THE TRYING OUT OF THE TRUTH: BEGUNN AND PROSEQWTED IN CERTAIN Letters or Passages between john Aynsworth and Henry Aynsworth; the one pleading for, the other against the present religion of the Church of Rome. The chief things here handled, are. 1. Of God's word and scriptures, whither they be a sufficient rule of our faith. 2. Of the Scriptures expounded by the Church; and of unwritten traditions. 3. Of the Church of Rome, whither it be the true Catholic Church, and her sentence to be received, as the certain truth.  
Published for the good of others by E. P. in the year 1615.   

E. P. to the Christian reader.  
CHristian reader, I having had some interest in the conveyance of the passages here following, and with the consent of both the writers, taken knowledge of the matter in controversy; was moved, and did resolve to publish it to the view of others. Considering, that the subject and question handled, is very profitable, and the truth therein, necessary to be known. And whereas the controverters are so different in judgement, and yet both of them for conscience sake suffer affliction, being separated from the Ch: of Engl: the one, to the practice of a Roman Catholic; the other to a way, thereunto most opposite; and both of them being leaders & men of note, in their so much different religions: it may move a desire to see the thing further prosecuted between them, and provoke a going forward where the stay is. I have without prejudice, but not (as I hope) without the good liking of both parties, (who each of them seemed unto me very willing, that any should read their writings,) put forth these things: hoping that some benefit may come to the readers hereby: whom I wish all of them to follow the Apostles counsel, to try the spirits whether they be of God. His grace be 
1. joh. 4.  with us all, to guide us in the truth, Amen.  
E. P.   

The occasion and beginning of the passages following.  
MR. john Aynsworth whiles he was prisoner in London, had conference with some other prisoners that differed in religion from him; about the right way of man's justification before God &c: which things he after answered in writing also, with this challenge at the end:  
Let who will answer it; I could wish for name sake Mr Henry Aynsworth might see it. If any answer it, let him set to his name, as I set down mine, to stand to all, and then I will deal with him.  
john Aynsworth.  
This writing was, as he wished, sent to the party by him nominated: who upon the receipt thereof, wrote as followeth.  
To Mr john Aynsworth, prisoner in London, Mercy from God our Father, and the Lord jesus Christ our hope.  
MR. Aynsworth, I received a writing under your hand and name, touching some controversy in religion: you defending the faith of the church of Rome that now is, against such as have forsaken her for departing from the ancient faith of the church that was in Rome when Paul wrote thereunto: among whom we are, the witnesses of jesus Christ. You provoke in the end, who will to answer your writing, but wish for names sake myself mought see it, promising, if any answer it, affixing his name, you then will deal with him. Though I have at this time other opposites to answer, and affairs important lying upon me, yet would I not altogether let pass this occasion offered by yourself, whom for nation and name, (& I know not whither also for nearer alliance,) I regard as is meet, grieving for your estate, who are in captivity not so much in body as in soul: from which if I could procure your release I should be glad. The way to do you good, or any that is in like error, I take to be this; that we begin at the root and ground work of our religions, in which if we can accord, there wil●e more hope of other things. As first, how our differences shallbe tried and composed; whether by the verdict of God, or of man? If of God, as I hold; then where this is to be found? wh●ther in the scriptures of the old and new testament, or in the writings and mouths of other men? If in holy scriptures, (which is my faith:) then cometh to be considered, what they are, and how to be used. Myself do embrace the writings of all the Prophets now extant, from Moses to Mal●chie; who written all in Hebrew, the Chaldee in Ezra and Daniel counted therewith: & of all the Apostles and Evangelists, which written in Greek, as is now generally received. By all and every of these I offer my faith to be tried, and to make t●yall of other faith offered. The use of these, to be with all care, and reverence, sobriety, sanctity, and wisdom ministered by the holy Ghost. And here may be questioned, in whom the faith of a Christian should rest, whither on the Church's sentence, without doubt or contradiction: or whither he should also have assurance in his own heart, by God's word and spirit. If the Church be our stay; then are we to inquire, where and which it is: and so to consider the doctrines that it teacheth. Among which this is one principal, (which you treat of in your writing,) how our sins shallbe forgiven, and we justified in the sight of God. Thus may we proceed in order: & if you please to begin with these grounds, I am willing (as my leisure shall serve me) not only to hear what you can say for your religion, but also to inform you where I see you ere. If you like not thus to deal, but will insist on the question in hand, I shall not be unwilling to defend my Saviour's sufferings, as all-sufficient for my salvation, and of all that trust in him. That which shallbe prosecuted between us, (if ought be,) I desire may be done in love and meekness, in simplicity and sincerity, with brevity and perspicuity: all which I shall labour for, through the grace of God, and exhort you to do the like. otherwise from fruitless quarrels I shall furcease, & follow more comfortable meditations. Thus wish I your farewell in soul and body. From Amsterdam this 4. of September, 1609.  
