speak playn to simple mens understanding but al the holy Prophets and Apostles could not or would not speak to the capacitie of the simple so you make them the greatest deceivers of soules in the world a pagan mought justly scorn our heavenly law if it be a leaden rule a nos◠of wax◠as some have blasphemed it But hogs esteme draffe better then pearls though the wisdom of God powreth out her minde unto them yet in them is fulfilled the true proverb wherfore is ther a price in the hand of the fool to get wisdom he hath none hart Prov 17. 16. But where may we think to find the place of wisdom if it be not in the Prophets Apostles writings For touching these points you speak of if a man read the late Fathers Augustine Ambrose the rest he shall find them often dark difficult intricate contradicting themselves sometimes and one another And if he compare your Popes determinations with the holy scriptures he shall find as good agreement as between harp and harrow For example Gods plain law sayth Thou shalt not make to thy self a graven thing or any similitude of things that are in heaven above or in earth beneath c. thou shalt not bow down to them neyther serv them and agayn Cursed be the man that shal make a graven or a molten thing the abomination of the Lord the work of the hands of the artificer and shal set it in a secret place al the people shal answer and say Amen These evident scriptures may perswade every simple hart that it is a fearful syn to make worship similitudes of God of Christ and of Saincts departed or any the like Now let him come to your catholik churches interpretation and read your Cardinals glosse that such scriptures reprechend idolatrie that is to say the worshiping of images which are esteemed for Gods or by which they are worshiped for Gods which indeed are not but as for the Images of Christ of saincts they are to be worshiped and not onely by accident unproperly but also by themselves and properly so as they doe terminate or end the worship as in themselves they are considered and not onely as they bear the part of the exemplar or person represented and let him read your learned distinctions of the worship latria the worship dulia and hyperdulia and other like schole points digged out of the abisme of the rock of Rome the man wil be amazed to find such comments upō such a text and make him ween his witts be not his own But I make no doubt ther be thowsands and ten thowsands upon earth that if they read Moses law and your churches comments upō this point they wil say Moses is surer and playner easier to understand then your Cardinal a great deal And as of this so of other things many that to leav the scriptures and rely upon your church determinations were to blow out the candle that men may see by the snuff Moreover if that cannot be an indeficient rule of faith wherin some things ar hard to be understood then doubtlesse your ◠assertion is overthrown which sayth that the scriptures expounded by the catholik church is a true indeficient rule of our faith For by the catholik church you mean the Roman Ch◠and in the Roman church you restreyn al to the Pope now his expositiō dooth often times as wel clear the truth as a cloud before the sun Yea even the playnest places which in holy writ are as bright as noon day your church hath enveloped with AEgyptian darknes as Mariage honorable among al and the bed undefiled sayth the text Heb. 13. 4. If among all sayth * your glosse comprehendeth al men wholly then mariage shal be honorable also between father and daughter betweē mother and son between brother and sister c. Drink ye al of this sayth our saviour Let a man examine himself sayth the Apostle and so let him eat of this bread drink of this cup. We yet see not sayth your quick eyed Cardinal that place of the gospel wher we be taught that both parts of the sacrament of our Lords supper are to be ministred to al Christians For our Lord sayth not Drink ye al Christians of this but drink ye al of this c. Such catholik expositiōs doe illustrate the scriptures as the smoke of the pit did the sun aier Apoc. 9. 2. But me thinks you deney that the Pope hath dominion over your faith neyther can make what he wil as a matter of faith or tradition He dooth not make a matter of faith you say but beelareth onely that such and such a thing is to be beleeved It is wel if you can keep you here for if he be but a declarer of the faith he is by office but as al other Bishops and ministers of the Gospel and Peters primacie wil be no more then Pauls who sayd Let a man so think of us as of the ministers of Christ disposers or stewards of the mysteries of God But if the Pope have not indeed dominion over your faith then I trow men may trie his declarations by Christs word who hath dominion over our faith and sowles Then are not the Popes declarations authentik canonical of necessitie to be beleeved