we doe beleeve Fourthly There must be a supernatural judgment dictâ—ting that now it is good at least generally to beleeve Fiftly there must be a supernaturall concourâ—â— of Gods holy illumination and a concourse of his infused habit of faith to determinate the indifferent power of our understanding to beleeve or not to beleeve Out of the progresse of which act an answer to your question may easily be deduced For when you ask whither our faith shal be tryed by the verdict of God or of man I answer you directly enough though with a â—â—stinction viz. That if you vnderstand by what formall motive we shall be tryed in our beleefe I answer by the verdict of Gods written and unwritten word But if you aske who shall determine our faith after a propounding manner so we say the Church concurreth after the maner of an applying conditioÌ„ teaching what is Canonicall and that which is not autentike And therefore I will prove first That onely the bare text of the scripture is not a sufficient rule of our faith 2. I will prove that the scriptures expounded by the Catholike Church is a true and indeficient rule of our faith 3. That this rule is onely found in the Romane Catholike church sentence and not in private mens illuminations and motions of a private and unseen spirit First then to prove that the bare scripture is not a sufficient rule of our beleife and that many mysteries and points are to be beleeved that are not expressely taught or evidently deduced out of the holy scriptures I frame this Argument Nothing is to be beleeved that is not taught or gathered out of the written word but that the Bible is Canonicall is neyther directly taught nor by evident consequence deduced out of the same therefore it is not to be beleeved that the Bible is Canonicall scripture The Major is the coÌ„mon assertion of protestants but especially I take it a cheife ground and principle of your sect vide Calvi de vera Ecclesia reformata pag. 473. and the Apologie of the Church of England pag 58. The Minor is approved by Hooker a principall protestaÌ„t in his treatise of Ecclesiast lawes lib. 1. pag. 84. lib. 2. S. 4. pag. 100. 102 who there writeth thus Of things necessary the very cheifest thing is to know what bookes wee are bound to beleive holy which thing is confessed as a thing impossible for the scriptures to teach And afterwardes he confirmeth thus For saith he if any one book did give testimony of all the rest yet the scripture that gives credit to all the rest would require another scripture to be credited neyther could we come to any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way So that we see eyther that he holds scripture is not to be beleived and authenticke or else he requireth the authority of somthing besides scripture to make it authentical The force of this Argument did drive Hooker lib. 3. paragraph the 8. pag. 1â—6 Zanchius in his confess â— â— Brentius in prologo Kemnitij in examine Conc. Trident Doct. Whitak contra Stapletonum lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 298 30â— to flie unto the authority of traditions to prove scripture to be scripture Which if once they graunt that traditions are sufficient to prove and try the groundwork of our beleife viz. scripture to be scripture why can they not ground other poâ—its of faith of lesser consequence 2. I prove that the bare and naked word of God cannot be an infallible rule or square of truth I prove it thus That which is difficult and includeth many senses at least to the ignoraÌ„t cannot be a certayne rule of faith But the scriptures are thus My Anteced Luther in his preface to the Psalmes acknowledgeth Tertull. in lib. De praescripti sayth Nec periclitor dicere ipsas quoque scripturas esse et voluntate dei dispositas ut haereticis materias subministrarunt cum legaÌ„ opportet haereses esse quae sine scripturis esse non possunt Where he confesseth that misinterpreting of scripture set the doore open to heresies S. Peter also sayeth that in S. Pauls Epistles there be many things hard to be vnderstood which the unlearned and unstable deprave as al the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition And the difficultie thereof made S. Augustin though a Doctor of incomparable wit and learning in his 12. conf c. 14. break out in the height of adâ—iâ—ation and say oh wonderfull profoundness of thy words c. Idem to 3. lib. 2. De doctrina Christ c. 6. confess that there was more in the scriptures that he understood not then of that which he understood The â—unuch of the Queen of Aâ—thiopia was dayly conversâ—â—t in the scriptures yet he confesseth that he could not vnderstand them without a master The second part of my Antecedent viz. that the scripture hath many senses litterall many senses spirituall of whose manifold deepe and mysticall sense the ignorant reader cannot be possest And therefore since in the old law when any difficulty happened the Preist was to decyde it and therefore with a farre greater interest is the Preist of the new law that hath that spirit of interpretation redoubled and ratification of his doctrine assigned and confirmed by Christ Jesus himselfe is to expound the hidden senses of scripture And therefore S. John vltim◠〈◊〉 bids S. Peter and his successors feed his flock with the spirit of interpretation which is the food to a reasonable flock and fold This made the Apostles when they were to decyde the controversies about the cessatioÌ„ of the ceremonies of the old law not to repaire vnto their private spirits interpretation but to a counsell gathered in Hierusalem where S. Peter was head where all was concluded with Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis It seemes good vnto the holy ghost and vnto vs. And therefore let S. Peter himself conclude That no propheâ—iâ— of scripture that is no interpretation
partu et post partuÌ„ Besides the equallitie of three persons and their processions to Nestorius will not easily be proved or to an Arian if you stand onely to a writteÌ„ word for he will cite scripture for himselfe Pater major est me and if you say that is to be vnderstood onely in regard of his humanity and not in regard of his divinity he will bid you prove that by the written word and what place of scripture soever you shal bring he wil answer it with an other to his own purpose The like will the Annabaâ—tist doe about the baptisting of infants How will you without tradition prove the procession of the holy Ghost from God the Father and the Sonne as from one onely fountayne How wil they justify the not keeping of the Sunday on Saturday with the Jewes the receiving of the sacraments fasting the eating of blood and strangled meat prohibited in the Actes of the Apostles How can they cat a black pudding without the help of tradition since they know it is forbidden by the written word and no writte word found plainely to license it Therefore S. Paul seing how necessarie the vse of traditions were in Gods church so ofteÌ„ coÌ„mendeth it unto vs. Therefore brethren stand and holdthe traditions which you have learnt whether it be by word or by our 〈◊〉 Th'â—fficacy ' and force of which is so necessary by experieÌ„ce and so coÌ„ve nâ—â—t by the judgmeÌ„t of coÌ„moÌ„ sense that I wonder how men should deny the necessary vse therof For I aske if the Apostles were alive and should by word of mouth tel us the contents of many things conteyned in the scripture without all doubt with all readynes we should beleeve them why then will they not beleeve them that lived in the Apostles dayes and such holy Fathers as flourished shortly after Dyâ—â—isnis Areopagita affirmeth the Liturgie of the Masse for the dead to be an Apostolicall tradition in fine eccles Hier. c. 7. parte 3. Tertull. de corona militis S. Aug. De cura pro mortuis c. 1. D Chrvs. homil 3. in epist. ad Philipp in Morali D. Damascen sermone de defunctis initio Also the â—rcede is affirmes to be an Apostolicaâ—l tradition sic Ruffinus in exposit symboli in principio D. Hier. epistol 61. c. 9. D. Ambros. sermone 38. D. Augustinus de Symbolo ad Catech lib. 3. c. 1. Yea that traditions wâ—re of this account we may gather out of the antient Fathers of the Church We may easily gather by the irreverend speaches which Doctor Whitaker vseth against S. Chrysostom for whereas he in the 2 of the Thess. 4 graunts that traditions are as wâ—ll to be beleeved as scripture he sayth his speach was irreverend and vnworthy of a Father And wheras Euseb. lib 1. De demonstrat Euangel c. 8. sayth the Apostles did publish and propagate the fayth of Christ partly by scriptures and partly by tradiâ—iâ—â—s he breifly rejects one of the famousest recorders of antiqâ—â—ty saying his authority is not to be received Raynolds also in his conclusions aâ—â—ered to his conference 1. conclus pag. 689. Cartwr â— 8. in his defense pag. 103. affirmes that the fathers did still allow of vâ—written traditions Wherefore I will breifly conclude this point showing that a man ruled by his private spirites direction can have no faith For since they beleeve scriptures only to be scriptures in that 〈◊〉 are delivered vp by the Church why should not they theÌ„ beleeve any thing that the Church with a generall consent propouâ—â—eth as ◠〈◊〉 of our beleefe For if I beleeve the relation of my freind because my freind tells me I must beleeve all that my freind relates with the like firme assertion and with the like reason or else I doe not beleeve my freind but my owne affection that is thereunto incliâ—ed to beleeve the one and not beleeve the other No more doth no protestaÌ„t or any other sect beleeve with a supernatural act of faith for then would â—e beleeve al that the scripture propoâ—â—â—eth to be beleeved aswell as beleeve the scripture by reason it is of her propounded else they beleeve onely their private spirits dictament and fanâ—ies that hath derived unto the knowledge of many other mysteries as well as of the truth of the scriptures The second thing I am to prove breefly is that the Popes definiâ—ive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficieÌ„r rule in matters of faith The which is proved out of Luc. 22. Simon ecce Sathan expetivit vos ut cribraret sicut triticuÌ„ ego auteÌ„ rogavi pro te ut â—ides tua non deficiat et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuo Where our Saviour that is the founteyne of all grace and goodnes sayth that he hath prayed for S Peter and so coÌ„sequently for his successors since Christ speaketh of the confirmation of the Church against hell gates not onely for a tyme but for ever promising that S Peter and their faith should not faile commaunding both him and them and therefore bidding theÌ„ coÌ„firm their brethreÌ„ And that this prayer was powred forth for S. Peter and his successors appeareth â—vidâ—tly First iâ— that our Saviour points forth one particular man saying Simon Simon particularizing the speech with a pronowne of the second person saying for thee thy fayth and thy brethren 2. Though our Saviour did begin to speake in the plurall number Sathan expetivit ut cribraret vos Sathan desired to sift you immediately changeth the maÌ„ner of speech I haue prayed for thee and not for yee 3. Our Saviour prayeth for him to whom he bidds thou being converted confirme thy brethren but onely S. Peter and not the Church in generall hath brethren Besides S. Math 16. He sayth he builds his church vpon S. Peter Tues Pâ—trus et super hanc Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam and therevpon he chaunged his name of Simon he makes him Peter and Petra and Cephas which name in the Spriaâ—k tong signifyes a rock thereby to prevent all fâ—â—volous answers to a point so clearly declared As appeareth first in that first he designes him first out by the name of his father Bar Jonas 2. by his own name Simon then doth he as it were seclude him from the rest saying super hanâ— Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam then by the authority and preheâ—inence given him showed by the delivery of the kepes All which the auncient Fathers doe affirme with an uniform consent as Tertull lib. dâ— praescript Orig. homil 5. in Exod. Sanctus Cypr de unitate Ecclesiae S. Hyll Cano 16. in Mat. S. Ambros. sermo 47. 68. lib. 6. in cap 9. Luc. D. Hier. lib 1. in lovini S. Epiph. in Anchor S. Chrysost. homil 55. in Mat. etc. every one of them affirming expressly that the Church of God was built on S. Peter as vpon a rock Besides this our Saviour in S. John 21. gives S.
