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
you to keep the foundation of the Apostles Prophets on which Christs church is builded then to build upon the boâ—â—s of after writers To conclude thâ—â—fore this point Christ sendeth us to serch the scriptures his Apostles doo the like the Prophets before spake also to like effect this counsel by Gods grace I shall folow 〈◊〉 these I wil exercise my self not doubting but I have chosen the better part which shall not be taken from me And unto you that â—…zelous for the traditions of your fathers I shew the counsel of the holâ— Châ—st walk not in the ordinances of your fathers transgresâ—e not the coÌ„maÌ„dements of God by your traditions and presume not above that which is written The second thing you take upon you to prove is That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the Church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith This position if you well understood it I would not strive against for the definitive sentence of that Papa or Father that is head of the church is I confesse such an indeficient rule But the Vicar of Rome is not this Pope it is Christ himself that is Father of eternitie and he is the head of his body the church and he hath forbidden us to call any man our Pope or Father upon the earth for thâ—r is but one our Father which is in heaven Mat. 23 9. But you understand it of an earthly Pope and head and would confirm it by this scripture Luk. 22 31. Simon Simon loe Satan hath desired you to winnow you as wheat c. but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not Here first I observe how you labour to confirm the Popes definitive power by the scriptures so that which before you pleaded against as an insufficient grouÌ„d now here you make a ground of grounds and so you are contrary to your self For before you taught me to beleeve this is Gods word because the Pope saith so here you will have me beleeve your Popes sentence to be a rule of faith because the scripture sayth something which you imagine makes for him Thus you would lead me as in a round and I cannot tel what you make the rock of your faith But I wil folow your argument Christ prayed for Simon that his faith upon Satans sifting mought not fayl I grant it neyther did it fayl though he fel greevously Yet this grace made not Simon Pope or Head of the church for it is a grace coÌ„mon to all the elect members of the bodie whom though Satan sifteth and they be often foyled yet rise they again by beleef in God and though their faith often fainteth yet it never faileth or is consumed And this by vertue of Christs prayer or mediation 1. Ioh. â— 1. 2. for Gods gracious gifts are without repentance and Christ giveth all his sheep eternall life and they shall never perish neyther shall any pluck them out of his hand You procede and say that this prayer was consequently for his successors If you mean successors in his office I know not who they be neyther shew you the Popes to be the men If you mean successors in his faith I grant it as before For Peter had the faith of Gods elect as true justifying faith is caled in which faith whosoever succeed or come after him as also they that then lived in like faith with him they were are and shal be by Christs mediation confirmed that their faith which is their life fayl not For example Christ chose 12. Apostles and one of them was a Divil Iscariot who was the Divil fell into syn and Christ prayed not for him so his faith fayled though he coÌ„fessed his syn and he dyed in dispeir hanging himself for he was the Son of losse or perdition and therfore was to be lost that the scripture mought be fulfilled Iohn 17. 12. Simon Cephas fell also into syn above the other ten but he was one of Christs sheep no child of perdition therfore he kept him from being lost praying that his faith mought not fayl And as for him for the rest at an other time he prayed to his father to keep them in his name and not for them alone but for those also which shall beleev in him through their word Wherfore Christ prayed not onely for SimoÌ„ but for all the Saincts though speciall need and use was for him at that time yet as Paul sayth of Abrahams justification it is not written for him onely but also for us so say I of Simons confirmation by the prayer of Christ for whatsoever is written is written for our learning RoÌ„ 15. 4. But you prosequute your argument thus that S. Peter was bidden coÌ„firm his brethren but onely S. Peter and not the church in generall hath brethren Wherupon you would have me gather that this was his special privilege and no mans ells save his successors in the headship Your assumption I withstand as a fallacie proving Peters popedome for confirming his brethren no better then as if you should reason thus Paul sayd to Barnabas let us return and visit our brethren in every citie c. but onely Paul and Barnabas not the church in general have brethreÌ„ therfore onely Paul and Barnabas are Popes of the catholik church and visiters of the same they and their successors If this be not a good reason to prove a supremacie of visitation the other is no better to prove a supremacie of Confirmation For the church in generall is a brotherhood as