unlesse he prove them by the scriptures which himself acknowledgeth to be divine and canonical And thus the scriptures wil be found a sufficient rule of the Churches faith men must by the word and spirit trye the spirits of the Popes as wel as of other Bishops Otherweise when Pope Stephen the 6. repealed the decrees of P. Formosus and condemned his acts and contrariweise P. Romanus and other his successors justified Formosus and condemned Stephen and yet after that agayn P. Sergius the 3. allowed Stephen and cōdemned Formosus as your own records doo report how should men know what Popes decrees to follow if they may not examine them by the book of God nor have better stay for their faith then the wethercock of the Vatican And wheras you speak of all humane helps that the Pope useth of counsel and consultation with the learned they be fayr shewes but your Cardinal tels us that the catholik church hath alwayes beleeved that he is a true ecclesiastical Prince in the whol church who can of his own auctoritie vvithout consent of the people or counsel of Preists make lavves vvhich bind the conscience can judge in causes ecclesiastical c. and that vvhen he teacheth the vvhol church in things perteyning to faith he can not err by any hap or chance and not onely in matters of faith but in preceps of manners also prescribed to the vvhol church he cannot err What marvel is it then though your Lavvyers say His bare vvill must be holden as a lavv and that whatsoever he dooth no man
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
not fleth your arm seâ—k wisdom as silver serch for her as for treasures so God may be intreated to shew you the way of life that you may escape from hâ—l beneath Which grace I wish and shall doo my andevour to procure unto you So rest I your freind for all Christian help to my power Henry Ainsworth Your letter I received the beginning of this moneth December 1609. and I write this the 23. of the same stilo veteri From Amsterdam Iohn Aynsworths reply To Mr Henry Ainsworth in Amsterdam Site audierit lucratus eris fratrem tuum S. Math. 18. I Perceive now by your second writing Mr Ainsworth your readynes to write but your vnreadynes to answer all the groundes of my discourse For where as still I pressed you with the authority vniform consent of those that lived in the Apostles times and were their schollers When I vrge you with the authoritie and most ancient record of hystories When we bring against you the whole body of councells and holy fathers the whole schoole of Doctors When we vrge you with the assertions of Luther Câ—lvin Beza I well Whitaker Hooker pillars nay first founders of the protestant religion out of whose neare withered stock the Brâ—wâ—â—sts are newly budded and even in the bud remaine as blasted by the breath of their own parents You think this answer sufficient that they were all men all dust and ashes and so erred saying lâ—t the fathers sleep As though the whole world had bene in a dead stâ—ep of error vntill this present age As though the Apostles own disciples that sucked knowledge froÌ„ their mouths had need to be discipled of you for their dangerous errors As though the Apostles themselves Dionisius Areopagita Egesippus Polycarpus Irenaeus Gregor Nazianz. Chrys. Tertul. S. Cypr S. Ambrose S. Hiâ—r S. Augustin were all deceived all hoodwincut so long in â—rror yea that the whole church that was promised to be the pillar of tâ—… that was seated on a roch should be swallowed up of hell gatâ—s for a thowsand five hundred yeares contrarn to the firm promise of our Saviour yea that Luther Calvin Bâ—za Iâ—wel Whitaker Humfrey c. these tymes grand Iurie men and Doctors were all d. câ—â—ved in giving up their verdicts And so decrived that they are of you implicitly condemned as hereticks Surely such a verdict can never win credit before any bar or tribunall in the world where so many eye and eare witnesses cannot be heard evidences and records of above a thowsand yeares of age are not admitted as currant where infinite Doctors and professors are refused in their own sciences to be beleeved When our adversaries own fathers freindes and adherents are held as partial and all testimonies of what condition soever braved with this that they were all but men that thâ—y have all erred What doe you Mr Ainsworth but teach me a way to answer whatsoever you can bring For I can say you are onely dust and ashes onely a man and lichlier sure to err then all they that have lived before you and then all men that live in this age with you Pardâ—n me in dealing so roundly with you for it proceeds through no aversion towards your person but onely to demonstrate the truth of my cause and the insufficiencie of your answer Now to descend down more particularly vnto your answer you â—arp first at my proceeding which I thought by a distinction direct enough at which you except