Your friend to use in all Christian duty Henry Ainsworth.  
Unto this letter, Mr john Aynsworth returned this answer.  
I Accept with all willingness (Mr Aynsworth) of your ready offer, viz. that we should draw our disputations, and controversies to a main and principal point, and foundation of our religion. For as in the spiritual building faith is a foundation and 
spirituals  main pillar, so also in the mysteries and principals of our faith, there 
aedificij fudament●.  be some that as it were transcend through the whole body of controversies, and serve therein as Maister-springes, by whose motion and proof all things rest sufficiently satisfied, and proved to any indifferent judgement. Amongst others, this question by you propounded hath no mean place. For if I square out all the belief I maintain only by approved, and unfallible rule; my affertions must needs be as invincible as my rule is uncorrigible. Now unto the point to be decided I briefly answer. That a man may elici●t a supernatural act of faith many things are required; first there must be motiva evidentis credibilitatis, prudential motives of evident credibility, viz. that all 
Ps. 〈◊〉. testimonia 〈◊〉 a credibilia facta sunt 〈◊〉.  nations, and men of principal gifts, zeal and sanctity and ●●dowments▪ have believed so, that it hath stood inviolable against so many and infinite heresies and persecutions, that it is so ancient, so visible, so constant, and uniform in all essential points of doctrine: That it hath been sealed and confirmed with the blood of so many glorious Martyrs etc.  
Secondly, There must be Ecclesia proponens, the Church propounding 
II.  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, ●r God's veracity, 
III.  that must be ratio formalis, the formal reason why we do believe.  
Fourthly, There must be a supernatural judgement dictating that 
FOUR  now it is good, at least generally to believe.  
Fiftly there must be a supernatural concourse of God's holy illumination, 
V.  and a concourse of his infused habit of faith to determinate the indifferent power of our understanding to believe, or not to believe. Out of the progress of which act, an answer to your question may easily be deduced. For when you ask whither our faith shallbe tried, by the verdict of God, or of man, I answer you directly enough though with a ●●stinction, viz. That if you understand by what formal motive we shall be tried in our belief, I answer by the verdict of Gods written, and unwritten word: But if you ask who shall determine our faith after a propounding manner, so we say the Church concurreth after the manner of an applying condition, teaching what is Canonical, and that which is not authentic. And therefore I will prove, first, That only the bare text of the 
I.  scripture is not a sufficient rule of our faith.  
2. I will prove that the scriptures expounded by the 
II.  Catholic Church, is a true and indeficient rule of our faith.  
3. That this rule is only found in the Roman Catholic 
III.  church sentence, and not in private men's illuminations, and motions of a private and unseen spirit.  
First then to prove that the bare scripture is not a sufficient rule of our belief, and that many mysteries, and points are to be believed, that are not expressly taught, or evidently deduced out of the holy scriptures; I frame this Argument Nothing is to be believed that is not taught, or gathered out of the written word; but that the Bible is Canonical, is neither directly taught, nor by evident consequence deduced out of the same: therefore it is not to be believed that the Bible is Canonical scripture. The Major is the common assertion of protestants, but especially I take it a chief ground and principle of your sect, vide Calvi. de vera Ecclesia reformata pag. 473. 
Calvin.  and the Apology of the Church of England pag 58. The Minor is 
The Apol.  approved by Hooker a principal protestant, in his treatise of Ecclesiast. laws lib. 1. pag. 84. lib. 2. S. 4. pag. 100 102: who there writeth thus. 