dependeth of the knowledge of a skilfull lapidary and yet the knowledge of the lapidary dependeth of the excellent nature and quallity of the stone So we answer that the Church doth formally depend on the word of God that showes she is taught in all truth and yet the word of God doth depend of the determination â— definition of the church And therfore S. Augustin said that he would not beleeve the scripture to be scripture without the authority of the church And at this answer in effect you wonder that any one would have the faith of God to be tried by any other then by the written word of God therfore eyther give me leave to be of S. Augustins mind or leave to mervaile onely at me since that great Doctor and holy father doth give the lilie occasion to you of wonder Now unto your Corolarium that bad rhetorick and not solid reason gathered out from hence that my faith and hope is grounded on the Spiders vveb I answer that it is not seated on a webb but on a rock against which all heretical persecutions perswasions blasphemies which is as hell gates shal never prevaile For my resolution account of faith that I told you I was one day to give before the tribunal of God was no other theÌ„ this which S. Augustin gives where he sayes In ecclesia catholica etc. In the catholick church doth keep me the consent and agreement of so many people and nations the authoritie of the same church began by miracles nourished with hope increased with charitie confirmâ—d and established by antiquitie In the same catholick church doth also hold mâ— the succession of Bishops froÌ„ the sea of the Apostle S. Peter to whom Christ our Lord after his resurrection commended the feâ—ding of his flock continued vnto him who at this present occupieth this place And lastly doth keep me the very name catholik which not without cause amongst so many hereticks this onely church doth so obteyn as although all herâ—ticks doe pretend vamly to be termed Catholicks yet if any stranger doe chaunce to demand which is the church of the catholicks there is no heretick so impudent as dareth showe eyther his house or synagogue And thus far S. Augustin himself taught me what answer of my faith I shall make before the eternall tribunall of God But when you shall come there to give account of your faith the best that you can allege for your self is that you thought judged it so that your private spirit interpreted it so though against the hight of nature in very many points against al antiquitie of time consent and vnitie of doctrine against the whole streame of holy fathers learned Doctors and most true expesiters Who now I pray you putts trust in man and makes flesh his arm Who are taught novv by the precepts of men Who but you are led by their ovvn inventioÌ„s spirits and illusions Who but you commits idolatrie in worshipping the golden calfe the idol of your own invention Therfore I wil coÌ„clude with your saying took out of the Psalm 73 26. The rocâ— oâ— my hart who is my portion for ever preserve me and deliver you frâ—m that sâ—ylla of Calvnustical profession and from that devoâ—â—ing charibdis those syrtes and quicksands of Brownisme and Puâ—itanical brotherhood where men make shipwrack of their faith and soules The secoÌ„d arg you examin of mine to prove that the bâ—â—e â— naked word cannot be an infallible rule or square of faith you prâ—pound it out of my writings thus That which is difficult includeth many senses at least to the ignorant can not bee a certaine rule of faith But the scriptures are thus My antecedent you admit proved by Tertullian S. Hierome and S. Peter himselfe whose place you onely examin the others you turne over as you are woont deeming theÌ„ vnworthy of your consideration You examine that of S. Peter now where he sayes that in S. Pauls epistles are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and the unstable deprave as also the rest of the scriptures to their owne perdition Here you except against me that I say many things in sted of certaine where in deed I cited onely the sense of that place propouÌ„ding it as the ProtestaÌ„ts vse for yours and their advantage meaning so tacitè to prevent an objection For they answer here that S. Paules epistles are not hard but that many things in theÌ„ are hard For the Greek copies have en hois that is in which things and some read en hais in which epistles And wheras you object that I say all the rest of the scripture in stead of also the rest of scripture I answer the holy Ghost may very well speak generally since the very plainest places of scripture have bene wrested to bolster up heresies Thirdly you say that this testimony proves scarse the first part of my antecedent that scriptures are onely difficult but you say it doth not prove that scriptures cannot be an indeficient rule of faith I answer that it proves both For in what doth S. Peter say that S. Paul is hard but concerning many points of our faith and religion as concerning predestination reprobation vocation of the gentiles justification by faith Of which high mysteries S. Paul is the cheif and principall Maister And as for the example of the artizeÌ„ you bring makes much against you For if an unstâ—â—lfull Mathematician or sea man knoweth not the right vse of the Astrolabe or crosse staffe the missing of a hayres breadth in the right using thereof makes him judge wrong of the object infinitely almost although the instrument in it self be most true And if the Physitian misse the right Dose though he gives the right ingredients he is liklier to kill then to minister help So if a man misse of the right judgement sense of those places of scripture touching predestination reprobation c. the corruption of that place is able to turne all the other places of scripture that leaues that way into his owne nature But now here to your reply that not all but onely some places of scripture are difficult and hard though we see the contrary by experience since Luther Zuinglius Calvin Berengar have stumbled at the plainest places of scripture viz. This is my body yea they stumbled there at though S. John explicates also most plainely that place when he sayes Caro mea verè est cibus et sanguis mens verè est potus My flesh is truely meat and my blood is truely drinck For Luther will have them one way to be understood â—uinglius another Berâ—garius an other and Calvâ— another Neyther can the paralleling comparing of one place of scripture with another râ—n dy this or satisfy the infinite difficults that arise out of holy scripture As that of the 2. Regum 23. 11. The feild is sayd to be full of lentills But the 1 Parall 11. 13.
It is sayd to be full of baâ—iy And the 1. â—â—eg 7. 15. It is sayd that the braâ—en pillars were thirty eight cubiâ—â—â— in length and yer 2. Parall 3. 19. but thirty five Math. 1. 8. It is sayd that Joram begaâ— Qziaâ— but in the 4. book of the Kings which the Protestants call the second it is written that Joram was father to Ochozias Ochoizas to Joas Joas to Amaâ—â—â—s not Joram to Ozias otherwise called Azarias Mat. 1. 3 16. Joseph is called Jacob wheras S. Luk. 3. 23 nameth him 〈◊〉 Mat 10 10. the Apostles sent to prâ—ach are forbidden to have a â—reffe in their â—aâ—ds and yet S. Mark 6 8 baâ— them take onely a staffe or rod in their hand Mat. 26 34 and Luk. 22 34. sayth that before the cock did crow Peter should deny him thrice but S. Marke the 14. 30. sayth Christs words were Before the cock shall crowe twise thou shalt thrisâ— deny me Mar 15 25. â—ayth our Saviour was crucified at the third howre but S. John 19 14 saith it was about the sixt houre before he was condenmed by Pâ—â—ate So that you see the comparing of place onely with place often times may bring a poore man into a maze or circle except he adde to this the authoritie of the Church and the holy Fathers and the learned Doctors exposition by whose helpe all these seeming contradâ—â—tions will easily be salved Now wheras you may answer that these difficults are in matters of fact and not of doctrine so it much imports not whither a man reconcilâ—s these places or no I graunt the first but I deny the sequâ—â—â— For since you teach that al difficults of scripture may be helped by comparing of one place with another now when as ignorant men shall folow this your rule as an unfallible guide when they see themselves ledd by it vnto a contradiction they doe not onely begin to cal into question this but al other things conteyned in the scriptures seing the self same truth affirming the little as well as the great and as much abhorring from coÌ„tradiction of a litle matter as of a great The second braunch of my antecedent which I bring is that holy scriptures hath many senses litterall and spirituall yea and often many senses literrall and many senses spirituall All this you deny wonder that I doe not prove it I answer that no disputant useth to prove comoâ—mâ—â—â—mes and principles and we use not to prove coÌ„mon 〈◊〉 at most Protestants allow of viz. of a litterall and a spirituall sense the lâ—sâ— wherof they divide into three members into an all gâ—ricell tropological anagogicall sense yea and not without great cause they allow of this since D. August lib. 11. confess cap. 26 et lib. 11. De â—â—â—â—tate Dei c. 19. sayth also that the scripture often haâ— many litterall senses But you against the holy fathers held that it hath onely one sense but as you answer appliable to diverse places times and persons Here I wonder that you should be so consideÌ„tly hoveld with your own concâ—â—t and so caried away with your privat spirit that you see not that which to most manifest But even as a pigeon that is seeled in your soaring spirit you see onely the way at length to your own downfall though in your conceit you ascend bolt upright for a season But that the scripture hath many senses we leave as proved and if to prove fitter for another place Now it sufficeth for this place to show that which you graunt to sufficient to prove the second part of my antecedent For if that one sense hath reference to diverse tymes places and persons it must needes be very difficult require some common help besides themselves to obtaine their severall true expositions nay here me thinks you graunt that the scriptures hath diverse senses since you graunt diverse as it were formalities of senses respecting divers places tymes and persons Here also in prosecuting of this point you seem to mistake our doctrine For we hold that neyther Apostle or the Pope have domintoÌ„ over our faith or authoritie to institut Sacraments of themselves neyther can they make what they will as a matter of faith or tradition But it must be received tyme out of mynde by the vniform coÌ„sent of that Church which hath kept her peâ—petuall succession of Bishops from S. Peter and then S Aug. in epist. 118. will teach you that insolentissimae infaniae est existimare non certe fieri quod ab vniversa ecclesia fit that it is a most insolent madness to think that it should not be right that the whole church doth teach Besides the Pope doth not make a matter of faith but declareth onely that such and such a thing is to be beleeved and that by the inspiration of Almighty God guiding him as he is the head of the church Neyther dooth he for all this omitt to use all humane helpes of counsell and consultatioÌ„ with the learned that though as he is head of the church he hath a promise froÌ„ Almighty stil to assist him yet in that he might not seeme to presume in omitting the vse of naturall and prudentiall helpes and meanes he vseth all diligent serâ—tinp therein The place of 15. of the Acts which you examine of mine where I lay that in the counsel held at Hierusalem all was concluded with this of S. Peter the head It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us This I sayd and still averr makes much against you For here the Apostles to end the controversy in hand trusted not their own several spirits but to a mature deliberation and counsell where S. Peter was hâ—ad and vinâ—eere though he vsed an Apostolicall inguisition and therfore it is noted in the 7. verse that Peter role up showing thereby that he was head and had the preemineâ—ce of place first to speak noting also his priviledge that the first Gentills were chosen by his mouâ—h though S. Paul was designâ—d to convert them Now unto that which you 〈◊〉 that verse 13. and 14. S. James 〈◊〉 stanâ—â— all and that hence we might rather hold him head of the Church I answer that doth not hence folow in that S. James in that he was an Apostle and Bishop of HierusaleÌ„ gave his sentence nert For surely S. Paul and S. Barnabas also spake though their speach is interposed for the better declaration of the question to be decided and for the greater confirmation of S. Peters sentence And though S. James sayd in his speach I judge he doth not meane thereby that he gave the principal definitive sentence since he and all the rest followed and seconded by their suffâ—ages the decision of S. Peter as it is plaine in the text The whole assembly for reverence of his person and approbation of his sentence holding their peace The which S. Hierâ—m affirmeth saying all the multitude held their peace and into his sentence James the Apostle
and the Preists did passe togither Wherefore I may conclude with S. Peter this poinâ—t as I did before That no prophesie of scripture is made by a private spirits interpretation and so consequently not by the naked word And therefore S. John also bidds them trie their spirits whether they be of God 1. Joh. 4. v 20. And as for your distinction of private spirits it liâ—le availâ—th you For though the Pope be also a private man yet he is the head of the Church and hath the promise of our Saviour that his faith should not fayle him and though he may eâ—â— in matter of fact or sinn as well as an other man yet in matter of doctrine when as the head of the Church he is to give his definitive sentence he can not err in that he is directed as Christs Dicar in earth by the holy Ghost Yet for all this he dooth not neglect naturall meanes for the decision of any waighty cause But useth all vsuall serutiuie of causes and circumstances takes advice of the learned councells But you though you be also a private man yet you can not showe me any promise of the holy Ghost made rather to you theÌ„ to any other of your adversaries neyther have you greater signes to manifest the truth then the Protestants have Nay every one of your profession thinks he hath that spirit of interpreting which spirit often times proves no other then the spirit of Aâ—niball a merrie companion who when he had deceived poore Bullbrooke the interpreter of the word by casting out thrice Bullbrooke as from God at the mouth of a cave whither his reformed brethren resorted to heare froÌ„ lum delivered the word of the Lord afterward showed unto the whole campany that flocked more and more to this their illumâ—nated prophet the man of God so strangely called how he alone had deceived the poore man saying hang me if any other spirit but the spirit of Aâ—â—â—iball called thrife upoÌ„ Bulbrook Yet admit you should have a spirite to distinguish the truth of one mistery as I sayd yet you have not the spirit to distinguish the truth of all But that you might câ—y out with the true illuminated prophet now and then Dominus celavit hoc a me Our Lord hath hidden this from me that is in not revealing it Besides you see that every false prophet brags of his spiritt how then can a private spirit decide any controversie And for that you bring of the Israelites it were wel if you with them from the mouth of the Preist would learne wisdome And if you had that visible coming downe of the holy Ghost that the Apostles had if you had the giftes of tongues the power to worke