as though direct and distinct are not in the sense I take them all one and so then to answer by a distinction is to give a direct or a distinct answer But you are like one that is even wearied ere ever he sets forth foot in journey therfore to make your journey the shorter you would conceive it onely in a continued and dead way deluding therby your self with imagination that your journey is shorter And therefore I think you in a confuse dealing seeme more fearful of the way to run then I that consider the questioÌ„ we are to handle by distinct points dividing my answer by the eye of judgement into distinct portions And therfore I answer you againe when you demaund of me what shall decide al controversies in religion whether the word of God or of man I answer you directly enough that by Gods written and unwritten word as by a formal motive we are to be tried and by the catholick church as by a propounding manner by way of circumstance necessarily required to show what is authentick and what is not canonica And so I hope this answer is direct and plaine ynough Aske a Philosopher what burneth and he wil tell you the fire and his qualitie but demaund how approximation of the subject concurreth without which the fire never naturally burneth and he wil tell you it is condicio sine qua non most necessarily required Ask a Philosopher who gives power to some hidden herb vnknowen to have his operation he will answer the nature of the herbe principally but what doth determine it hic et nunc to work he will answer the art knowledge of the herbalist that findeth out the secret nature of the herbe showes how it is to be applied and vsed to have his due operation So here I answer that Gods written and vnwritten word formally and principally causeth vs to beleeve but the church that propoundeth it as Gods word concurreth as an applying circumstaÌ„ce the church being the treasury of all truth the mediâ—â—â—e against all maladies the â—howse of truth showeth vs vnfalliblie what is to be beleeved and what is not And therfore you wonder without cause that I should answer by a distinction definition and distinction being the two eyes or guides of reason But now to proceed to the matter I intend briefly to show how my reasons that I gave to prove my assertion viz That onely the scripture is not a sufficient rule and an infallible guide of faith remaine yet for all your pretended answer in firme force unshaken 2. I intend to show how your reasons deduced out of the holy scriptures are not reasons in that they are wrested from that sense in which the holy Ghost spake them or meant them 3. As occasion shall offer I will touch your answer to the other questions leaving the exact and direct handling therof vntill this controversie in hand be ended First then you set down the first argumeÌ„t which I brought thus Nothing is to be beleeved that is not taught or manifestly gathered out of the written word But that the Bible is canonical is not taught or gathered out of the written word therfore it is not to be beleeved that the Bible is canonicall Mark then how Mr Ainsworth smooths up the matter that he hath giveÌ„ a sufficient answer when he answers that the pillars of our propositions are earth ashes and therfore the whole frame of my Argument lieth in the dust
yet doth he not manifestly contrary that he thinks the other opinion false or improbable For he ronfesseth that the whole Church in a hymne of S. Ambrose doth acknowledge that S. Peter was head and rocke of the Church Wherefore after he had proposed the coÌ„mon opinion of the Church and his private judgement In great humilitie he concludeth all Let the reader chuse whether of these two opinions is the probabler Hence we may note how ill a friend you are to S. August thus to put him on the racke and how you may inforce fathers to seeme to speake for your cause in great nuÌ„ber if you bring those that makes against you me thinks you that rely most in expositioÌ„s of scripture on still of laÌ„guages should not onely rely of S. August words here that in this for lack of skill of languages mistook a litle But this is certain that S. August in Psal. 63 et contra partes Donati calls S. Peter his successors the rock against which hell gates shall not prevaile So sapes Tertull. De praescript Orig. homil 5. in Exod. S. Cypr. De unitate Ecclesiae S. Hyllar cant 16. in Math. S. Ambr serm 47. 