the Apostle Peter himself calleth it and of this brotherhood Peter was one Paul an other Iohn an other and so the rest not onely the Apostles but all beleevers Wherfore as Simon had brethren so hath every Christian and all are brethren ech to other and all brethren unto Christ. And Peter as he was a joynt elder with the other elders so was he also a joynt brother with the other brethreÌ„ or els he was none of Christs And as for confirming his brethren it is farr from proving a popedome for Paul an other Apostle confirmed his brethren and Timothee an Evangelist did the like and Iudas and Silas being Prophets did the same and all the Angels or ministers of churches are taught of Christ to doo likeweise Wherfore Simons coÌ„mission to confirm his brethren made him not Pope and consequently neyther his supposed successors But you presse the circumstances that our Saviour points out one particular man saying Simon Simon and after having spoken of al particularizeth the speech agayn saying for thee thy faith thy brethren c. I answer there was cause why our Saviour should speak to him thus because in his sifting he should shew more weaknes then the rest and a speciall fore needeth a special medicine But the fore being healed the recured person is as an other man of his
having fayled in his fidelitie is in special excited unto duty diligence al the other should be excluded Doe you not see hovv after this Paul shevveth Eph. 4. not Peter onely but Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers to be given of Christ for the building up of his church Your conclusion to be inferred hereupon if you conclude the question wil be much more unreasonable The point you undertook to prove vvas that not Gods vvord in the Bible but the catholik churches yea the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith To confirm this haeresie you produce here Christs charge to Peter Freed my sheep Behold Novv the strength of your argument If Peter vvas to feed Christs sheep then not Gods vvord in the scriptures but Peters definitive sentence and consequently the Popes is an indeficient rule of faith But Peter vvas to feed Christs sheep Iohn 21. Frgo c. The unreasonablenes of vvhich consequence if the bare rehearsal of it doo not convince may be shewed by the like thus If the Bishops of Ephesus vvere to feed the church of God then not Gods vvord in the scripture but their definitive sentences vvere indeficient rules in matters of faith But the Bishops of Ephesus vvere to feed the church of God Act. 20. 28. Ergo. If the Elders of the churches of Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia were to feed the flocks of God then not Gods word in the Bible but their definitive sentences were indeficient rules in matters of faith But the Elders of those churches were to feed the flock of God 1 Pet. 5 â— 2. Ergo. Behold what deep waters you have digged out from the Rock of Rome their spring I trow comes from the bottomlesse pitt If you say those Elders were under Peter as a head therfore they were to feed with his definitive sentence not their own First I deny that so they were under him and you shal never prove it whiles Rome gates doo stand though I grant their office was inferiour to the Apostles Secondly if you could prove it yet would it make against you for if because Peter was their head therfore they must feed with his doctrine onely then because Christ was Peters head Peter was to feed with Christs doctrine onely But Christ was Peters head acknowledged by Peter himself to be Arch pastor so taught by Christ himself Iohn 10. Therfore Christ definitive sentence onely not Peters much lesse the Popes is the indeficient rule of our faith And thus my cause is confirmed and yours overturned by your own weapon Yet you procede and say besides Christ speaks to S. Peter that he should feed his general flock though he may speak unto the other Apostles that they should feed their particular charges I would we might once have an end of words of wind You say al things but prove nothing unlesse your definitive sentence also must be taken for a law But then I am sure it is against Christs law for as he neyther used the word general to Peter nor the word particular to the other Apostles so wheÌ„ he sent them with their charge al indifferently it was unto al nations yea into al the world to preach the gospel to every creature and as the Father sent him so sent he them And where now I pray you were their particular charges But let it be as you say let the Apostles and al Christian Bishops their successors have these precincts in al nations in al the world and what place is over and beside let your Peter the Pope have there to menage his supremacie But here you bring your S. Leo to speak for S. Peter and I know he was his freind for I shewed before how he placed Peter in the fellowship of the indivisible unitie so making him a God I know also have shewed that in the same 3. anniversarie sermon which you cite he speaketh more for S. Peter then you bring here how be it though the Lion roreth he hath got no prey For the headship hath been proved to be Christs not Peters the Apostleship to be Peters with the other Apoltles And though you again and again