miracles if you were taught with them all truth if your followers though illiterated were indowed with all these priviledges of the Apostles then might they with them take upon theÌ„ to interpret the scriptures For S. Luke recordeth That our Saviour opened his Apostles vnderstanding in all truth that they might vnderstand the scriptures but you can not show that our Saviour hath done more to you then to other men You now proceed and begin to ponder my third argument by which I did occure a future answer Not onely scriptures by themselves but scriptures by a privat mans interpretation or comparing one place with an other are not sufficient to be a rule of faith Which you say I dor not prove here to this I answer I did prove it there but the more sparingly in that this point seemes to be partly proved in that which goes before Yet to give you ful satisfactioÌ„ I wil a litle reinforce the force therof For since the scriptures hath diverse senses or as you say diverse references to sundry places persons and tymes how can a private spirit of a man assure one that this and no other is the true sense of this place Or how can you discern that the true spirit interprets this vnto you For the communication of this infused spirit must eyther be by a publick message bee delivered you so that those that are your adherents and followers may be assured by some visible signe that the holy ghost dictates unto you and I think by these visible apparitions and communication of the holy Ghost you wil not mainteyn your spirits interpretation Or else the holy ghost secretly instilâ—eth into you what is the true sense But here I demand of you how you are assured of this working of the holy ghost since there was never yet hereâ—ick so senseless or error so grosse but would tell vs of this private assuraÌ„ce of the holy Ghost And though the communication of the true spirit should be manifest to your self yet you could give no warrant or assurance thereof to vs to the Protestant adversaries or to your own followers How would you be able to convince an AriaÌ„ that wil thwart you with that of S. John my father is greater then I If you say this place is to be vnderstood in regard of his humanitie and not in regard of his divinitie he will bid you show scripture plainly to affirme that How wil you answer an Anabaptist that will have no man to be baptized before they come to the yeares of discretion to give a reason of their faith How will you answer us Catholiks or the Protestants when we demaund of you why you follow the vulgar translation in saying Elder when the originall and all other languages almost hath stil the word Presbyter which signifies Preist to all Nay since the holy scriptures admitteth divers senses and doe not explaine themselves how should a poore artificer perswade himself that this sense which he apprehends is onely the true sense Nay that he is easily deceided herein by a pâ—…dicated opinion I will show For when he comes to read that S. Peter in his first epistle salutes them from BabyloÌ„ he in that he may not admit S. Peter to have bene at Rome will not have Babylon there to be Rome but he will have S. Peter to salute them from that Babylon in Assyria But when he comes to â—â—ad Apoc. 1â— 18. Babylon againe in that he hath rooted mallice against Rome he will have her alone to be that Babylon he will applie all these mischeifs and deformities to the church of Rome Now if you object that comparing one place with another will afford the right sense I ask you how you are certayne of that since that place with whome you are to compare it hath divers senses or references how are you assured to compare it to the right in regard of each circumstance Nay if these spiritual men be the onely decidants why doe they when the word signifies an evil sense translate traditions though it be the self same Greek word Col. 2. v. 20. Why are you ledd with traditions And when in divers places the self same word imports Apostolicall traditions in stedd thereof they read ordinances
institutions c. Why did they in the printed Bible 1â—62 thrust in Rom. 11. Baals image which now Bible â—595 to corrected And if every image be an idoll as they translate it why Genesis the first can we not say God created AdaÌ„ according to his own idol And that all images in the old law were idols Exod. 25. 3. Regum 6. Why doe they make the Hebrew and Greek word that signifies hell when they list onely to signify the grave Though it be against scripture it self Gen. 37. I will goe down to the grave to 〈…〉 mourning which cannot signifie though racked in sense the grave since he thought his sonne to be devoured of wild beasts and so vnburied without a grave But when the self same word Prov. 15. speakes of the danâ—ied they translate onely hell how then can the parallising and coÌ„paring of one place with an other settle all doubts of the ignorant stop the mouth of the contrarie part who shall affirm that it is not the true sense Nay if scripture be a most manifest interpreter of it self Why did Luther that affirmed before this assertion of yours in assertione articulorum 10. damnatorum retraetate and recall that opinion of his before his death in colloq conviviali titulo de verbo Dei No man can vnderstand sayes he the Bucolica of Uirgil except hâ— be first five yeares a shepheard No man can vnderstand his Gâ—oâ—â—icks except he be five yeares a husbandman so let every man know that he hath not tasted sufficiently the scriptures except he hath governed in it a hundred yeares Nay if holy scriptures be so easy of themselves to be understood why doth Luther cal the epistle of S James stramineam and vnworthy of an Apostolicall spirit Why doth Beza writing on the eight chapter call into question the whole book of S. John when he averrs that it was not probable that our Saviour was left alone in the temple with a woman or that he did write in the dust with his finger My fourth argument you being forth thus That which by the lights lanterns of your opinion hath been wronged in the highest degree to bolster up heresie can not be a true and indeficient rule of faith You geaunt my assumption and you instance it in Luther Calvin Beza Onely to answer this you think it sufficient to say it is a rhetorical flourish No flourish that by your own confession hath flonge down your strongest pillars But you say it is the fault in them which willingly I graunt but with this addition that there is the like in you And I pray you tell me if all that have gone over such a bridge being in their right senses perfect judgmeÌ„ts have bene drowned would you think that bridge remayning thus unrepaired as it is a sure safe way So if all or most that have trusted to the naked and bare word of the scripture onely and to their own witts and spirits have grossely and dangerously erred wil you hold it so remayning an vndeficient rule Nay if the bare word so coÌ„firmes them in their errors that without some one common and visible judge they stil remain stiff in their errours can the bare word be the indeficient onely and the infallible rule But that it is so dispute against the Lutheran Calvinist Zuiâ—glian Anabaptist Protestant Faâ—â—list and they wil ell â—ite place of scripture interpretation for interpretation spirit for spirit â—ieng and reâ—ying you with places and spirits dictamâ—ns telling you long stories of the communication of the holy Ghost Wherefore I will conclude breifly this argument that the naked and bare word of the scripture cannot be an infallible rule and judge sâ—…t doth not make the partie overthrowen certaine that the sentence as much as lieth in the judge is passed against him which is the propertie of the sentence of every supreme judge that his decree be plainly seen and that without all contradiction the partie overthrowen in law may yeeld unto it For else there is no end of sentence no end of judgement if the partie overthrowen may with the like probability as before recomâ—nence his suite and offer plea without any â—â—d My fift argument which you put downe thus Many misteries of our faith are beleeved which explicitely are not declared in the word of God nor so infalliblie prescinding from all traditions of the church deduted thence so as they are sufficient to make a man beleeve with so firm an act of â—aith as is required Therefore that which makes that worthy of constant beleefe is a rule of faith aswel as the written word whether they be traditious divine or Apostolicall Now to all the places I bring to prove traditions How the world was onely governed and taught by traditions till Moses tyme who was the first pen-man of the holy Ghost and to that Ero. 14. Deu. 32. 37. c. you graunt that traditions were before necessary but you deny that they are now a rule of faith But you assigne no reason but onely this in disputing as if it were the total rule of faith where I would inferr onely that it was a partial togither with the word of God And whereas you object that these traditions spoken of in Deut. might for the Jewish Cabalists which are rejected by S. Peter 1. Pet. â— Tit. 1. 14 as vain conversation and Jewish fables Is plaine against the holy scriptures Deu. 32. interroga patrem tuum et anuntiabit tibi majores tuos et dicent tibi Ask thy father c. Ero. 14. Narrabis filio tuo in illa die dicens hoc est quod fecit Dominus Et Iob. 8. Iud. 6. Psal 43. Psal. 47. Eccles. 8 where it is plaine that the holy Ghost speakes of such traditions that are good to be followed not to be estemed vain idle fabulous To that of S. Pa to the Thes. is plaine that the Apostle speakes of that which was taught by word of his mouth yea of such traditions as you call humane in vs. For when S. Chrysost. comes to explicate the 2 Thess. 2. he explicates it so plainely for such traditions as wee have in controversie that D. Whitaker de sacra scriptura pag. 678. sayes that S. Chrisost. spoke in this point inconsiderately vnworthy of so great a father Therfore S. Paul and S. Chrysost vnderstood more here by traditions then you would willingly vnderstand And that not onely things of little consequence but of greatest moment are beleeved onely by tradition I prove manifestly since the Bible can not be canonicall without it were delivered by the hand of traditioÌ„ froÌ„ tyme to tyme as authenticke And besides how can you prove the procession of God the son and God the holy Ghost from God the Father as from one beginning or the consubstantilitie of the blessed Trinitie How are you able onely by bare scripture to prove the remedie in the old law vsed to women children for original sinne and
to prove as you would hence inferr But you so mangle in propounding the reasons that I do onely point out that they might seeme not to prove that which they intend For you leave out the force of the argument as the circumstances of the promise vnto S. Peter by our Saviour and the prerogatives and priviledge given vnto S. Peter that he is named first amongst the Apostles That he alone walked with our Saviour on the water Of the sundry promises of our Saviour made unto him that hell gates should not prevayle against him that he being confirmed should confirme his brethren that our Saviour washed S. Peters feet first that S. Peter onely of all the rest should receive a reveled promise of his particular Martyrdom of the cross That he after infusion of the holy ghost first promi◠〈…〉 the Gospell That the first miracle in confirmation of our faith is made by S. Peter That he as a supreame judge did condemne the hypocrisie of Ananias and Saphiras that he first discovered Symon Magus and condemned him All which and other circumstances concurring onely in S. Peter showes manifestly that S. Peter had preeminence above all the other Apostles that he is the rock and head of the Church that Cephas so particularly pointed out by the holy Ghost calling him first by the name given him at his nativitie Simon by the name of his father Bar Ionae and by his new imposed name Cephas that no cavil might be took at a legacie so strongly and particularly confirmed unto S. Peter Now all that you bring or can alleage against this belike is that the name Cephas was interpreted Petros which in Greek eyther signifies a rock or a stone I answer it avayleth nothing since Petros signifyes eyther a rock or a stone now if you ask why he is called Petros and not Petra I answer in that the masculine gender best fitted the name of a man And that S. Peter is the rock plainely appeareth out of the very text For it is sayd in the Caldei tongue super hoc Cepha and in the vulgar super hanc Petram where our Saviour signifies the rock of which he had spoken of before the which according to your graÌ„maticall construction you seeme not much to deny since you confess that Cephas signifies indifferently a rocke or a stone now your private spirits interpretatioÌ„ would onely limit it vnto a stone though against S. Hier most slitâ—full in languages and tongues in c. 2. epist. ad Gal. where he sayes it signifies a rocke Optatus lib. 2. contra Parmen sayes that in Greek it signifies a head As Christ is called the head Isa. 8 28. Daniel 2. Psal. 117. Math. 21. Rom. 9 1. Cor. 10. Ephes. 2 â— so after a kind of a measured proportion S. Peter by the delegatioÌ„ of our Saviour is his Vicegerent in earth a visible head of a visible Church But to that which you object that S. Peter answered as the mouth of the Apostles and therfore had not these promises made unto him alone makes much against you for to be the spokesman of all the rest the Masterspring of all their judgments seemes to graunt him superioritie and preeminence And though S. Peter was the mouth of the rest I graunt all but not onely the mouth but also the head And if S. Peter could not have the prerogative of place given unto him in that he represented the Church No more could the sonnes of Abraham be two sonnes in that they represented two nations And whereas you object that all the other Apostles were foundations Aâ—oc 21. 14. I graunt they were but not the principall Neyther both the headship of S. Peter derogate from Christ Jesus our head since S. Peter is but subordinated to Christ Jesus and onely of his free institution and if that place 1. Cor. 3. be understood absolutely Other foundation can no man lay then that which is layd which is Jesus Christ then is that of S. Pa 2. Ephes. false where he bidds us build upoÌ„ the foundatioÌ„ of the Apostles so that you see a less principall foundation or roch may wel agree with the absolute most perfect rock and foundation Christ Jesus and that the Apostles may be a foundation though S. Peter be chiefe And that no man might reply that this doctrine of the Popes supremacie is but a late doctrine see Carthw lib. 2 pag. 507. 50. lib. 2 pag. 97. Fullie against Saunders rocke pag. 248. 271. vpon the â—hemisâ— restament where he affirming that the fathers of the councell of Nice began the foundation of the Popes supremacie which was one of the first 4. generall counsells so many yeares agoe And that this poinet of the Popes supremacie doth not lack force of reason to confirme it I will onely alleage one generall reason is prove it The ecclesiasticall Hierarchie is no worse governed then any temporall regiment and government And therefore Math. 25. It to compared unto a kingdome that is governed by one King and Heb. 3. to a familie well governed Caut. 6. to a Campe well ordered But in all wel ordered common wealthes there is ever required some visible judge besides the written law since there must be a supreme judge to know and take notice of the coÌ„troversies when they arise and to ponder well and examine the reasons of both 2. there must be one to erplicate the sense of the law to pronounce sentence in the behalf of one partie when it shal be necessary And lastly there must be one to compell those that refuse to due observation thereof Now since the church of God is as wel ordered as any other goverment and that there ariseth the like difficults in her lawes explication as can happen in any temporall and politicall government It is against the providence of God and love to his spouse the church to denie her those helpes which necessarily must be graunted to all well governed common wealthes Therefore as the sentence of a supreme judge in explicating the sence of the low is to be followed so by a greater reason S. Peters successor guided by the holy Ghost in all difficults of momeÌ„t is to be sought vnto for counsel is to be heard with obedience when he counselleth is to be obeyed wheÌ„ he proceeds with his powrfull jurisdiction Now when you are come to my supplie of later Doctors branding the most ancient and venerable Fathers of the Church with noveltie and onely you please your self with this answer that you account them all as insufficient I wonder how any man can say or think this but I wonder more how you can averr that you could cite in this point Father for Father Doctor for Doctor with vs although you cite S. August 11. de verbo Dei sec. 12. where he sayes that Christ was the roche and not S. Peter I answer first he doth not manifestly contrary vs. For though 1. lib. retract c. 23. he doth approve rather of that opinion