68. lib. 6. in c. 5 Lucae S. Chrysost. homil 55. in Math. S. Cyrill lib. 2. c. 1 2. coÌ„ment in Ioannem Lastly you produce that which I bring out of S. John 21. wher it is sayd Pasce oves meas seed my flock in which words I assumed S. Peters priviledge and power to be noted since here a Pastorall office is graunted unto S. Peter that is to feed with pasture to lead to defend to governe chasten and heale But you say that all the Apostles were alike charged here to feede But the contrary is manifest out since he sayd onely to him feed my flocke to whom he sayd before lovest thou me more then they In which words he excludeth all the others Besides Christ speakes to S. Peter that he should feed his generall flock though he may speak unto the other Apostles that they should feed their particular charges Wherefore S. Leo saith 3. anniversario assumptionis sayth Petro hoc singulariter creditur quia cunctis Ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma praeponitur and so we may answer that in this generall charge given to Peter the particular charge implicitly was commended unto all the other Apostles And though the other Apostles were sayd to be joinet Preists with S. Peter 1. Pet. 5 1. It is spoken in regard that they were joinctly Preists in the exercise of their orders and not in regard of the preeminence of place in which respect S. Peter was head of all the rest of the Apostles though the others did joinctly labour with him in the conversion of nations Now after you have a litle smoothed up your self that you have done your part in this poinct then begin you to say that my affertioÌ„ is not sufficiently proved But as for that you might better leave it to the iudgment of the indifferent reader then to take upoÌ„ you to be pliant and juâ—â—e in the self same cause But whereas you say I lack anâ—iâ—uitie to prove the supremacie of the Pope I hope no since the Protest 〈◊〉 own Doctors teacheth that it began in the NiceaÌ„ councell and I think when we shall scan the matter how it come in then I know we shall prove it of equall age or the self same with that of S Peter But to say the truth I did not intend to prove this point of purpose but onely to give you a tast what doctrine in this we follow Therfore if in this you impugne Cardinall Bellar doctrine as it lieth you may at once impugne both that learned man and my selfe to whose learning I acknowledge my self a scholler The last thing which you examine of mine is about the name Catholicke which faine you would challenge vnto your selfe but after better consideration you seeme to refuse it because it is not warranted by the written word But why doe not you aswel reject the name Trinitie consubstantialitie three persons and one God Nay why doe you not reject as wel the Crede of the Apostles For if the church be a catholicke mother surely she hath Catholicke children of which you wil be none But you belike say with Gaudentius the hereticke that the name Catholike is a humane fiction D. August contra Gaudent lib. 2. c. 25. Or with Beza you helshe when you call it a swelling title you think it a vaine word or with Humfrey in vita Iuelli a vaine terme But you doe well since you have neyther vniversalitie of tyme place or person of the Catholicks Nor the vnitie of the Romans having such divisioÌ„s and sectaries amongst you to deny both But we can say with S. August writing upon the Psal. 65. Iubilate Deo omnis terra let the whol world not only one corner of AmsterdaÌ„ rejoyce we can show you the prophecie of Esay fulfilled in that the Gosuell is preached to all nations Gen. 2. 6. Psal. 2. Isa. 54. Mat. 28 Mat. 5 Luk. 8 Mal. 1. that the whole world is replinished with the fruit of our doctrine Neyther is this the voice of the Israelites or AEdomites against the Israelites in glorying of fleshly privileges For these are noted as principall signes of the Church of God and that if it were as invisible as your Church was it should be excelled farr by the synagogue of the Jewes that still for all their scattering have reteyned in sundry places visible meetings and congregations visible vse of their sacraments and ceremonies The which consideration made Castalio in the preface of the Bible of King Edward the â— after he had considered the promises made by our Saviour to his Church that it should be spread over all nations and that hell oates should not prevayl against it and how invisible their Church had been how unheard of the essentiall pointes of their doctrine inforced him to say that eyther these promises are to be fulfilled or that God els is a lyar This also made George David to deny the verity of the Bible in that the promised visibilitie of the Church was not performed Nay then a little to see whither wee or you make the best resolution of our faith Let vs consider that we Romane Catholicks use all meanes and apply all helpes and motives to the due eliciting of an act of faith For first we have all motives evidentiae credibilitatis required unto an act of faith Wee have all antiquitie vnitie vniversalitie visibilitie confirmed by the consent of Dortors by the institution of most holy religious orders we have the conversion of nations the power of miracles the infinite number almost of Martyrs that have sealed our doctrin through al ages with their bloods 2. wee have a certaine visible and infallible way to decide all controversies which is the Catholick Church that propoundeth what is to be beleeved and what is not 3. we have