doe barely affirm S. Peter was head of al the rest of the Apostles yet I must tel you again again that I hold not your definitive sentence nor the Popes neyther to be a right rule of faith but if you can bring the word of God for you that thrâ—ugh his grace I wil gladly receive In the end of this your velitation you leav me to impuâ—ne â— B. â—armines doctrine as it heth c. But your captayn comes not into this feild he lyes intrenched within the walls of Rome and triumphes in the Vatican It is you that have bid me battel and as you entred not these lists without an alarme so you wil not depart I trow without an io triumphe Yet to say the truth in answering you I have answered your Cardinal for your reasons be his you have taken them out of his skoncâ— Onely you have culled them out here and there in other order have taken the most pregnant arguments that he hath Which being by him and by you propounded by me now answered you are to look whither the propugning of them shallye upon him or on you against this my impugnation Or if you wil let them dye you may sound the retrait The 3. and last thing which you promised to prove was that this rule the indeficient rule of faith is onely found in the Roman Catholik church sentence and not in privat mens illuminations or motions of a priâ—â—t and unseen spirit Both parts of this your divided proposition I disallow and mainteyn a third viz that this rule is to be found in the writings Prophetical and Apostolical because as your Cardinal hath wel sayd nothing is more known nothing more certeyn then the holy scriptures which are conteyned in them and this is a most certayn and a most safe rule of beleeving Before vvhen you came to shew your proof it was that your Roman church is the true and onely catholik church of God Which though I doo deney yet if I did grant it it would not prove your assertion For it is the voice of the bridegroom not of the bride which is the ground of mens faith the catholik church is to receiv lawes and rules from her head Christ not to prescribe lawes or rules to her members There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy But because your church must first be proved true catholik before her sentence can be approved therefore I was content to look into this first branch requiring proof that your Roman church is the true then the onely catholik for I deney both What proofs you brought before how I answered them I leav to indifferent consideration and wil now again take
10. If you will not beleeve me c. Sâ—S Chrysost. homil 3 in 2 Cor. Tertul. in apologet c. 2â— Arnobius lib. 1. vseth the like 127 The seaventh motive which S. Chrysost. vseth homel 26 in Mat. D. Hier. c. â— in Mat. Lact. lib. 3. inst tut divinarum c. 23 is taken from the efficacie of our doctrine that did stopp the mouthes of the idols and hath resisted heresies of all ages see Ruff lib. 10. c. 10 et Victorem lib. 1. de persecut Vandâ—l And those that were sent of the Iewes did acknowledg this motive Joh. 7. Never any man spoke like this man 128 The 8. motive is the great constancie of our religion that hath flourished by the persecutioÌ„ of the Gentils of hereticks wheras so many great opposers hereticks have buried themselves their names in oblivion This Arg vsed Gamaliel Act. 5 If this work be not of God it wil be dissolved This argum Tertullian vseth against ScapulaÌ„ et apolog c. vltimo et Iustin. in dialog cum Tryphone S. Aug. lib. 22. de civitate dei c. 6. 129. The 9. Motive is of the great and constant martyrdome of infinit people that of all nations sects and conditions have died for our religion Just Martyr in his Apolog ad Senat. Rom. acknowledgeth that he was most moved with this motive Lact. lib. 1. Iust. c. 13. et 14. which motive must have as all the rest relation to one another For it is the cause and not the paine that makes a Martyr and so Sanguis Martyrum est semen Christianorum Tertull. apol c. vltimo 130. The 10. motive is by the prodigeous vntimely and most infortunate death of most of the opposers of our religion see MedinaÌ„ lib. de certa fide in deum this Argument Tertullian vseth against ScapulaÌ„ et D. Chrysost. oratione contra Iudaeos It were well Mr. H. Apnsworth you would teach your children the truth of these traditions 131. The 11 Motive is the testimonie given by our adversaries themselves of vs. Iosephus lib. 18. antiq gives testimonie of Christ the Sybillaes Lactantius lib. 1. c. 5. 6. et 7. Iust. in 2. Apolog brings the commendations of â— severall Emperors of Christians Plinius 2. in Tertull. in Apolog. c. 2 writ an epistle to Trajan the Emperor in commendation of Christians Protestants safe we Catholicks dying so maie be saved that the Fathers confessed Papists were vertuous holie men this motive S. Aug. his book de civitate dei saice is of great force to confirme any doctrine Socrates lib. 4. c. 27. et Theod. lib. 4. c. vltimo affirmes that barbarous nations elected Christians for governors 132. The 12. Motive is the inward motions inspirations illustrations and internall consolations that Catholicks find in their religion and spiritual exercises which S. Thomas Aquinas that well had drunk of that spirituall fountaigne acknowledgeth to be a cheife motive in 2. 