would I have you â—o grant for Christ himself is the principal vea the onely foundatioÌ„ properly all the Apostles are foundations figuratively among whom was order first second third c and excellencie in graces but not preeminence of auctoritie for they were all sent of Christ as Christ of the Father Ioh. 20. 21 and the church of Christ is builded upon them all not upon Peter onely Ephes. 2. 20. S. Peters headship you say derogates not from Christ Jesus our head since S. Peter is but subordinated to Christ Jesus and onely of his free institution That institution say I is yet to shew wherby Peter should be head more then the other Apostles The headship which you giue unto Peter dooth derogate from Christ for as the church is but one body and hath but one spirit so hath it but one Lord head Christ who is present with his Church all dayes till the worlds end walking amids the golden candlestiks of his Churches that there needs no universal Vicar but onely the Angels of every particular church as the 7. churches in Asia shew Apoc. 2. 3. But he was a head of your church and therfore I trow could not lye which sayd that Christ placed Peter as it were a certayn head to powr his gifts from him as it were into all the body for having taken him into the fellowship of the indivisible vnitie he would have him named that which himself was And elsewhere the same Pope preacheth that if God would have any thing to be commune unto other Princes with Peter he never gave but by him whatsoever he gave to others Thus rored the Lion of Rome against the Lion of the tribe of Iudah What marvel was it then though an other of your Popes praying to S. Peter as to his God sayd Jurline thine ears o blessed Peter prince of th'Apostles and hear me thy servant c. acknowledging further his faith to be in him If these things derogate not from Christ our head I know not what can doo It is no marvel though one of your Canonists called him Our Lord God the Pope for the Pope is Peter as Father Campian telleth us and Peter as Leo sayth is assumed into the fellowship of the indivisible vnitie that is of God and therfore is made a God and prayed unto as a God and yet you would bear men in hand nothing is derogated froÌ„ God or Christ. Yea your self in your former writing made him the vniversal pastor Ioh. 10 and he I am sure is God for he is one with the Father And if Peter was but subordinate as you say to Christ your Popes I trow be now superordinate for Christs kingdom was not of this world neyther did his servants fight he was no Judge or divider of inheritances but Popes are fighters with the tâ—poral sword and have their kingdome of this world as politik princes and divide not onely private mens inheritances but even whole kingdoms deposing Princes disturbing States as the world hath long felt with greef From Peters primacie you slide along to the Popes supremacie for which having no word of God nor any so ancient testimonie as the Apostles you flee to the name of the council of Nice where some say the foundation began But against such innovation when or whersoever it was hatched I allege the whole new testament of Christ where Angels and Bishops of Churches are found of equal auctoritie not one above an other And me thinks I could fetch your popes supremacie from more ancient ground then the council of Nice even from Dioâ—rephes who loved preeminence in the Apostles time But this ground is slabby and the Pope I know wil be loth to set his foot on it You proceed therfore with a generall reason thus The ecclesiastical hierarchie is no worse governed then any temporal regiment For it is compared to a kingdome governed by one King Mat 25 to a familie wel governed Heb. 3. to a camp wel ordered Caâ—t 6. But in al wel ordered common weales there is ever required some visible iudge besides the written law since there must be a supreme iudge to take notice of controversies when they arise aâ— 2. there must be one to explicate the sense of the law and to pronounce sentence c. and 3. there must be one to compell those that refuse to the due observation thereof Now in the church there arise like difficulties in her lawes explication c. Therfore S Peters successor indued by the holy ghost in all difficulties of moment is to be sought unto for counsell is to be heard with obedience when he counselleth is to be obeyed when he proceeds with his powrful jurisdiction This your reason is faultie from head to foot The first part faileth in comparing togither a visible humane politie and a visible hierarchie Wheras humane polities concerning worldly matters are merely visible earthly temporal but ecclesiastical polities are partly invisible heavenly and eternal Those respecting this world and life onely have worldly dominion and glorie these respecting chiefly the next world life have no worldly dominion or glorie but is for the meek poor persecuted for righteousnes sake c. Mat. 5. My kingdome sayth Christ is not of this world Ioh. 18. 36. Again the rulers of the gentils have domination over them they that are great exercise auctoritie over them but it shal not be so among you c. Mat. 20 25 26. These things being thus minded distinguished I grant that the church is no worse governed considering the nature thereof then any temporall regiment considering the nature of it Secondly you fail in applying to your Pope the scriptures intended of Christ onely For he not the Vicar of Rome is the King of that one kingdom Mat. 25. he is the master of that one familie Heb. 3 1 6. he is the Captayn of that ordered camp Cant. 6. Apoc. 19. 11. 13 14 16 c. So that he that challengeth these titles and honours besides Christ is Antichrist To the second part of your reason I answer 1. that in wel ordered coÌ„mon weales the lawes are above the magistrates according to Tullies saying as lawes are above the magistrates so magistrates are above the people What good order may we then think is in the papacie where Popes are above Gods lavv 2. That for explicating the sense of the law c. in wel ordered common weales it is a ruled case that he who made the law should interpret the law According hereunto in the church the lawes given of God in the scriptures are aboue the Pastors that govern the people by them yea above Kings Gods spirit which gave those lawes is the supreme interpreter of them As for outward order in difficulties the Preists lips should preserve knowledge and the people should seek the law
the Martyrs of the primitive church yoâ— will allow of for your Martyrs whether of S. Laurence or â—o 7. Whether you allow of Constantius the first Christian Emperour to be of your religion 8. Whether you will allow of any of our three conversions of England to have been to this religion which you now professe 9 Whether you hold that those that have died or shall die resolved Romane Catholicks have bene or shal be saved 10. Whether you will graunt the Church of Christ or the synagogue of the Jewes to be more visible or less subject to ruin and subversion 11. Whether you allow of the last edition of the protestants Bible or else what edition you propound to your flock â—â—â—etest to be folowed 12 Whether sufficiencie onely since I take you hold ordering or imposition of hands not to be vsed is to be required to make one of your teaching Elders or if onely that sufficeth not to assigne what more is required To these questions I intreat you Mr Henry Aynsworth that earnestly to give an orderly breife and distinct answer to ech one of these questions for on the resolution of these many fruitfull consequences may be gathered to make easie any poinct hereafter to be controverted betweene vs. But now breifly to set downe my arguments which I maintain stil you have not satisfied in no one poinct I will therfore breifly set them downe in forme desiring an answer as breif yet as solid and as substancial as you can affoard onely graunting denying or distinguishing which in deed is to answer in forme like a scholler Your conclusion as I take was this The written word of God contained in the Bible is the onely sufficient rule of our faith My reasons were these in substance to prove the contrary though the same in word I can not affirme not having one line of yours or my conference That which is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the onely rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knowen for scriptures go the bare scriptures which is the written word of God can not be the onely rule of faith My Major is most certaine and evident My Minor I proved out of Dr. Whitaker Hooker Zanchius Brentius all holding traditioÌ„ necessarily to distinguish scriptures froÌ„ no scriptures Also I take I proved this out of the holy Councells out of S. Augustin contra epistolam fundamenti Manichaeic 9. Ego Euangelio non crederem c. I would not beleeve the Gospel except the authoritie of the church should move thervnto Neyther did you answer my Minor when you said scriptures â—r knowen by themselves For first you slight and let slip the authority of those that in common reason I should beleive assoâ—ne as your self 2. You doe not answer to the authoritie of S. Aug 3. your answer is against common sense Since if scriptures were as prime a principle as that the sun shines or that honie is sweet no man could beâ— ignorant thereof that had all his naturall faculties and if more then the natural faculties and the object disposed be required you eats your owne words For then it is not so knowen a truth And how shall I know I have this spirituall eye of discerning truth more theÌ„ my adversarie that accepts of some things for no scripture that I do allow of as scripture c. Why had not S. Aug this â—ie that with whole Councel of Carthage accpted of the bookes of Machabees as divine and Canoricall scripture why had not S. Hierom that translated the holy scriptures Another reason that I urged was thus Many things were beleeved before the written word of God many things are now beleeved that are not expressely taught in the written word of God go the written word of God is not onely the rule of faith The first part of my Antecedent is easily proved For the church of God till Moses tyme was well governed and yet had no written word My second part was proved I giving instance that the Sacrament in the old law for expâ—ating of original syâ— in women The mysterie of the B. Trinity that God the holy ghost did proceed froÌ„ God the father and God the sonne as from one beginning That Easter day should be celebrated on Sunday and not on Saturday That the Creede of the Apostles is to be beleeved and yet no one of these is expressely taught in holy scriptures you sayd yes but you cited no place of scripture for probation thereof Moreover you have not satisfyed the places of holy scripture I cited to prove traditions especially you have not answered to that place of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. v. 15. nor to the authoritie of S. Chrysost. homilie 4. iâ—â— Thes. 2. wherin Dr. Whitaker sayes he speaks unworthy of so holy a father nor to the place off Basil or S. Hierom or S. Aug. De Genesi ad literam lib. 10. c. 23. where he tearheth many fasts feasts solemnities to be kept and beleeved onely through tradition and he testifieth there that in no wise we could beleeve the baptising of childreÌ„ without vnwritten tradition Another which I vsed was this That which is most difficult hard and almost for occurring difficults inexplicable can not be to the unlearned at least a certaine and unfallible truth But the scriptures are thus as well witnesseth your own conscience and divers places I set downe that seem to contradist one another go Moreover how should an artificer know whether this Bible be well translated or no since he can neyther conferr it with the original or the vulgar Latin And I showed how these difficults are not trivial Amongst other places I cited that place of S. Peter the â— chapter v. 16. In which are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the unlearned and vnstable deprave as also the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition No doubt S Peter meanes of those things S. Paul delivered touching vocation grace justification and predestination In which I showed how parvus error in principio magnus est in sine to which the words of S. Peter alludes to as also the rest of the scriptures meaning that an error in some one transcendall poinct of these doe cause error in many other places that depend hereupon But is these and more plainly examplified I had nothing but quotations imâ—ertinently alleged and no determinate answer to the difficult That whose onely the hath been defective and erroneous yea to the greatest Elercks to every one howsoever unfâ—ilfull and unlearned can not be a certaine and unfallible rule of faith But that the bare scripture is so I showed by diverse seming plaine piares cited by the Arrians Pelagians Semipelagians Donatists EutheraÌ„s Anabaptists â—t All which vie scripture for scripture If you give an interpretation of their place of scripture that they bring to confirme their hereste they will give also an interpretation