Gods divine veracitie speaking by the mouth of the Church which formally makes vs to beleeve 4. wee have a supernaturall judgment to beleeve in common at least in that all people all nations have so beleeved And lastly through all these we have a pious affection through the working of Gods holy grace to beleeve hic et nunc hoc et illud and that without any difficult since we first beleeve there is but one true Church and that Church cannot err and so with great facilitie we beleeve ought that the Church shal propound unto vs to be beleeved But you have none of these but onely a prejudicated opinion not to beleeve ought wee say and a presumptuous spiritt to preferr pour interpretations before all the Doctors of the Church And if you would indeavour to convert any Turke Jew or Atheist you could not make him of your opinion till you had convinced him in each particular and severall poinct But when we shall come to deale with an Atheist or an infidell wee can give him such evident motives such profoundnes of reasons that even by the light of nature he may think almost that our articles of faith are worthy of beleefe and after we have perswaded him to beleeve that there is but one true church one meanes of saluation and that this Church is guided in all truth by the holy Ghost with great facilitie I can induce him to beleeve any one article of our beleef that this onely true and most firm church teacheth Let therefore any one judge whose foundation is grounded on sand who is seated on earth and ashes And as for the rellicks of the poisoned cupp they are all too blasphemonsly false if you would poure them upon us and I think they might be applied to your congregation if I would descend downe into particulars Wherefore that pour understanding may be inlightned and judgment corrected read the Bible but not onely with the scholiast of your private spirit but with the holy fathers and learned Doctors expositions Therefore I will conclude with that short exhortation S. Augustin sent unto his freind Honoratus lib De unitate Cred. c. 8. You see you have bene loue troubled with these broiles of parties in the world and now if you think your self to have bene tossed and turmoiled enough and would at length have an end of these verations folow the way of the Catholick discipline in which the prophesie of Isoia the third is fulfilled And there shal be in it a path and a way and a holy way it shal be called the befiled shall not passe by it but this to you shal be a direct way so that fooles can not nuffe if they follow it And thus Mr Ainsworth I have mainteyned my arguments answered your objections though not so spedily as I could have wished having other busynesse And now here I could wish you doe not secare lignum eadem lineà that you would when you answer me examin â— Bellarmins groundes reasons doctrine and authorities as they lie that so you may the better give your self and others satisfaction and the more worthily deserve an answer And thus with harty prayers for your conversioÌ„ I leav you the fourth of March 1610. from Justice Hall stilo veteri Your freind to give your vnderstanding the best satisfaction he can Iohn Aynsworth The answer to the former reply To Mr Iohn Aynsworth prisoner in justice hal in London Grace and mercy from our Lo. Jesus Christ. WHeras my first writing gave yow to understand that I held all differences in religion were to be tried coÌ„posed by the verdict of God wherunto I humbly submit the triall of my faith actions alwayes in my secoÌ„d because I did not see yow condescend hereunto I shewed reasons of such my perswasion yow Mr Aynsworth in your replie first taxe me with unreadynes to answer all the the grounds of your discourse secondly entwite me as one that chargeth with error them that lived in the Apostles times â— were their scholars the most ancient record of historyes the whole body of councils and holy fathers the whole schole of Doctors c. yea as one that hath implicitly condeÌ„ned for heretiks Luther Calvin Beza Jewel Whitaker Humfrey c. The first I leav to the indifferent readers judgment whither I have omitted any ground of your discourse pertinent to our present cause or yow rather have omitted of mine in your replie If yow blame me for omitting discourses impertinent I must bear it stil for still I mean so to folow the matter in hand The second I leav to your ovvn secoÌ„d consideratioÌ„ all unpartial judgment what cause yow have so to accuse me Doe I otherwise debase meÌ„ then by comparison with the most high God doe I speak of the fathers worse then the scriptures which I alledged speak of al men And wil yow match earth with heaven frayl man with God as joynt umpiers in religions controversies If not why are yow offended that I cleay to