29. 2. ar 6. 134. Out of all these I frame my first demonstration of the truth of our Catholick religioÌ„ against Gentiles Iewes Hereticks That doctrine is most evident eredible whose author is oâ— an meffable vvritie and singular sanctity who also was prophected before by many holy men and containes nothing coÌ„tradictorie to the light of nature or repugnant to manners but contrariwise is a doctrine of great wisdome sanctity integritie and efficacie which by the infinite propagation thereof by many myracles hath been divinely coÌ„firmed which hath remained firme and stable against all persecutions of Gentiles Jewes and Heriticks For the profession and defence of which doctrine infinite men of all sects ages coÌ„ditions have most willingly suffred exquisit torments Whose professors have been most holy illuminated men But our Remane religion is this as appeareth by a perticular induction go our religsoÌ„ is most evident credible 134 The second Demonstration that I make for the confirming of this former is thus taken out of Gods divine providence he hath of al our humane actioÌ„s especiallie touching those actions as touch the eternal felicitie or honestie of manners and about the true worship of himselfe go it is against his providence that a man directed by so many prudentiall motives especially since his faith is sufficiâ—tly proposed to all to be beleeved But God hath permitted our Catholick cause to be warranted by all these most credible motives go it is most evident that our religion is from God and most true 135. These being presupposed it is the part of a prudent man to assent vnto many motives of credibilitie especially having received a precept of faith and in generall having well pondered them he is bound to dispose himself vnto a pious affection that he may give a firme consent by the working of the Holy Ghost in particular to that doctrine and faith warraÌ„ted by so many evident motives of credibilitie 136. These motives of evident credibilitie being hic et nunc assented vnto here wee come to resolve our principal intended doubt of the resolution of our faith presupposing still that the formall motive of our faith is the first veritie or authoritie of God obscurely revealing 137. Now since to faith there concur two judgments the one evideÌ„t of the credibility of the thing to be beleeved the other an obscure but a certaine beleefe of the veritie of the thing to be beleeved so we see there is a twofold resolution viz. of the resolution of the evident and certaine judgment of credibilitie and of the second of our judgment ceretaine but obscure 138. First then I saie our evident judgment of the credibilitie of the thing being rather presupposed then presupposing an act of faith is resolved onely into these related motives of credibilitie into the foresaid humaine inducements as into the formal reason of our beleeving 139. Secondly I saie that everie one according to his capacitie is to have the for said certaine and evident judgment of credibilitie before he elicit an act of faith that prudently he maie be judged to give his asseÌ„t So the Samaritanes are said to beleeve for the word of the Samaritan woman so the Regulus is said to beleeve for the recovered health of his sonne So the Câ—nturion is said to beleeve for the signes of the passion of our Saviour And to this end our Saviour gave power to his disciples of confirming their doctrine by my racles Praedicaverunt c. They preached our Lord cooperating etc. And S. Aug. lib. 1. ad Simplic q. 2. demaunds this quis potest credere nisi aliqua vocatione et de spiritu et littera c. 34. He affirmes it thus Neque e. anima rationals c. For neither a reasonable soule can beleeve with a free will if there be no vocation or perswasion for which he should beleeve 140 Thirdly I affirme our certaine yet inevident judgment of the truth of the points of our faith to be beleeved so the assent of our
vvord spirit Your own hand writing therefore convinceth you of vntruth not me of bad conscience as you charge me I did and doo cal it a bastard phrase as being of your own or of the Popes begetting for th'Apostle Peter neyther spake nor meant so You add to his vvords and therfore are reproved of God Prov. 30. 6. you swary from your authentik Latin translation and therefore are reproved by your own canon law I proved by the scriptures Ephe. 4. 4. Rom. 12. 4. c. 1 Cor. 12. 4. 8. 9. c. that there is but one spirit which al Gods people have though in divers mesures as mans body hath but one soul or spirit to quicken it This you not being able to deny doo vvind away and except though it be the same fowl yet it worketh otherwise in the head then in the foot etc I answer it is very true You inferr then that so it belongs to the head of the church and not to every craftsman to interpret scriptures Why are ther no members in a mans body between the head and the heels that you make such a leap Is there no mean between the head and every craftsman What place then is there for your Cardinals Bishops Preists Doctors Iesuits c. they are not the head of the church yet you think them higher then the feet But if this your answer be good then though Peter were head as you