of any place of scripture that you shall bring to refute them if your interpretation be a correspondencie to scripture theirs also shall be so The fift Argument of mine I framed thus God is as provideÌ„t for necessarie meanes to direct his church as he is provident to Empires kingdomes common wealthes and families But all these besides the written law have ever some one decyder vnweere or tribunall to â—hoke controversies or diffentions in the seed to mowe them downe in the flower to eâ—tirpate them in the verie roote go the word of God is not sufficient in it self to settle all controversies Thus as I remember ran the sum of my reasons which you has not answered in your last or in any other replie of yours Now since my reasons remaine in their ful force I can not see any reason why I should be bound to spend much tyme in answering fruitless and impertinent allegations But here as I remember transcending the boundes of this question now controverted though I confess the matter you proposed is in the confines of this present you brought a place out of S. Augustin that on S. Mathewes wordes c 16. sayes that Christ did build his church on the faith of Peter not of his person on Christ Jesus not on S. Peter First to this place I answer that in one sense S. Augustin sayes the first yet I denie that ever S. Augustine dooth deney that the church of Christ is built on the persoÌ„ of S. Peter And well map the Church be sayd to be built on the faith of S. Peter and yet also on his person because the person of S. Peter touching his faith is no fraile mortal creature but is a stroÌ„g unshaliable rock as the faith it self In that Luk. 22. It is sand I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith may not faile Since we beleeve that this prayer is obteyned we must beleev that by the warraÌ„t of Christs prayer the person of Peter his faith shal never be severed so S. Aug calling sometimes S. Peter the roch of the church and somtimes his faith doth mean one thing The which S. August himself testifieth for remembring that he had taught that in the person of Peter the Church was fouÌ„ded quod in eo tanquam in Petra â—â—â—data sit Ecclesia in which sense it was fong by many in the hymâ—â—s of S. Ambrose Hoc â—â—sa Petra Ecclesiae canente culpam dâ—â—uit At the crowing of the cock the rock of the churâ— Peter lamented his fault he concludeth the whole matter of these two expositions Harum duarum sententiarum quae sit probabâ—â—â—or eligat lector Of which two expositions which to the probabler I leave to the readers choice What have you not by this allegation of S. Augustine Nay what will you loose if you should come to answer the holy fathers that affirm the church to be founded on S. Peter That you write you are sorie for my error I wonder you should bee so carefull for my soules good that are so negligent of your own For as I take in the last of myne I showed how ful of feare the last resolution of your faith would be when you should give account at that eternal tribunal In that all you can answer for your self is that your owne phancie apprehended so your private spirit interpreted so Where my faith is warranted by Gods word driivered by the holy catholick church confirmed by General and Provinstall Councels sealed by thowsand of Martyrs blood authorisâ—d by antiguitie of Historie ratified by holy Fathers Doctors and instructors of holie orders in all ages having the profession of our religion inferted in our naturall â— language churches crosses buildings mony â— most ancient monuments al which motives warrant me that I shal render an answer without all feare or dread All these and 〈…〉 motives you may have to yeeld to us but you could never nâ—t â—â—â—we me the least semblance of reason why I should yeeld to you God send you make right use of them for the good of your soule that you man at length be reduced to the true church of Christ for which I shall heartily pray Iohn Aynsworth I received yours dated the 12. of April the 20. of the same and I end this the 29. of Aprill stylo veteri Justice Hall in Newgate H. A. his answer to the former letter To his loving frâ—ind Mr. Iohn Aynsworth prisoner in Justice hall in Newgate be these in London GRace and mercy from God the father of our Lord Iesus Christ â—e vouch safed unto you 1. Wheras you gâ—ve me to vnderâ—tand Mr. Aynsworth that my writings among others were taken from you so that you could not answer them as you promised and that if yow had my last papers in a few lines you could answer any thing that urgeth you therin c. I have out of my love towards you and in compassion of your estate sent you a copie of my last writing not urging you to answer unless you think the goodness of your cause will bear you out but desiring you to yeild unto the truth there shewed you You brought for your defense C. Bellarmines reasons I have manifested the weaknes of them If you can fortifie them or your cause by any other I am willing as I have begunn to take notice thereof eyther to refute them or yeeld you the Victory If you leave off I also will rest and let the prudent judge what we both have sayd 2. You as if you would beginn a new combate propound 12. questions for me to answer I told you before I would not digresse to by matters for so we might run into confusion fruitlesse and endless Also your questions most of them are of Fathers Doctors c. since th'Apostles times by whom I shewed you that I neyther might nor would trye any religion til the Divine scriptures be proved insufficient which will never be 3. You then propound the controversie a new as if we were now again to beginn when we are almost at an yssue so might both of us weary our selves in vayn Your first long writing to me hath made my answers the longer for I desired and stil doo brevity with perspicuitie Least through want of your papers you should swarve from the questions in hand I wil set them down in the words that they have passed My assertions were question weise when I should enter into dispute vvith you to see if you vvould grant 1. That our differences in religion should be tryed and composed by the verdict or vvord of God not of men 2. That Gods vvord is to be found in the scriptures of the Prophets Apostles vvho vvrote originally in Hebrevv and Greek By these I offred my faith to be tryed and to make trial of other faith proposed Yours were vvhich you sayd you vvould prove and so indevoured 1. That onely the bare text of the scripture is not a
horrible errors go the scriptures though directed by the private spirits interpretatioÌ„ cannot be a rule of faith My major is most certaine My Minor is also certainely knowen since ther was never yet any heresie so absurd or monstrous that did not pretend to vse for his weapon cited places of scripture and their collations as the Arrians Pelagians Semipelagians Lutheranists Calvinists go that private spirits interpretation cannot be a certain rule to all 90 To this Argument you saie I have put to much strength but you say I have not whet the edge All that you can bring against me is that you saie you can retort it on the private spirit of the Popes determinations and definitions but you can not deme but that the churâ—h hath more promises and so consequently her visible head as I shall prove And so I see howsoever you would not be cut with the edge you care not much to admit a fore bruife by the blowes And it is the greatest disgrace a man can have still to be drie beaten as you confesse you are and are sure to be But for your virtuall retorsion I shall actually answer you in his due place 91. That you object out of the 1. Cor. 11 19. Act. 15. 1 2. Act. 15 15 16. etc. proves rather that there must be one visible supreme judge to decide controversies As for your calumniations they are most proper to men of your coat and ranck and when time place and paper wil scarse give sufficieÌ„t vent to our reasons I wonder you should blow abroad these glassy bubbles breathed against the Sea Apostolick But the best that you can answer is that they will serv your children of Amsterdam to run after I never return your jests but provoked by you Where you say that counsels and Fathers may be racked to favour heresie as well as the scriptures I deney that they can be but that the vniforme and generall consent of the church may easily distinguish them 92. My Fourth Argument as I take was this THere be many things we beleeve by a divine and not by a humaine art of faith which are not revealed in holy scripture nor with such evideÌ„ce deduced out of holy scriptures if you exempt the authoritie of the church My antecedent I proved by instances that we beleeve against Helvidius our Ladies perpetuall virginitie that God the holy Ghost proceedes from God the Father and the sonne as from one beginning the twelve articles of our beleefe as they â—â—e the abstayning from strangled meat baptising of infants relebration of the Sabaoth on Sunday and not on Satterday the receiving fasting and kneeling â—c All which I did urge against you You answer you have sufficient proof of these things that ar of faith but you show neither scripture or denie them to be beleeved with a divine aâ—t of faith or give reason why we practise other things out of scripture contrarie to the practise of the primitive church 93. And when I have twice or thrise desired a distinct answer â—o eaâ—â— particular you would satisfiâ—â—â—e with your marvaile that I would have you enter battaile with the Arrians Anti-Trinitarians 〈◊〉 and have you convince them by scriptures And with great reason I prove I urge this For since you adventure to assigne an adâ—quate rule of faith you are bound to show me how this rule of yours is able to mainteyne it self against whosoever and to distinguish truth from falshood as I offer to doe by my assigned rule So that this is not to put on foot new questions but it is properly 〈◊〉 presse the footing of our cheife questions answer 94. You proceed and would have me to mainteyne Tradition to be the totall and not the partial rule of faith togither with the written word of God Hence you inferr that I graunt some word of God without tradition to be knowen I answer the word of God as it is extrinsecall the word of God and to be knowen of vs depends of tradition and the authoritie of the church Though intrinsecallie and in it self it is the word of God though it be knowen to none so that you may see in what sense I make tradition to be the rule of faith and apostolicall tradition also I affirme to be also the word of God though unwritten 95. Here make you a long digression and you show what acts kept by tradition are to be kept and to be remembred to children after ages as you say to see the destruction of Rome but we knowe certainly the opposers by their oppositioÌ„ will work themselves their destruction and confusion of their Babylon And we know that Balaam in stedd of cursing Gods people did blesse them John Fox was your Nabucodonosor turned so out to grasse that he durst not come neare the wall by reason of a deep mellancholie apprehension for feare of being crased like an vrinall As for the spanish Armadoe whatsoever the Spaniards intended to doe here in England our Countrymen did performe much at Cales howsoever they ded speed at Lisborne before I answer onely this God and St. George for my religion King and Countreymen I would doe that which befitted a good subject but these your instances are malitious and odious 96. To that plaine place 2. Thes 2. v. 15. Therefore brethren stand and hold the traditions which you have learned whether it be by word of mouth or by epistle This place is so playne that S. Chrysost affirms S. Paul herein to have meant of unwritten traditions that Doct. Whitaker sayes his speech is herein very unworthy so holy a father And that which you bring out of S Chrysostom against me showes that all sufficient precepts of manners and good life are set down in scripture That which you bring out of the 26. of the Acts 22 we say that in tradition nothing is spoken besides that is contrarie to the Apostles speeches As for that which you bring the 1. of the Cor. 14 37. is nothing to the purpose For we doe not deny but those things that are written are true But if you would have more plain places of scripture in defense of tradition â—â—s the 15. of the Acts 41. Where he in confirming of the church commands them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and what precepts S Paul meanes he explaines himself chap. 16. v. 4. He delivered unto them to keep the decrees that were decreed of the Apostles and auncients that were at Hierusalem which deliverie without question were by word of mouth what these decrees were it is uncertain by scriptura though they may be kept by the help of tradition 98. The fourth thing that I am to show is to prove how you walk in a vitious circle proving the selfe same by the selfe same as the authoritie of the scripture by your private spirit and your privat spirit by the authority of the scripture by which manner of proof you may prove any thing 99
For first and formost you doe not distinguish what are scriptures and what are not by the authoritie of the church For so you should admit of all that she dooth receive and if ye reject any thing that she hath doubted of you should as well as yow refuse those bookes called Deutrocanonici of the old Testament you should as well reject those Deutrocanonici of the new testament as the epistle to the Hebrewes Judas epistle and the Apocalyps but the touch of your triall is the private spirit and the unction not of the holy Ghost but of an addle head and a self conceipted phancie 100. And that you like a blind baiard walk in this round though you may apprehend you have gone many a mile and to show that you have confined your selfe in the selfe same circle I prove 101. For first I aske how you know the scripture of the Prophets and Apostles is Gods word you answer the spirit of God the testification and witness of the spirit the annointing of the spirit doe testifie to you that they are written by God But then againe I demaund how you prove that you have that spirit of God this spirituall annointing You answ what maÌ„ knoweth what is in him but the spirit of God that is in him 1. Cor. 2. He answers again that he can make no proof of that to another that is onely knowen to himself againe no man knoweth how the wind bloweth or knowes how the bones do grow in the wombe of a woman Eccles. 11 5. it is the spirit that testifies 1. Joh. 5 6. So that we see you prove the scripture by your private spirit and your spirituall annointing and you prove you have this spirit by the scripture As if a child should prove he were no bastard in that his mother sayes so and she likewise prove that she her selfe were honest in that he saies so Or prove the Church of Amsterdam to be a true church in that the Amsterdamian spirit interpreting the scripture saies so And that the Amsterdamian spirit is a true spirit in that the AmsterdamiaÌ„ spirit sayes so So I demand of you how you doe know the scripture to be Gods word you answer out of the testificatioÌ„ of the holy ghost And how you know the internal testificatioÌ„ is froÌ„ God you answer likewise out of the scripture interpreted by the Spirit My sheep heares my voice and how doe you know how it is the scripture You answer by the testification of the inward spirit so that we see your discourses like puppets have their motioÌ„ froÌ„ one string speak by the mouth of the same interpreter 102. But now to show the falshood and unprofitablenes of your circular discourse I demand what you hold the testification of the inward spirit to be For you must hold that it proceeds from God as wel as your inward habit or act of faith and then againe I aske whether you be certaine by the certaintie of faith that you have this inward act of faith that you have the testification of the spirit Then I argue this certitude must proceed from an other testification and that from another and the other from another so wee shall runne headless in infinitum 103. Besides I ask whether that testification of the spirit since it can not have his residence in the will being a certaine perswasion or speech of God belonging to the understanding and so it must be a certain notice or cognitioÌ„ If it be obscure I aske how it is distinguished froÌ„ faith if it be clear evident how is it to be distinguished froÌ„ the knowledg or vision of a thing so that wee see you affirme a thing that indeed you doe not understand what it is 104. But before I gathered your mind when you said the scriptures of themselves are so cleare that by themselves they appeare for scriptures so that you seeme to resolve that which you beleeve in to the holie scriptures and the formal reason why you beleeve it into the testification or perswasion of the spirit yet this also you doe not hold to alwayes For other times you resolve both the one and the other into the testification