God alone that I would leav the farhers to sleep in peace which yow out of charitie doo interpret a dead sleep of errors whom yow it seems would rouse out of their graves as if yow thought to find a Samuel at Endor when the Lord himself answereth yow not by Vrim nor by Prophets And much yow mistake me if not purposely as if I thought my self not dust and ashes as they or any more priviledged froÌ„ errors then they There be thowsands of them whom yow implie as taxed of me with error whom I preferr for wisdom truth holines before my self yea I match not my self with the least of Gods servants but by the grace of God I am that I am his word not my own is that I stâ—d upon doe oppose unto all the world but I judge no man neyther wil I be judged in cases of conscience by mans day Cease yow therefore from the man whose breath is in his nosthrels for wherein is he to be estemed Or if you will not cease the truth it self out of the mouth of God and man shal force yow hereunto For in my former answer I set down fowr reasons fortified with many scriptures to prove this position That God onely is to be umpier and arbyter of all questions and controversies about religion which was the first point to be accorded between us You after you had generally censured them to be nothing but allegations of scripture falsly applied answer to the first confirmed by Deut. 5. 32. 12. 32. by denying that hence can be gathered that the holy scripture should be the onely rule or umpier of faith For say you as it dooth not follow nothing is to be added to the 4. commandement and the 4. commaund is to be observed therefore there is onely the 4. command and it is therfore the rule of all the rest The reddition of this your similitude shewes not his face perhaps least it
confutation of your wordes when I reasoned thus If S. Peter could not have prerogative of place in that he represented the church no more could the sonnes of Abraham bee two sonnes in that they represented two nations Here you inferr for me but they were two soÌ„ns etc. go S. Peter was S. Peter still etc. I thancke you for your paines but you doe not marke that I doe of purpose omitt to inferr the sequele which everie one may see to follow but you have forgot to have compassioÌ„ of pour selfe that vnarmed admitts of the Argument in that you satisfie me nothing therein but here like some railing minister out of his text beginnes to talke of Antichrist whose forerunner himselfe is 182. To that where you saie all the Apostles were equall though there was order as first second and third Apoc. 21. 19 Whence is that order fetched and derived but since not in the first ordering or age as I have proved therefore in the free election of Christ Jesus that chose and made worthie S. Peter the first That of S. John 21. 21. Ephes. 2. 20 proves that they were all equall in the execution of the power of order which was equal to al not in powr of jurisdictioÌ„ that they were equall as they were Apostles but not as they were â—ys And if al the Apostles had the like power of jurisdictioÌ„ with S Peter yet it dooth not follow that all Byshopps should have like jurisdiction with the Pope For Byshopps are sayd to succeede the Apostles as Preists are said to succeede the 72. disciples who did not succeed properly as appeareth out of Anacletus epist et ex Beda in c. 10. Luc. And the reasoÌ„ is given in that the 72. were not Preists neither did they erercise any jurisdictioÌ„ which appeareth in that Philip James the 5. other Deacons were ordred Aâ—t 6 by the Apostles that they were of the 72. appeareth out of EpiphaÌ„ heresi 20. 184. That admonition Rom. â— 11. 20. 22. and that of the Apoc. 8. 10. is to bee vnderstood that if God should forsake her shee should perish that is in sensu diviâ—o 〈◊〉 in sensu composito as the Sea of Rome is guided by the holy Ghost and is there fired is â—he cannâ—â— finally fall yet it is a farr different question of the infallible decree of the Pope of the infallible residence of the Pope at Rome though both bee truthes in a diverse degree and both firme howsoever â—â—pugned 185. Wee doe not hold that the Pope is necessarily indued with Gods holy grace For in matter of fact wee hold that he may synne as well as any other but wee hold a necessary assistance of the holy Ghost as he defines ex cathedra as the head of the church 186. Here you cite two places out of S. Leo. that writ in the yeare of sur Lord 454. accusing him that he said too much for the Sea Apostollick in saying that he the head infuseth grace to the whole church And that God takes vp S. Peter into the fellowship of the individuall vnitie he would have him named that which himselfe was et sermone 3. and what he gives Princes he gives by S. Peter Where here first you see our religion is no vpstart religion that so many years agoe was maintained by so holie a Father and whom Theodoretus in his epistle so much commendes 2. wee seâ— this holie Pope Leo to doe no otherwise but that which S. Peter did in his second epistle 1. c. v. 4. where he saies that by the pretious promises yee may be made partakers of the divine nature so by the assistaÌ„ce of the holie Ghost S. Peter is by participatioÌ„ said to bee so directed by the â— Trinitie that his definitioÌ„s shall be the definitioÌ„s of the holy Ghost according to that He that heareth you heareth me And not vnlike is that of S Paul I will fulfill that which is wanting of passions of Christ. And by the participation of Gods grace wee are said to bee heires of God coheires of Christ Rom. 8. 