Hooker.  Of things necessary, the very chiefest thing is to know what books we are bound to believe holy: which thing is confessed as a thing impossible for the scriptures to teach. And afterwards 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, neither could we come to any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way. So that we see either that he holds scripture is not to be believed and authentic, or else he requireth the authority of something besides scripture to make it authentical. The force of this 
Hooker.  Argument did drive Hooker lib. 3. paragraph the 8. pag. 1●6. Zanchius in 
Zanchius.  his confess. ●. ●. Brentius in prologo Kemnitij in examine Conc. Trident. 
Brentius.  & Doct. Whitak: contra Stapletonum lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 298, 30● 
Whitak:  to fly unto the authority of traditions to prove scripture to be scripture. Which if once they grant, that traditions are sufficient to prove and try the groundwork of our belief, viz. scripture to be scripture; why can they not ground other po●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 ignorant, cannot be a certain rule of faith: But the scriptures are thus: My Anteced: Luther in his preface to the Psalms acknowledgeth. 
M. Luther.  Tertull. in lib. De praescripti: saith, Nec periclitor dicere ipsas quoque 
Tertull.  scripturas esse et voluntate dei dispositas, ut haereticis materias subministrarunt, cum legam opportet haereses esse quae sine scripturis esse non possunt. Where he confesseth that misinterpreting of scripture set the door open to heresies. S. Peter also sayeth that in S. Paul's Epistles 
2. Pet. 3.  there be many things hard to be understood, which the unlearned, and unstable deprave as all the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition. And the difficulty thereof made S. Augustin, though a Doctor of incomparable wit and learning in his 12. conf. c. 14. break out in the height of admiration, and say; oh wonderful profoundness 
D. Aug. vide Vincent. Lyran●n●. lib. 1. ●●propha●as haer●s●s. D H●●r. in cap. 5. ad Galatas. Acts 8. De●t 17. ● john ●ltimo. Act. 15. 2. Pet 1. D. Aug. l. 1. de doctr. Christi. c. 21. et lib 1 c. 10. ●●l. 12. c. 18. etc. 12.  of thy words, etc. 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 eunuch of the Queen of A●thiopia was daily conversant in the scriptures, yet he confesseth that he could not understand them without a master.  
The second part of my Antecedent viz. that the scripture hath many senses literal; many senses spiritual; of whose manifold, deep and mystical sense, the ignorant reader cannot be possessed. And therefore since in the old law when any difficulty happened, the Priest was to decide it; and therefore with a far greater interest is the Priest of the new law that hath that spirit of interpretation redoubled, and ratification of his doctrine assigned and confirmed by Christ Jesus himself. 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 decide the controversies about the cessation of the ceremonies of the old law, not to repair unto their private spirits interpretation, but to a counsel gathered in Jerusalem, where S. Peter was head: where all was concluded with Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis, It seems good unto the holy ghost and unto us. And therefore let S. Peter himself conclude. That no prophetic of scripture, that is no interpretation (as the holy fathers interpret) is made by a private Spirit interpretation.  
Thirdly I argue, and by my argument I break the force of a pretended answer thus: Not only scriptures by themselves are not sufficient to prove what is Canonical and what is not, but also that scriptures helped by private men's interpretation are not sufficient to prove the same. For they do not only allow of private learned men's interpretation, but the poorest handicrafts man, or the sillpest housewife that is, they doc allow to interpret the hardest places of scripture, to shoulder the uniform consent of all the fathers, Doctors, and schoolmen, with some fond toys of their own brain, and invention; yea to give their gloss of those places of S. Paul where he speaks of justification, and predestination; whereas they should ●●y Oh altit ido sapientiae et scientiae Dei: quam incomprehensibilia sunt judicia ejus ● When as they should rather rely on the ancient Father's exposition. S. Hierome in his old years went as far as Al●randria to hear Didimus. S. Hier. ad Paul: Epist: 103. c. 5. 67. used such hard discipline, retirement into the desert, abstinence, for▪ obtaining the true interpretation of the holy scripture. How should we believe each private handicrafts mans censure, and his silly interpretation against the uniform consent of the holy Fathers; against the stream of the learned of all ages; But admit they should have i● war●ly that speaking spirit to satisfy themselves, how should a man be persuaded they it to be a lantern unto others steps▪ Nay how will they prove against their adversaries, that they also have not that motion of the spirit? and though we should grant they be illuminated in the truth of one●●ysterie, how shall we know with like certainty all other different mysteries. But you will answer out of the 1. Cor. 2. Spiritualis 
〈◊〉 Cor. 2.  autem homo judicat omnia, ipse autem a neminejudicatur: a spiritual man judgeth all things and he is judged of none. To which I answer, admit that a spiritual man knoweth something, yet it doth not follow that his supernatural instructs extendeth itself to all things, but only to the knowledge of those for the obtaining of which that illumination was inspired. For Deliseus that had a redoubled spirit of Elias saith, Domi●●▪ celavit hoc a me et non indicavit mihi: Our Lord did hide this from me, and did not show it: why then may not these simple souls rather fear that their private spirits defect in the 
4. R●g. 4.  declaration of some mysteries, rather than the redoubled Prophet confess ●●s ignorance in some things. Yet let us grant that some few men should fully comprehend and penetrate the mysteries of our belief, yet for a twofold reason we den● to give unto them a definitive sentence and censure of matters of faith. First in that we are not so certified who these particular men be that have these especial illuminations and illustrations, and therefore we are to prefer the definitive assertion of the Pope's holiness and his counsel, before uncertainty of men's inventions.  