of the inward spirit with you most often which showes your great inconstancie grounded on seare 105. But admitting that you had onely sayd the things to bee beleeved or fides externa were to be resolved into the holy scripture onely Yet so you should admit of as great an absurditie For so you should say the gospel of S. Mathew or the whole scripture taken totally togither are not canonical and authentick nor that Mr. H. Aynsw is predestinated or that his sinns are remitted All which Aprove For nothing he is to beleeve for which he hath not the expresse word of God But none of these are expressed in the word of God If he will say he will gather these by necessarie consequence his adversaries may oppose him and he can show no certaintie If he flie unto the inward testification of the spirit theÌ„ I inferr that the things to be beleeved ar not to be resolved into the scriptures alone So Mr H. A. eates his own word though without one graine of salt or pretence of reason Yet to show this a little more plaine I reason thus Is the scripture the word of God you answer it is and that without all question But I demaund how you know it is the word of God if you answer by the testification of your inward spirit you ride your first circuit If you say it appeares by it self this is not so plaine since most parts and parcels of scripture have bene doubted of and that by schollers Yet admit scripture were so cleare a light by it self yet you cannot avoid as great a difficultie For I aske whether you will prove the whole scripture by the whole and then every one will see you â—â—ie for refuge thether which you ought to defend If you say that the whole scripture is proved by some particular parcell of scripture you are bound to show me that which you can never performe viz. that any part of scripture dooth affirme the whole scripture and every part and parcel thereof to be scripture 106. And if I should graunt you this yet another absurditie at the suit of reason hath arrested you For by what will you trie that particular parcel of scripture that so authoriseth al the rest to be scripture Thus you see in defending your private spirit you have undergone the labours of Hercules the difficulties arising as Hydraes heades two for one as one is dissolved 107. Besides this opinion of theirs doth not onely lead a man into these endlesse windings but it makes against coÌ„mon sense that God should leave his holte scriptures so carelesse at six and sevens unsettled that every hereticli might challenge to himself to be taught from God so that he might reject the
faith if it be as it ought that is if it be accomodated proportioned vnto the object end of our faith as it is necessary vnto salvation deth eyther require a particular motion of the Holy Ghost or an infused habit of faith as it appeareth out of the 7. chapter of the Aransicanum Conc. and out of the Trident Sess 6. c. 5. et canone Where it is affirmed that without Gods preventing grace and the illuminatioÌ„ of the holy Ghost no man can beleeve things reveled as he ought that is that Gods justifying grace be given him 141. Fourthly I affirme that this certaine and inevident iudgment of the truth of our faith into these humain reasoÌ„s and motives as into the moving applying and impulsive cause but not as into the formal motive of beleeving And the selfe same judgment is resolved into the supernatural light as into the true efficieÌ„t cause of that certitude and proportioÌ„ which it hath with his adequate object and end both being supernatural 142 If I be demaunded therefore whie I beleeve â— persoÌ„s and one God or any other thing I answer if you aske of me the formal reason whie I assent I answer I beleeve because God hath revealed it If I be thenasâ—ed how I know God hath revealed it I answer I doe not evidently know this though certainly I know it for the same revelation and infalible authoritie which the church of God as an intrinsecal condition or application applies to me to be beleeved 143. But if I be further questioned since the revelation of God and the proposing are both obscure and inevident how cames it theÌ„ that I certainly and evidently doe beleeve 144. I answer then I returne vnto the motives of evident credibilitie that maie induce any prudent man to beleeve that saith and that church warranted by so many motives 145. Neither is here coÌ„mitted any vitious circle between the authoritie of God the church as I have before convinced you in your grounds to commit For first the authoritie of God revealing in vertue of which the infailibilitie of the proposition is beleeved and the selfe same infallible proposition in vertue of which we beleeve that God â—â—ies and reveales hath two diverse objects For the object of the infailible proposition is that God reveales And the object that God reveales or of the revelation of God is the veritie beleeves 146. â— I saie in that when out of the authoritie of God revealing is given the formal reason of our beleeving the motive is given by the formal cause But when out of the infallible proposing of the church a reason to given whie we beleeve the divine revelation If it be vnderstood aright it is not to be given by a formal cause or motive but by an intrinsecall and requisite application of the motives whie we beleeve which is doone by the proposing of it by the church so that ther is no circle ab eodem in idem secundum idem which Aristotle only coÌ„demns 1. Post. text 5. as I have shewed before 147. Yet to goe one degree further in shewing how we are free in another regard from this mere circular and fruictless resolution of theirs I presuppose that then is coÌ„mitted a circle when the selfe same is proved by the selfe same to him that graunteth neither or doth aequallie deny both or doubteth of both For proofe of which we learne out of Aristotle that we ought to proceed from that which to knowen to that which is not knowen or at least from that which is graunted to that which is not graunted for so we shall proceed from that which is knowen after a manner to that which is not knowen 148. Whence I inferr that he should coÌ„mit this circuler discourse that to an Ethnick that equally should denie both scripture and the infallibilitie of the church should prove that the scripture were of divine authoritie in that the church teacheth vs it and the church of infallible authoritie in that the scripture teacheth vs it But to a protestant that admits of most of the scripture it is no circle to prove the infallibilitie of the church which he denies from the scripture which he admits of but first you do not give a resolutioÌ„ of your faith as I doe that is powerful against Ethnick or heretick 2. though wee admit of scripture yet wee cannot be vrged therevnto by you that receiving from the church the scripture will not beleeve all that she proposeth alike to be beleeved 149. The foresaid manner of proof is vsuall both in the scriptured and in ancient Fathers The Pharisees did admit of Moses and denie Christ. Therfore our Saviour convinced them with these words Joh. 5. 46. If you did beleeve Moses you would beleeve me for he gave testimonie of me Againe contrariwise the Manicheies did admit of Christ and the gospel did deny Moses and the Prophets therfore S. Aug. contra FaustuÌ„ ManichaeuÌ„ in his book lib. 1. de moribus Ecclesiae Catholicaec 1. et seq did convince the Manichees The like manner of proceeding wee take to instruct a Catholick that should denie any parcel of scripture wee convince him by the judgment of the church to whom he submits himselfe And Hereticks that denie tradition the church and the Popes authorâ—tie wee convince them out of scripture out of the writings vniform consent of the holy Fathers thowsands of whom M. â— A. saies he preferres for wisdom truth and holiness before himself whose vniversall consent of them living in all times being most expert in tongues neare our Saviours times many of them being the Apostles schollers not partiall to eyther of our causes writing so long before many delivering matters of facts that doth prove or coÌ„firme many poiâ—â—â— of our doctrine I cannot see how you can denie them especially since you saie you admit so farr of them as they agree with scripture For S. Hierom translated it S. Ambrose S. Aug. S. Greg. S. Barnard interpreted it and they all cite many places of scripture to prove fundamentall points of doctrine of our religion But I shewed how the holie Fathers agreed with scripture to which you are silent 150. But that you doe not proceed after the self same manner is plaine For though you abound with wrested places of scripture which we admit of all in their true sence Yet you denie the interpretation of the Fathers interpreting the scripture that by common consent and your owne graunt should better vnderstand them then you And wee doe not admit of scriptures as a sufficient proofe by themselves but togither with the interpretation of the holy Fathers of whom by your own words you should admit of since you prefer their wisdome truth and holynes before your selfe 151. Wherfore then M. H. A. would you have me beleeve you alleaging onely scripture for your self iâ— sense depraved before the holy Fathers that cite scriptures both for them and
of the kingdome of heaven c. That S. Peter in the house of God is a stone to found a pillar to sustaine and a â—â—i to governe and dispose 195. And that the authoritie given S. Peter must be derived vnto S. Peters surressors lawfully elected and governing at Rome I could prove by the expresse authorities of all these Fathers cited but let reason it selfe suffice for since our Saviour did give the power of â—reaching administring of sacraments for the good of others to the â—ude of the world So Christ Jesus in instituting S. Peter the head would have that preheminence derived to his lawful successors Besides it was impossible that Peter should governe all vnto the end of the world since the church was to continew so long after go that authoritie was given to him and to his successors 196. Here you dare me to bring in the arrowâ—s of the fathers halberts of the Councells bullâ—tts of schoolmen and canons of â—â—â—onists in particular you saie you will answer them Thrasonlike spoke But I know for your refuge with Theasoe you will take vp your scand after the manipulum of disâ—washers expositions of these tymes for your safety but all in vaine For no doubt so many weapons will beat into Mammoks one already disagreeing from him selfe and whose cheife points and arguments arâ— of themselves like 〈…〉 vnsocketed 197. To these places of S. Ioh. 20 21. S. Math. 28. 19. I answer the holy Fathers have expounded in what sente these places are to bee vnderstood except Mr. H. A. wili eate his word I must needes preferr their vniforme conseÌ„t of so many worthie men before him the like I answer to that of the Act 2. 17. 18. 1 Cor. 1. 17. 198. I answer to your seeming retorted reason taken out of the 1 Petri 5. 4 graunting that S. Peter must feede his sheep onely with the word of Christ Jesus the cheife but here I saie the word of God is eyther written or vnwritten what have you then inferred 199. But now to speake something of that false malitious and odious blasphemie you have sprinkled through your treatise All which applications if tediousness and respect of civilitie did not hinder me I could naile those markes and notes of the forcrunker of Antichrist to your forehead 200 But it shall suffice to showe in a word or two that the Pope is not Antichrist 201. First then if the Pope should bee Antichrist it should follow for so many hundred yeares that hell gates have prevailed against the church of God more then against the Synagogne of the Jewes contrary to the promised assistaunce of the holy Ghost And that most glorious Martyrs learned Doctors of the church as S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Hier S. Aug S. Leo and all our forefathers should broile eternally in hell fire in offring vp homage to the beast 202. 2. That the Pope is not Antichrist is proved in that he shall bee one particular man I came in my name and yee did not receive me but another comes in his name and yee will receive him where Christ Jesus opposeth person to person place to place kingdome to kingdome sect to sect but the Popes are many successively 2 Thes. 2. he is called the man of sinne the sonne of perdition 203. 3. Antichrist shall bee descended of the tribe of Dan Genes Fuit Dan coluber c. 49. v. 17. Hier. 8. EDan audivimus vocem acutissimam equorum c. 204. 4 Antichrist shall oppugne the mysceries of our Saviour Joh. 2. Who is a lyar but he that denies Jesus Christ. 2 Thes. 2. 2. He shall extoll himselfe above all that is said God 205. 5. Those 7. mountaignes in the Apoca. are playnly said to bee seven kingdomes None of which doe agree with the Pope Aâ—â— the ten hornes are ten Kings Cyrillus Alexand oratione 7. in Danielem 206. To answer every thing againe that you repeat would but make me more wearie and tyre the reader It is much that you graunt the Popes primacie to have beene froÌ„ the Councel of Nyce thereby to graunt Antichrisme to have reigned so long in Christendome For the Popes loving of preheminence As for that of Diotrephes that you objâ—ct is nothing to the purpose And 1 Petri 5. 3. Preheminence absolutly is not forbidden but one secular preheminence with example of lyfe and humilitie For Tit. 15. 16 It is said Haec doce exhortare et argue cum omni imperio 207. My generall reason you repeat thus The Ecclesiasticall Hierachie is no worse governed they any temporall regiment For it is compared to a kingdome governed by one King Mat. 25. to a familie wel governed Hebr 3 to a campe wel ordered Cant 6. But in all well ordered coÌ„mon weales there is ever required some visible head or judge besides the writteÌ„ lawe since there must bee a supreme to take notise of controversies when they arise etc. there must bee one to explicate the sence of the laweâ— to pronounce sentence etc. there must bee one to compell those to the due observation thereof 208. Now since in the church there ariseth like difficults in the lawes explication etc. Therefore Peters successor indued by the holie Ghost with gifts of grace in all difficults of moment is to be sought to for councell is to be heard with obedience when he counselleth is to bee obeyed when he procedes with his powrefull jurisdiction 209. Your answer is that this reason is faultie from the head to the foot Wherein you give the holie Ghost the lie that compare his church to the visible government and nothing so frequent in scriptures there is then by coÌ„parison of terrestrial things to be instructed in caelestiall But you must note that a similitude must not run on 4. feete or agree in all but in the primo analogato which you cannot infringe 2. You bring one falsehood to coÌ„firm another For though we saie the Pope is to explicate the lawe yet he is not above the lawe in your sence and all that you cite proves onely that the scriptures are the partiall explicators of themselves Ezech. 44. 24 Deut. 17. 18. 20. â— Cor. 2. 10. For as for outward order in difficulties you grant that Prâ—ists lipps must preserve wiâ—dome or knowledge 211. You sate I misse proportion in making many common weales and but one church I understand one vniversall church which you graunt one invisible I have proved one invisible your proofe is to small purpose For in London then wee might inferr there were as many churches as there hee parishes which would bee a fond or fruitless inference except you vnderstand materiall churches 212. The third thing that you sate I am to prove and the 7. and last that I am to prove here is that the indeficient rule of our faith is onely to be found in the Catholicke church not in privat menssences and illuminations or motions of an vnseen spirit which