187. And for this participation â— Greg. the 7. saies incline thie â—ares oh S. Peter prince of the Apostles Not meaning therby to aske any thing of our B. Lady or of S. Peter but onely that they would bee intercessors for vs. And since you conclude with this scoffing Epiphonema Thus roares the Lion of Rome contemning so the holie Father of the church I will end this point thus with you Thus in a lower keie braies our A. of Amsterdame against the victorious Lyon of Juda and against B. Leo his vicegerent on earth 187. But now your Artesmaster hath taught you a further â—etch For having these words of s. Leo he thinks he may prevail to deceiv the ignorant reader if to a point of truth he makes an addition of vntruth and so with a colour he goeth further on and affirmes that the Canonists calles him our Lord God the Pope cum inter glossa extravag Ioh. 22. Here the first vntruth is that the Canonists saie as though it were a generall rule or suppositum or an ordinarie style of the Canon lawe when as yet there was never found any adversarie of ours so bold faced that durst taxe any author but one and that but in one place 188. 2. It is but Dominum nostrum Papaâ— our Lord the Pope in many auntient copies in which God is wanting which soundes no otherwise then this our Lord the King that it is an intrudeâ— corruption of the text maie manifestly appeare by the manuscript of Zuiâ—…s the author of that gâ—eâ—â—e yet extant in the Paâ—iâ—â—â— library and maie bee seene there 189. 3. Admitting it were so in the ramâ—on lawe and in the Canonists which is false yet it would not follow in this style though in sound to 〈◊〉 insolent that wee should make him or account hiâ— our Lord God For the scripture dooth often honor men with the title of God to signifie therby onely the participation of his grace or authoritie so Psa. 8â— 6. I said you are Gods and children of the highest al where those to whom the word is reveled be called Gods as Christ himselfe doth declare Joh. 10 35. Exod. 21. 6. Judges also are called Gods The cause of both shall bee brought before the Gods Exo. 2. â— and â— thou shallt not detract from the Gods Moyses Exo. 7. â— who is called the God of Pharao 190. As for that of deposition you seeme to bee ignorant of our opinion For wee doe not hold that the Pope hath at his free libertie this power to depose but when all other meanes have been vsed and for the vniversall good of the church and when there is a hopefull success And this doctrine that the Pope hath indirect authoritie over Princes as s. Greg. Nazianz. teacheth the foule maie chasten the bodie when it is rebellious to her end so maie the spirituall power vse the
1. S. Paul was caled to his office not by S. Peter but by Iesus Christ Gal. 1. 1. 2. S. Paul received the doctrine vvhich he preached not from S. Peter but by revelation froÌ„ Iesus Christ Gal. 1. 12. 3. S. Paul laboured in preaching the gospell more then S. Peter did 1. Cor. 15. 10. 4. S. Paul went and preached vvithout so much as conferring vvith S. Peter or the rest Gal. 1. 16. 17. 5. The gospel over the vncircumcision that is the Gentils among vvhom Rome vvas cheif was committed to S. Paul Gal. 2. 7. 6. S. Paul had upon him the care of all churches 2 Cor. 11. 28. 7. S. Paul hath vvritten and opened clearly the great mysteries of Christ in his Epistles more then S. Peter or any Apostle 8. S. Pauls vvritings are by S. Peter himself reckned among the holy scriptures 2 Pet. 3. 15. 16. 9. S. Paul rather then any other Apostle vvas caled of God to preach at Rome Act. 23. 11. 10. In his voyage to Rome he vvas marvelously saved from shipwrack and very memorable accidents fel out besides in that journey Act. 27. and 28. 11. S. Paul preached the gospel and suffered persecution in Rome and stood for the truth vvhen no man there assisted him Act. 28. 30. 31. 2 Tim. 4. 16. 12. S. Paul preached at Antioch where the name Christians vvas first given Act. 11. 26. 13. S. Paul vvithstood S. Peter to his face and blamed him vvhen he did amyss Gal 2. 11. c. 14. S. Paul first casteth out the Divil of divination Act. 16. 16. 15. He striketh Elymas the forcerer vvith blindnes Act. 13. 8. 11. 16. S. Paul in visions vvas taken up into the third heaven into paradise 2. Cor. 12. 