2. Since that the effects of this particular illumination, and assistance of the Holy Ghost, is not manifested and warranted by any extraordinary works or miracles or the like in the: it were to make a desperate tender of God's truth, to point this or that man whole vinp●ore of any controversy, in that many other men in the pretence of some few men's illuminations, might challenge unto themselves the like prerogatives of interpretation.  
Fourthly I argue, that which by the ●ights and lanterns of your 〈◊〉 have been wronged in the highest degree to bolster up heresies, cannot be a true and indeficient rule of faith. For what more frequent with heretics, then at their finger's ends to ●ite places of scripture to back their heresies: as the Arians, Pelagians, Lutherans, and Sacramentaries. The Lutherans and Calvinists both disagreeing in a main point of the real presence, the one holding Christ's precious havy and blood to be really and corporal in the Sacrament, though with a certain companation; and the other holding Christ to be present with a signification only: and yet both cite scripture, both of them yet ●●●ing scripture for scripture. John Knell of Kent led with this 
Fox Acts p. 398.  private spirit, denied Christ to have tooken flesh of our B. Lady. William Cowbridge says, Bishops have no more authority than Priests pag. ●70▪ and yet by and by led● up the self same spirit said, that Christ's name was a filthy name. Alanus Copus. Dialog. 6, c. 17. John Mesel denied the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father, pag. 1151. Frith the excellent Martyr of John For, pag. 942 943 944▪ affirmeth the real presence to be no Article of belief, affirmative or negative. John of Teurbury, that the jews of good zeal did put Christ to death: pag. 9●5.  
Fiftly and lastly jargue, many mysteries of our faith are believed 
V.  that are not 〈◊〉 declared in the word of God, nor so infallibly (prescinding from all traditions of the catholic church) deduced thence, so that they are sufficient to make one believe that wit● so firm an act, as our faith requireth: therefore that which makes those mysteries worthy of constant belief is a rule of faith, as well as the written word, whither they be traditions Divine or Apostolical. My antecedent may castly without all just contradiction be proved, in that till Moses, the virtuous steps, and perfect acts of Noah, Abraham, Melchisedech was guided without the help of any written word, by the hand of tradition, derived from mouth to mouth from man to man: yea after the witten word it appears by Erod. 14. Narrabis 
Exod. 14.  filio tuo in illa die dicens hoc est quod fecit Dominus, etc. Deut. 32. Interroga patrem tuum et annuntiabit tibi, majores et dicent tibi. job. 8. Interroga generationem pristinam, et diligenter investiga memoriam patrum. And not only they of the old law, but also they of the new, even after the coming of our Saviour, were without a written word; the Apostles and disciples being busied in preaching and instructing viva voce. Besides, many things we believe though we have not the warrant of a written word for it: viz. that there was a remedy for women children, as well as for men to purge them of original sin; and something to be used to men children if they were ready to ●y before the 8. day, which was the prefixed time of circumcision: and that such a parcel of writing was scripture, and such not. Moreover we believe constantly against the condemned heresy of Delvidius; yea and against (as it were) the seeming letter of the scripture where it is said that Joseph knew not our blessed Lady till she brought forth her first son; Now every one knows the phrase of the Hebrew word 
2. Mat.  know, as Abraham knew Sara, and yet we f●●●nly believe according to the prescript of the church, that she was a perpetual Oirgin ante partum, in partu, et post partum Besides the equality of three persons, and their processions, to Nestorius will not easily be proved, or to an Arian if you stand only to a written word, for he will cite scripture for himself, Pater major est me; and if you say that is to be understood 