is against S. Joh. the 17. 11. Vt sint vâ—um St. et nos 213. I prove this in that the Romaine church is the onely true and Catholicke church this you sate if you should admit of yet it proves nothing in that the voice of the bridegroome and not of the bride is that you say wee must beleeve Joh. 3. 29. 36. Ephes. 2. 24. 4. 5 16. As though that were false of Christ he that heared you heares me Luc. 10. 16. 18. Mat. 17. S. Joh. 14. 16. 26. Joh. 16. 19. 1 Tun. 3. 15 The church of the living God is said to bee the pillar and sir â—amâ—t of truth 214. I am gladd to heare you dente your selfe as in truth you are knowen to bee no Catholicke That you will not challenge your Mothers name showes your degenerating spirit For well might you bee a Catholicke member of a Catholike church but as others have been ashamed of that name so also you but the truth is your church is not Catholicke in that it hath neyther vniversallitie of time place or person 215. That the whole world is replenished with our doctrine you slight over with most impertinent places of scripture to inferr the Pope to bee Antichrist and you graunt that the synagogue of the Jewes in her flourishing â— visibilitie hath excelled Christs church which is contrarie to the predictions of the Prophets and Apostles 216. To the motives of evident credibilitie that maie induce any man to beleeve as the Romaine church teacheth I proposed many motives as her antiquitie vnitie vniversallitie visibilitie that her doctrine was confirmed by the doctors by the institution and institutors of most holie orders by the conversion of nations by the power of myracles infinit number of Martyrs All which notes and motives the ancient Doctors have taken out of scripture to distinguish the true church most of which you graunt we have Onely with your wrested places paralleld herevnto you seâ—k to coÌ„fute theÌ„ but so lamely that any maÌ„ may see your answers are suddaine snatches then true bitings or wounds according to the nature of a madd dogge that runne headlonge and immediately snatcheth at any thing that opposeth him 217. That which you bring else where is to small purpose or abundantly satisfied elsewhere 218. Now to conclude I prove by a common Argument in refuting your answer in calling our motives carnall that wee maie bringe to prove the Catholicke church the true church 219. If our faith bee so ancient as you confess and allowed so long of all sorts and conditions if it bee not from God it must bee grounded on carnall motives viz. the profitt of the spiritual or temporall But it smoothes neither And that it is not grounded on the inventioÌ„ of the clergie for there profitt or pleasure is plaine since they so strictly binde themselves to chastitie vowes fasting praying so longe everie daie and all these vnder mortall sinne with all which burdeÌ„s they would not have loaden themselves if onely pollicie had beene their loadstone Neither is it governed by the pollicie of temporall Princes For it cannot bee immagined howe â—o many Empeperors Kings Queenes Princes would have teddered themselves vnder mortal sinne as to confesse their sinns to fast to restore etc. go the religion warranted by all the foresaid notes and so against the haire of humane affection must needes bee true that hath 〈…〉 inviolable so long against so many assaultes of enimies and heresies For according to that before cited of Gamaliel if it bee not of God it will bee dissolved 220. Thus having proved and confirmed my doctrine and refuted your grounds and sacked the castel builded and raised by your owne phancie and having destroied the golden caife of your selfe liking conceipt to which you sacrifize I am to conclude admiring any one can bee so fonde as to follow you against the course of all tymes the recordes of Historie consent of Fathers etc. And I bewaile the fearfull resolution you shal make to Christ Jesus when he shal aske you whie you beleeve against the holie scriptures explicated and warranted by all the motives and onely because you perswade your selfe so 221 Whereas our resolution at the eternall tribunall shall bee full of comfort since wee beleeve Gods word allowed by all those notes and warrants â— by the interpretation of the holie Fathers Your plea shall not bee like the plea of that sonne that pretendes to bee heire of all saving of one pennie In that his father made his brother haeredem ex asse heire of one penie as he interpretts When as the grave tribunal judge learned Doctors lawes showes against him that to bee made haeredem ex asse is to bee possessed and invested in all and not to have one penie and no more 222. So you saie the sense of this or that parcell of scripture is as you conceive though against the letter as Hoc est corpus meum etc. and against all Doctors and expositors and records of tyme shâ—wing the practise of the church As that Clients cause shall bee full of feare his plea ridiculous the sentence sure to passe against him with a hisse and contempt of the whole bench So shall that irrevocable sentence of God passe against you in following your owne phancie against his word the holie Catholicke church the expounder thereof I praie God to averte his judgment and to wipe of the scailes of your eies that you maie see and imbrace the true church that with the blasphemous breath of your nostrilles you have persecuted From Justice hall in Newgate the 13. of September siple veteri 1613. 3 Esdrae 4. Magna est veritas et praevalet Great is truth and prevaileth Iohn Aynsworth Ad post script What I have said before or heare have delivered I have brought out of the scriptures and their interpretation and not against the scriptures as you object except you would have that onely to bee scriptures that in sense fittes the last of your owne phancie To conunence new disputes you know would be endless If you have nothing more to object against this maine truth begin what you will and I shal answer but onely be advertised here that I make a great impression of those wordes of S. John 2. x. 10. Si quis venit ad vos et hanc doctrinam non affert nolite recipere eum in domum nec Ave dixeritis Quie dixerit illi Ave communicat operibus ejus malignis ercuse me then if in salutation or freindly complement of grace mercie 〈◊〉 I doe not comply with you it proceeds not froÌ„ the hatred of your person whose conversion and salvation I desire but of your heresies and error but to answer your grounds and Argumâ—â—â—â— I shall ever be readie The answer to I. A. his third large writing To Mr Iohn Aynsworth prisoner in Iustice hall in Newgate grace mercie from God to find repentance unto salvation TWo things
other to the faithfull conscience you turne vvind because we caÌ„not perswade the Arians c. by conference of scriptures to beleeve aright It is not what vve can perswade others but our selves For there are many Arians and other heretikâ— vvhich you vvith your fathers councils Popes are not able to convert Yet you think your Popes decrees are Gods vvord and vve know that the holy scriptures are so indeed And the more to convince you look to your Mr. as you called him Cardinall Bellarmine and see a sound argument of his to prove the knowledge and assurance of the scriptures to be of God by the testimony of the scripture it selfe Bellar. de verb. dei I. 1. c. 2. argument 4. 6. You ask a question thinking to intangle me what the seal of the spirit is and you suppose divers answers Because you are so partial a judge of my spirit I pray aske your Pope what the seale of his spirit is and how he discerns scripture whither he build without ground as you say I doo Look what he can wel answer for himself to satisfy your conscience that think to be answered by me In the mean while mind that the seal of the spirit is for my own assurance and comfort which concerneth an other man nothing 2 Cor. 1. 22. 1 Cor. 2. 11. 7. You having my answer already doo refuse it saying it is most false that the scriptures are distinguished from other books by themselves as light from darknes For then say you every one that had but naturall perfection of the organ and free proposing of the object should distinguish this light This say I is most true for the law of God is a light Prov. 6. 23. which when it is by him free proposed and the organ that is the mind of man wich now is blinded recovereth naturall perfection that is to say is illuminated or renued in knowledge after the image of him that created it every such man with his perfect organ seeth the word of God to be in the scriptures as every man that hath a perfect naturall ey seeth the light of the sun and can assure himself hereof though he goe not to Rome to ask the Pope whither the sun gives light or no. But you are as a man without sense that though the sun shine at noon day yet if the Pope say it is midnight you will beleeve him so on the contrary For you profess to beleeve each part of scripture to be Gods holy word derived from the fulnes of truth Now this is because the Pope tells you so and he tells you also that the books of Tobit Iudith Maccabees c. are scripture canonicall although in them there be apparant lyes as you may see Tobit 12. 15. compared with Tob. 15. 18. Iudith 9. 2. compared with Gen. 49 5. 6. 1 Mac. 6 16. compared with 2. Mac. 1 16. 2 Mac. 1. 19. coÌ„pared with 2 King 25. 1. c. so 2. Mac. 1. 20. 21. 22. 31. many the like Now though the Apostle sayth no lye is of the truth 1 Ioh. 2. 21. yet you beleeve these lyes are derived from the fulnes of truth because the Pope will have it so to be Thus the blind lead the blind into the ditch So you doo not by your private spirit as you say distinguish heritiks from true beleevers but by the definitions and declarations of the church that is I trow of the Pope I shewed you a better way by the Apostle 1 Ioh. 4. 1. 4. but you love darknes better then light And by your grounds if you had lived in Christs dayes on earth you would have distinguished Christ as an heretick from true beleeving Iewes by the definitions of that church and Preisthood Vnto Iewes you confess you must shew other grounds then your Popes authority But if they retort vpon you your private spirit as you doo to me eyther your mouth is stopped or your conscience in pleading against me as you doo is corrupted Yea when you are driven about the high Preists that condemned Christ to say their ignorance was most vincible by their own law which was the scriptures your own mouth giveth sentence against you For by the same law say I the ignorance of your Romish Preisthood is most vincible also Your owne traditions are of no more force against us then the Iewes were against Christ. You charge me with racking many wrested places of scripture to prove the church of God invisible and you oppose many scriptures against it I answer eyther your care was litle or your conscience was large to write so vntruely The question was whither the church erred or no that I proved by many examples and testimonies of scripture as is to be seen in my former writing when your mouth is stopped her in you pass by all that I alleged and turne to another matter wherin you seem to say somewhat and answer vnto scriptures which I mentioned not I mean to hold to the point and not to follow your wandrings which are in the moveable pathes of that strange womaÌ„ Prâ— 5. 6 That which you answer to my demonstration of the Labâ—riâ—th of your religion leading to the Pope c. I shall not bestow labour to reply upon but leave it to judgment so for your answers to the scriptures by me alleged for I will not strive to have the last word Whither I answered nothing as you say to your reason let the reader see Your 2. Argument from the hardnes of the scriptures you agayn repete and dilate Seing you make no other proofe then was before I vvil not follow you to repete my answers but referr to my former writings To prov 8. 8. 9. you reply it is to be vnderstood eyther of generall doctrine or of precepts of manners and good life I answer you ought not so to restrayn it For wisdom there sayth al her words are righteous all are playn will you say nay generall doctrines are playn but not particular precepts of manners but not of faith Belike then the foolish woman that whore of Babylon Apo. 17. must explayn matters of faith and particular doctrines Well I shall content me with Wisdoms playn words and vvhat she teacheth not I regard not to learne if you vvill needs goe to the banket of stollen vvaters and hid bread know that the dead are there if you vvill take vvarning Where I shewed how your Popes determinations make Gods law more hard to simple men instancing the second commandement corrupted by your glosses and distinctions You take vpon you to defend your image-worship by the brazen Serpent and Cherubims And might not Ieroboam so have defended his golden calves Gods law sayth Thou shalt not make to thy self any similitudes thou shalt not bow down to them nor vvorship them you make many similitudes of God Christ
thus interpret the Familists blasphemie that they are Godded with God But I wil take S. Leo at the best Secondly therfore I answer that this speach of Peter vvas to all the Saincts that fled the corruption vvhich is in the vvorld through lust 2. Pet. 1. 1. 4. so that S. Peters privilege vvill get litle hereby much less the Popes For these graces have not appeared in many heads of your church but the contrary vvhiles your Popes folowed the corruption in the vvorld through lust as your self deny not so then such vvere not partakers of the divine but of the Divils nature And now consider vvhat grace they have infused into your church But for this participation you say S. Greg. the 7. prayed to S. Peter I think vve shall have a God of him anone You say nay but that he vvould be an intercessor And herein say I you make him Christ for there is as the scripture telleth us one God and one mediator between God and man the man Christ Iesus But if this reason be good the Pope may kneel and pray to you also for if you be as you suppose a true Christian then have you that participation of the divine nature 2. Pet. 1. 4. and the prayer of the righteous one for another even in this vvorld avayleth much as th'Apostle telleth us Yet for al this I think the Pope vvill scarse pray unto you as he dooth to S. Peter Whereas I sayd one of your Canonists caled him our Lord God the Pope you first charge me vvith untruth as if I sayd your Canonists and so made it an ordinary style of the canon law I answer you mistake my vvriting whâ—re you may see it sayd one of them But had I vvritten as you say you need no more blame me for untruth then a paynim might cavil at the Euangelist for flying that the theeves reproched Christ Mat. 27. 44. vvhen it vvas but one of them that did so Luk 23 39. 40. You say in a vvritten copy in the Vatican library the vvord God is not found but our Lord the Pope I rest in your reporte for the blasphemy vvas so gross as I think you are all ashamed of it Yet that so it hath been divulged by your selves in other copies you cannot deny And I trow you are not ignorant that your Pope is caled God oftner theÌ„ once for see vvhat is also vvritten Clement in proem in Gloss. and Concil Lateran Sess. 4. sub Leo. 10. Therefore you vvould help it by scriptâ—re alleging Ps. 81. 6. I have sayd you are Gods c. I am sory that you set your self to justify all grossnes Our Lord God is a peculiar phrase to the onely true God not to magistrates caled Gods by office much less to any Vsurper But if you vvill needs have it so let the Pope be caled God of the Papists D. Stapleton saluteth Pope Gregorie 13. as his supreme Numen or God on earth He vvas not therefore of the Prophets religion vvho sayd vvhom have I in heaven but thee oh Lord and there is none on earth that I desire besides thee Psal. 73. 