2. 4. 17. S. Paul in nothing vvas inferior to the very cheif Apostles 2 Cor. 12. 11. 18. He vvas of that tribe vvhose precious stone is the first foundation of the heavenly Ierusalem Rom. 11. 1. Rev. 21. 19. Exod. 2â— 10. 20. 21. Therefore for all those reasons S. Paul vvas head of the Catholick Roman Church Here I appele unto any unpartial reader vvhither my proofs for S. Paul be not stronger then yours for S. Peter and vvhither the Pope vvas not overseen to choose S. Peter for his patron vvhom he cannot prove by any one title of Gods vvord that ever he set foot in Rome gates to leave S. Paul vvho vvas caled of God to preach there and did so a long time as the scriptures doo confirm Yet for all this you vvil not graunt that S. Paul vvas head of the church therefore say I neyther S. Peter and as for your Pope he hath no more â—ight to shew for the same then Mahomet We have seen your proofs from scripture you add unto them Doctors And here as before you bring in your forgeries of Clemens and Dioâ—ysius c vvith other vvrested testimonies of the Fathers Who al of them if they sayd as much as you vvould have them had no authority to make an head for the church Secondly vvhatsoever they sayd for Peter it proveth nothing for your Pope He must therefore shew better evidence for his usurped prelacy or els he must stil be reputed the adversary that exalteth himself 2 Thes. 2. 4. You proceed and say that S. Peters authority must be derived to his successors lawfully elected and governing at Rome This is the mayn point vvhich I vvould fayn see proved You could prove it by expresse authority of all the fathers cited but let reason you say suffice me Behold here and let all that have eyes behold the desperatenes of your cause vvho for the mayn ground of your religion church vvhereof you so boast cannot allege any one word or title of holy scripture but leave those true and ancient infallible records and betake you to the latter forged erroneous humane testimonies traditions of men I deny that Peter left any such successor in his office as you dream of and for the Pope to chaleng it is to folow the violencie of his private spirit as you sayd of Pope Stephen Now let us hear your reasoÌ„ Christ gave the power of preaching c. you say for the good of others to the worlds end This I graunt So Christ nstituting S. Peter the head you say would have that prehemineÌ„ce derived to his lawful successors All this I deny 1. He made not Peter head much less his successors â— He appointed no such successors after Peter in his office 3. If Peter vvere to have successors the Bishop of Rome hath no more to say for it by vvarrant from Christ then all other Bishops in the vvorld vvho for preaching ministring sacraments and governing their flocks have and ever had equal power with the Bishop of Rome vvhen he was at the best Thus after your long and tedious dispute you coÌ„clude vvith a fayr begging of the question not being able to produce one line of the bible which speaketh for your Pope nor any sufficient ground of reason How soundly now you have proved your sixth part viz. That the Popes definitive sentence at least with a general council â—t is a sufficient groundwork of fayth let any indifferent reasonable man give sentence Here I did not dare you as you say to bring in the arrowes of the fathers c in an other place it vvas that I gave you leave to use their reasons if you pleased but not to press me vvith their bare names as your manner is to doo And in all your long discourse let the reader mind vvhat any one scripture or reason you have had by the help of Doctor Father Council or Pope to prove your assertion that the Popes definitive sentence is to be a ground of our faith You object and that often that unless I wil eat my word you must preferr the uniform consent of the Fathers before me I answer to your often repetitions this First I spake of moe and others then you account holy Fathers yea I included such as I doubt not but you vvould burne for hereticks Secondly I spake and agayn speak it unfeighnedly as is in my hart being privy to my own manifold ignorances and infirmities and esteming of others better then of my self Thirdly therefore I say beleeve not me but beleeve the word of God which I shew vnto you If I speak of my selfe tread it vnder your foot but if I speak the words of God in despising theÌ„ you despise the Lord sinning against your sowl And if you depend on the sentences of Fathers Councils Popes not confirmed by the scriptures you make idols of them and heap up wrath upon your head Leave therefore your disdayning of me and leave your extolling of other men for all flesh is grass and all the glory of man is as the flower of grass which withereth away but the word of the Lord endureth for ever and that is the word which the Apostles preached to the churches 1.