erroneously think I hope the spirit wrought otherwise in him then it did in that divil incarnate Pope Iohn the 22. and in other your monstrous vvicked Popes as your own friends doo vvitnes against them Then had those beasts a private spirit vvorse then any an honest craftsman then it belonged not to them to interpret scriptures No nor to your Preists and Iesuits unless you vvill make them heads A little after touching Pope Stephen vvho repeled the decrees of his predecessor Pope Formosus you vvould have him to doo this not as the head of the church but out of the violencie of his private spirit I like vvell of your answer and think the very same of all the Popes traditions and therefore the privat spirit vvhich so oft you entwite me vvith I return into your own hands to be kept as the Popes Depositum You pretend that for all the vvickednes of some Popes God hath stil preserved the unity of faith in your church And that never any Pope by his definitive sentence did define heresie I answer if the Pope may be judge as vvith you he is I vvarrant you he vvill never condemn himself of heresie But if Gods word be judge many heresies are easy to be found in your late council of Trent and in many Popes decrees Which vvill come to be scanned in particular doctrines after these generall grounds are ended Your digression to another vvriter I omitt you may seek answer if you please of himself And your author â—o vvhom you send me for satisfaction about your Popes power of dispensations I shall read vvhen I have leysure therto Your 3. Argument you set down now upon your memorie otherweise then ever before thus That which hath still been a rule to theÌ„ that have erred cannot be a certayn rule to direct all in faith But the scripture interpreted by the private spirit as every one pretends given from God hath led many into dangerous and horrible errors go the scriptures though directed by the private spirits interpretation cannot be a rule of faith I answer your conclusion I grant though your argument be naught for the private spirit wee found whileare to be the violent spirit of the Pope or his like And scripture directed or rather perverted by such a spirit cannot in deed be a rule of faith Against your 2. Proposition I except it implieth a fallacie putting that for the cause which is not the cause The scriptures never led any into errour but vnlearned and unstable persons pervert all scriptures as the Apostle sayth unto their own destructioÌ„ the cause hereof is not the scriptures but mens corruption The Pharisees perverted the doctrines spoken by our Saviour Christ himselfe yet I hope you will not deny but his heavenly words was a certayn rule to direct all in faith So the proof of your minor faileth you Against your first proposition which you say is most certayn I except as not playn and so deceitfull That which is a rule to them that err understanding of it own nature and properly cannot be a certayn rule to direct all in faith But now to assume that the scripture is such were blasphemie Agayn That which is a rule to them that err to weet a rule by accident through their ignorance or malice abusing it cannot be a certayn rule to direct al Gods people in faith now I deny the proposition and leave you to give proof of these things in your next And whither before or now you have drie-beaten mee as you boast let the lookers on give verdict Your 4. argument you omit through oversight I suppose onely whâ—r I shewed by 1. Cor. 11. 19. Act. 15. c. that contentions were in the Apostles times and composed by the scriptures not by setting up a supremejudge or Pope Yow answer barely they prove rather theâ— must be one visible supreme judge to decide controversies Wee are thâ—n at a point Let him that readeth the scriptures and reasons which I there alleged judge whither of the two they doo rather prove Your 5. which yow call your 4. argument is that we beleeve many things which are not reveled in holy scripture c. I told yow and tell yow agayne that I doo not howsoever yow may beleeve any thing needful for my salvation which is not reveled in the Holy scriptures neyther wil I use other weapons against Arians Anabaptists or any heretiks that acknowledge the scriptures to be of God This therfore is no argument to convince me at all You insult for that I will not shewe my particular proofs against those heresies I told you this were to digress from our present controversie Propose yow arguments and I will answer you for the cause in hand els multiplie not words in vaine You now plainly answer that Gods vvord as it is extrinsecal the vvord of God and to be knovvn of us depends of tradition and the authoritie of the church This I reject as an heresie For vvhen vve read or hear the books of Moses or the Prophets vve read that vvhich is spoken to us of God Mark. 1â— 26. compared vvith Math. 22 31. that vvhich the Spirit of God speaketh to the churches Rev. 2 â— 11. novv not to beleeve or rest upon this ground but to rely upon mans record is to make the testimony or man greater extrinsecally to us then the testimonie of God contrarie to 1. Ioh. 5 9. and maketh men lyable to the curse Ier. 17. 5. You
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