25. Your self have vvritten the Pope to be the Universal Pastor Ioh. 10. he as I told you is one with the Father Ioh. 10. 30. and you retract it not I know no reason if you hold this stil vvhy you may not say as the Apostle Thomas sayd to the true Universal Pastor Christ My Lord my God Ioh. 20. 28. and pray to the Pope as did that vnclean mouth vvhich sayd o thou that takest away the synns of the world have mercy vpon us Your opinion about deposing Princes I am not ignorant of as you suppose Your Mr. the Cardinall hath lately vvritten more then a good deal hereabouts But I forbear to urge this point least you should think I went about to ensnare you I wish more good vnto you For a conclusion you repete your former scriptures togither for S. Peters preeminence I referr you and al to my former refutation of your showes Onely I will answer where you add now somwhat more as you say The Angel directeth Peter to goe before them as their Captayn Mark 16 17. This is a palpable perverting of the scripture for the Angel there speaketh of Christ to the women goe tel his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilâ—e there ye shal see him This which Christ had promised to doo himself Mark 14. 28. and now performed it Mark 16. 17. you falsely apply unto Peter to prove him head and Captayn and so by Peters feighned Captainship to intrude your Pope as head and Captayn so thrusting out Christ. Did ever men offer such abuse to Gods word as you doo No better is your next addition S. Peter you say came first to the monument Ioh 20. 4. were this so what sense is there to conclude him head of the Church for it Mary Magdalen was there before Peter Ioh. 20. 1. why doo you not make her head But you falsify the scripture for it sayth they rann both togither but the other disciple did outrun Peter and came first to the monument That which the holy Ghost witnesseth of Iohn the other disciple that doo you ascribe to Peter How unsufferably doo you vvrest the scripture What lyes may vve think vvill you not preach to your seduced people vvhich may not read the scriptures vvhen you vvrite thus to me But any thing is good ynough to help your Popes like proofe like prerogative Thirdly you add S. Paul came to Ierusalem to see S. Peter Gal. 1. 18. This had had some show if he had come to Rome to see S. Peter now if it could prove S. Peters preemineÌ„cie it might have some colour for the Bishops of Ierusalem but for the Pope of Rome none at all No more then as if one should reason thus Iudas betrayed his master therefore the Pope is Antichrist I think you vvil not graunt the conclusion though it be truer then yours I further answer that Paul there proveth his authority to be no vvay inferiour to Peters both by his caling v. 1. and his behaviour after his caling for he vvent not to Ierusalem to them vvhich vvere Apostles before him but as he saith vnto Arabia and turned agayn unto Damascus v. 17. then after 3. yeares he vvent to Ierusalem to see Peter vvhich being compared vvith his words and deeds after Gal 2. 6. 7. 8. 11. c. argue rather Pauls Priviledge then Peters For his going to Peter vvil no more debase him then the mother of our Lord vvho vvent into the hil country to Elizabet vvith vvhom she taryed much longer then Paul did vvith Peter Luk. 1. 39. 40 43. 56. And now we have seen your plea for S. Peter I vvil shew how a man might plead better for S. Paul that he was the head of your Catholik Roman church as you vainly call it
eâ—r deceiv you You dare not say this nay in deed you deny it whiles you refuse any doctrine or expositioÌ„ give by Doctor Father or Council vvhich the Pope approves not of and this is ordinary to be seen in yourbooks Follow you now still vpoÌ„ vvhat assurance you stay it is your Pope is Christs vicar caÌ„not err ex cathedra because himself sayth so And this is to make him a God For onely God is the ground of truth on whose word al creatures should rest And so by this argumeÌ„t alone if there were no more your Pope is proved to be that maÌ„ of syn which exalreth himself above al that is caled God you are of those upoÌ„ vvhom God hath sent strong delusioÌ„ to beleeve lyes as the Apostle prophesied 2. Thes. 2. 4. 11. Besides it is against al reasoÌ„ to take a mans witness of himself The law of God and Christ is against it the law of maÌ„ coÌ„demns it Nemo in sua causa testis esse vel jus sibi dicere possit l Generali C. Ne quis 2. q. 1. C. de manifesta Behold M. I. A. this third time I have vvritten unto you God by me warning you of your fearfull estate Take heed and despise not the mercy of the Lord calling you to repentance Be not unsensible of your calamity extreme peril as he that sleepeth in the midds of the sea on the top of the mast and sayth they have striken me but I vvas not sick they have beaten me but I felt it not To day if ye vvil hear the voice of God harden not your hart least he swear in his anger that you shall never enter into his rest My prayer shal be against your evil and that you may finde mercy unto life if such be the vvil of God Amen From Amsterdam the 6. of November 1613. Your freind that vvisheth your vvelfare Henr. Ainsw I. A. his 4. and last writing to H. A. To his loving friend Mr Henry Aynsworth these At Amsterdam Mr H. Ainsworth AS small hope have you in deed of the former viz. the defense of the truth as you graunt you have of the second â—â—tendement of yours viz. my conversion For trust me your allegations your prooses are so weak though many in 〈◊〉 ber that I wonder that he that professeth himself to hunt after the light onely should content himself so in the dark like Senecaes poore blind woman who accounted all others to be blinde and that onely she did see But if you would as well have taken paines but even to have summed my reasons and proofes faithfully as you vainely repeate so often your owne Mine and yours indifferently paralleld would have manifested long ere this the truth But you conceale so my proofes and so magnifie your own that it is no wonder your seâ—tarâ—â—s prifeth yours as things of worth when in deed they are but gaâ—die glasse and plaine Bristowes stones in sted of Diamonds And therefore as I remit you for all your slight replie to my former answer in so many sheates of paper delivered so I remitt your auditorie but to compare both for their satisfaction and manifestation of the truth if they bee intelligible It being a tedious thing to take so often such fruictless paine as to plough 〈◊〉 so many sheetes the barraine sands A short answer especially being not compatible to many vnjoincted and scattered citations were not your vanitie therin sufficiently vâ—â—asked in the former And since you doe confess to bee tyred as indeed I profess I am but to reade your slight stuff I shall content my selfe to poinct out how you have satisfied me in no one poinct referring my selfe to my former defence which doth and shall stand in force for ought therin that you can justly oppugne To the first of mine wherein as I showe that your reasons vanish of themselves you keepe a greate pudder to no purpose Naie you overthrow your selfe graunting the vnwritten word of God to deepde controversies that the law must bee explicated by Preists For as traditions the vnwritten word are included and implied in the written word or belonge to the explication or performance of the same so also fasts feasts and ceremonies of the Church are virtuallie included in those generall precepts and prerogatives of the Church as I expressed in my former Now to add that which is gathered thence or to explicate that which is included is not contrarie as you doe in your replie not obscurely confess as I show in my 12. parag as also the 16. 17. parag is to answer Where as you charge me that you have often answered that which I object parag 20. I referr to the indifferent reader But verily I maie speake and not from my own judgment that your writings deserve no answer I answer Apostollicall traditions are to bee taught as the word of God and to bee expounded what then In answering my first reason faine you would reâ—aiâ— we with a spllogisme of your owne seing that which is known for Gods word is the rule of faith which I denie not But holie scriptures are knowne for Gods word which in your sense I denie For they are not knowen by themselves but by tradition and the authoritie of the church For many paâ—â—ells of scripture have bene doubted of by those that bragged of the spirit of God to discerne scripture And you neyther save your self from an infinite process in that kind if you could doe that how can you prove the whole Bible to be canonicall as I have proked In my 32 parag I fullie satisfied your tortured places and if I doe leave out som places it is in that they are virtuallie answered in other places expounded For if a man should examine each place you bring wee should never have an end And if the scriptures bee as cleare as the Sunne to be distinguished it followes that they must bee knowne of all if you saie of all his you doe petere principium since everie one will pretend to bee his I proved also by the authoritie of S. Aug that scriptures in Actu 2 to bee knowne to others requireth necessarily the authoritie of the Church to which as to verie manie places more you never answer You wrong your self and not I you since you giue just occasion to me to terme the guide of your religioÌ„ your privat spirit for the word â—pâ—ly befitts your grounds as I prove effectuallie and I doe convince that our faith is not subject to any such circular vagarie I resolving my religion into no other grounds then St. Cypr did his S. 55. And you might see if you would that the Pope doth not make what he wil a matter of faith but onely doth declare it parag 69. And to what end should I answer him that never answered me as I did procede but onely by snatches which is not to answer me but his owne phancie and
his preface locorum commu for catholick church in the creed reade christian church â— Motive 6 Motive the power of myracles â— Motive 8. Motive 9. Motive 10. Motive 11. Motive 12. Motive The first Demostration of the Catholick truth The secoÌ„d Demostration To faith two judgments required Into what one evideÌ„t judgmeÌ„t of credibilitie is to be resolvediâ— to That this evideÌ„t judgment is to be had before an act of faith In to what our certaine mevident judgment is to be resolved into Whie I beleeve any article of our belâ—â—se Whie I certainly and evidently do beleeve That theâ— is coÌ„mitted no circle herein Two diverse objects Whiâ—in our opinion ther is no circle Wee are free from a circle See 1 â—â— That M H. A doth not vrge any graunted ground against 〈◊〉 see 143. That I should not beleeve him himselfe perswades me M. H. A. woven vp in an endless boâ—â—oÌ„ Catholicis praedicâ—tibus The 6. Paâ—â— The mayn question might for 2â— Mr. H. A. argument have bene transferred How the judgmeÌ„t of the church in what sense is infallible The Catholick church is the rule of faith in manifold sences Hervaeus interpreted vide n. 165. Mat 10. 2. Mat 17. 1. Marci 9. 2. Marci 4. 33 Luc. 8. 51. et 18. Ioh. 21. 2. 18. 11. Ioh. 3. 1. Ioh. 8 1. 10 Mat. 2. Marc. 3. Lucae 6. To be named stil first rather argues primacie of authoritie then of order The 10 of S Mat. 2. examined S. Andr. â— der called before S. Peter Whie S. Paul mentioneth S. Iames 〈◊〉 21. of the Apoc. 19. makes against himself if it prove ought in reference to that of Exo. 28. 1. 18. 19. 2. S. Peter walkes on the water â— He is caled by our Saviour the rocke So Hervaeus is to be interpreted â— 155. â—â— 5. Ambrose serm 6â— gather out of S. Peters working of the first myracle that he was head of the church Mat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Ioh 4 â— Ioh. 2◠〈◊〉 S. Mat. 23â— c. v. 9. Cephas signifieth a head and that which is the fouÌ„dation to a house is in proportion a head to a bodie S. Leo. defended That the Pope is not called the Lord God the Pope What wee hold of deposition Proofes out of holy scripture to prove S. Peters primacie Epistola 1. 2â— lacobâ— The Greek fathers affirme the Popes primaciâ— The Greek FaÌ„thers allso affime it That S. Petes authoritie must bee derived to his successors The Pope is not antichrist 2 Thes. â— 2. vide Irenâ—um lib. 5. c. â— Hyppolit in the yeare 2â—â— in oratione de coÌ„summatione mundi D. Athams in the yere 340. quest 29. Cyrillus Hierosol 300. cateches 15. Greg. Kazâ— orat 14. et 4â— D. Chrysost orat 4. in 2. Thes 2 Cyrillus l. 3 in Ioh. c. 6. Divus Hier q. 11. ad Algasiâ— My generall reason for the Popes primacie His answer refuted They part See before aâ—n 117. vsae ad n. 135. See before â— 123. See n. 123. By this hâ— would with Beza avoide the name Catholicke which he cannot does if he grauÌ„e the article of beleife I beleive the Catholicke church See before n 117. adâ— n. 135. Mr. H A. snatchetâ— but doth not fasten on my motives The Catholicke religion grounded nether on the spirituall or temporall profite or pleasure Not by the the policie of the clergie established Noâ— by the policie of the temporall The fearefull resolution of their religion His plea examplfied to be most ridiculus His stile of salutation in the fotâ— front of his Pamphleâ—â— 1. Pet. 1. 〈◊〉 S. 3. ◠〈◊〉 Deut 〈◊〉 31. The 1. part of your treatise S. 7. p. 99. v. 25. 27. * v. 8. 31. †◠Tim. â— 2. ‡ S. 8. p. 9â— L. de pâ—radis c. 12. * CoÌ„ment in Mat. 23. S. 9. * S. 10. p. 100. †Deut â— 24. 25. ‡ See pag. 55. 56. ‖ S. 11. pag. 100. * Chrysost Gal. 1. †S. â—â—â— S. 15. * S. 15. †Isa. 33. 22. Iam. 4. â—2 ‡ S. 18. p. 102. 2. Part. S. 〈◊〉 p. 1â—◠†Iob. 38 1. c. ‡ Gé 22 11. c. 2 Pet. 1. 21 * Exo. 20. 21. â—2 * Gé 20. 7. †Gen. 49. ‡ Num. 12. 6. 8. Iob. 4. 16 33 14 15 16. 2. SaÌ„ 23 2. ‡ Sess. 11 12. †S. 10 p. â—02 * p. 10◠†See pag. 25. 26. 72. ‡ as in Ps. 44. 78. c. 2 Tim. 3. 1â— * or as you recken 43. 77. †Mal. 4. 4. Isa. 8 20. * 2 Thes. 2 9 †S. 23. p. 104. ‡ 2 Esdr. 14. 21. 22. chap. 4. 23. S. 23. * Mat. 10 27 †RoÌ„ 16. 25 26. ‡ Colos. 1 23. Ephes. 3 4 * 1 Thes. 5. â—7 “ 1 Cor 3 2. Heb 5 â— * Act. 28 26 2â— The 3. Part. †◠26 pag. 105. “ S. 2â— * S. 29. †S. 30. p. 106. ‡ See pag. â—7 18. 59. â— 31. * S. 32. c. p. 106. †S. 3â— 3â— 34. ‡ S. 8â— S. â—5 “ Ioh. 14. 17. * Mark 3 30 †S. 36. * S. 37. p. 108. †S. 38. ‡ 1 Cor. 2. 14. Ephes. 1. 17. 18. “ Colos. 3. 10. * S. 3. †S. 40. Ioh. 9. 22. ‡ S. 41. “ S. 43. * Mar. 7. 5. c. †S. 44. c. to 54. p. 109. ‡ See before in p. 62. 63. S. 45. 46. 47. c. p. 110. “ S. 54. c. p 111. * S. 57. 58. †S 56. ‡ pag. â—4 2. Argument ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 112. “ pag. 〈◊〉 “ S. 66 p. 113. * Prov. 9. 13 †Pro. 9. 17. ‡ â— 18. ‡ S. 67. * Exod. 20. Cruâ—â—m â—â—am adorâ—mus Domine * Psa. 119. 105. †S. 68 p. 114. ‡ S. 69. 70. 71. See pag. 29. 30. 80. 81. “ Rev. 13. 2. * S. 72. p. 115. †S. 80. ‡ Synechdoche * S. 73. †S. 74. 7◠‡ Krino S. 76. p. 116. “ Act. 10. 20. * Act. 22. 10. †Anastas ‡ S. 77. 78. Act. 5. 34. “ S. 79. p. 117. * S. 80. idias epiluseos †Propria interpretatione Englished by Mr. I. A. private spirit interpretation ‡ S. 80. S. 82. “ S. 83. * S 85. †S 88. S. 89. p. â—19 3. Arg. †2. Pet. 3. 10. ‡ S. 91. pag 120. see p. 70. 5. Arg. S. 92. †In those things that are plainely set doâ—n in the scriptures al such things ar found as concern faith hope charity Augustine de doct Christ. l. 2 c. 9. * S. 94 The 4. 5. parts after handled S. 153. c pag. 134. * S. 157. * S. 160. †V. 20 S. 159. Homil 5â— in Math. ‡ S. 〈…〉 pag. 135. S 162 16â— * S. 164. pa. 13◠†Colos. 1. 17. 18 ‡ 1 Cor. 2. 16. ‖ Rev. 9. 11. “ S. 165. * S. 166. †S. 165. ‡ 2 Ioh. 1. 1 ‖ Act. 20. 17 †S. 167. pa. 137. S. 168. * S. 169. †S. 170. pag. 138. ‡ S.