D. Hyllar▪ in l. contra Constant. introducit Aria: sic loquentem. No● verba quae ●●●●pta non ●unt.  only 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 shall bring, he will answer it with an other to his own purpose; The like will the Annaba●tist do about the baptisting of infants: How will you without tradition prove the procession of the holy Ghost from God the Father, and the Son, as from one only fountain? How will they justify the not keeping of the Sunday on Saturday with the Jews, the receiving of the sacraments fasting, the eating of blood and strangled meat prohibited in the Acts 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 writ word found plainly to licence it. Therefore S. Paul seeing how necessary the use of traditions were in God's church, so often 
●. Thess. 2.  commendeth it unto us. Therefore brethren stand, and holdthe traditions 
●6. ●. Tim.  which you have learned whether it be by word or by our 〈◊〉: 
2. Tim▪ 1.  Th'●fficacy ' and force of which is so necessary by experience, and so conve 
1 Cor. 11.  n●●t by the judgement of common sense, that I wonder how men should deny 
●. Thes. 3.  the necessary use thereof: For I ask if the Apostles were alive and should by word of mouth tell us the contents of many things contained in the scripture, without all doubt with all readiness we should believe them; why then will they not believe them that lived in the Apostles days, and such holy Fathers as flourished shortly after. Dy●●isnis Areopagita affirmeth, the Liturgy of the Mass for the dead to be an Apostolical tradition in fine eccles. Hier. c. 7. part 3. Tertull. de corona militis. S. Aug. De cura pro mortuis c. 1. D Chrus. homil. 3. in epist. ad Philipp. in Morali. D. Damascen. sermone de defunctis: initio: Also the ●rcede is affirms to be an Apostolical 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 w●re of this account we may gather out of the ancient Fathers of the Church. We may easily gather by the irreverend speeches which Doctor Whitaker useth against S. Chrysostom: for whereas he in the 2 of the Thess. 4▪ grants that traditions are as w●ll to be believed as scripture, he saith his speech was irreverend and unworthy of a Father. And whereas Euseb. lib 1. De demonstrat. Euangel: c. 8. saith the Apostles did publish and propagate the faith of Christ partly by scriptures, and partly by tradi●i●●s; he briefly rejects one of the famousest recorders of antiquity, saying his authority is not to be received. Raynolds also in his conclusions a●●ered to his conference, 1. conclus. pag. 689. Cartwr. ●. 8. in his defence pag. 103. affirms that the fathers did still allow of unwritten traditions. Wherefore I will briefly conclude this point showing that a man ruled by his private spirits direction can have no faith. For since they believe scriptures only to be scriptures, in that 〈◊〉 are delivered up by the Church, why should not they then believe any thing that the Church with a general consent propoundeth as ● 〈◊〉 of our belief. For if I believe the relation of my friend because my friend tells me, I must believe all that my friend relates with the like firm assertion and with the like reason▪ or else I do not believe my friend, but my own affection, that is thereunto inclined to believe the one, and not believe the other. No more doth no protestant or any other sect believe with a supernatural act of faith for then would ●e believe all that the scripture propoundeth to be believed, aswell as believe the scripture by reason it is of her propounded, else they believe only their private spirits, dictament, and fancy's; 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 briefly is, that the Pope's definitive 
II.  sentence as he is head of the church, is an indeficienr rule in matters of faith. The which is proved out of Luc. 22. Simon ecce Sathan expetivit vos ut cribraret sicut triticum, ego autem rogavi pro te ut ●ides tua non deficiat, et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuo▪ Where our Saviour that is the fountain of all grace and goodness saith, that he hath prayed for S Peter and so consequently for his successors since Christ speaketh of the confirmation of the Church against hell gates, not only for a time but for ever; promising that S Peter and their faith should not fail, commanding both him and them, and therefore bidding them confirm their brethren. And that this prayer was powered forth for S. Peter and his successors, appeareth ●vid●tly. First i● that our Saviour points forth one particular man saying, Simon, Simon, particularizing the speech with a pronoun of the second person saying, for thee, thy faith, and thy brethren. 2. Though our Saviour did begin to speak in the plural number, Satan expetivit ut cribraret vos, Satan desired to sift you, immediately changeth the manner of speech, I have prayed for thee, and not for ye. 3. Our Saviour prayeth for him to whom he bids & thou being converted confirm thy brethren, but only S. Peter and not the Church in general hath brethren: Besides S. Math 16. He saith, he builds his church upon S. Peter. Tues P●trus et super hanc Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam, and thereupon he changed his name, of Simon, he makes him Peter and Petra, and Cephas which name in the Spria●k tongue signifies a rock, thereby to prevent all frivolous answers to a point so clearly declared: As appeareth first, in that first he designs 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 han● Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam; then by the authority and pre-eminence given him, showed by the delivery of the keeps. All which the ancient Fathers do affirm with an uniform consent, as Tertull: lib. d● prescript Orig. homil: 5. in Exod. Sanctus Cypr: de unitate Ecclesiae S. Hill: Canon: 16. in Mat. S. Ambros. sermo. 47. 68 lib. 6. in cap: 9 Luc. D. Hier. lib: 1. in lovinis: 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 upon a rock▪ Besides this our Saviour in S. John 21. giveth S. Peter the office of an universal Pastor, saying, pasce ov●s meas, feed my flock, which sounds as much as have care of my sold. But in S. John the 10. it is said that there is but one flock and one shepherd, and therefore since he bids him thrice feed his flock, he honours him thrice with the style of an universal pastor: And therefore all the fathers jointly interpret this place of an especial charge and dominion assigned unto S. Peter, investing him thereby in the supreme seat and government of his church, and by him he is installed that had all power given him in heaven above and in earth beneath.  
Now lastly and briefly to show that our Roman Church is the 
III.  true and only Catholic Church of God, that it is that holy city, Apocal. 21. v. 20. that fruitful vine, Psa. 79. v. 9 that high mountain, that direct path, Is● 35. vers. 8. that only Dove, Cant: 6. v. 8. that kingdom of heaven, Mat. 13. v. 24. that only spouse, Cant. 4. v. 8. that mystical body of Christ Jesus, Ephes. 5. v. 23. 1 Cor. 12: v: 12. that foundation and rock of the truth, 1 Tim. 3. v. 15 that holy multitude to whom such special directions of the Holy Ghost is promised, joh. 14. 26. that Church against which hell gates shall not prevail, Mat 16. v. 18. the which Church was prefigured by the Arlie of Noah, out of which none were saved from the all drowning deluge; that is that tabernacle posuit tabernaculum suum in sole, a tabernacle 
Psal. 18.  placed in the sun conspicuous of all to be seen; It is that city that cannot be hid. S. Math. 8. All which properties belong only unto our Roman Catholic Church. First our church is Catholic. For in my memory first we only are catholics, in so much that the name Catholic was hateful to a Puritan or a Protestant. And therefore Beza in his preface novi testamenti 1565. calls the name Catholic a vain word. D. Humphrey in vita juelli pag. 113. calls it a vain term: Sutliff in his challenge, a fruitless name; not unlike Gaudentius the heretic who termed the word catholic a human fiction. Vt D. Aug: contra Gaudentium, lib: 2 c. 25 though it be against the article of our belief, whereas S. Hier: Apol. 1. adversus Rufman: saith, if we agree with the Bishop of Rome go. Catholici sumus ● where S. Hier: makes an unfallible note of a catholic man to agree with the sea of Rome. 2. Our Church is an ancient church, and God is more ancient than the Devil, truth then falsehood, the good seed them the bad cockle; Christ's seamless coat than his rend pieces, that is Christ's Church concording, than the division into schisms: And if you grant that once our Church was the true Church, but since it hath swerved from her ancient purity, and incorruption; show I pray you which Pope first gave place to the defects, by what doctrine first, in what age of our Lord, on what motive and occasion, who openly repugned it, how that defect increased: But all these points we can prove on your religions and sects. We can show that there was neither Wicliff, Nuss, Zuther, Calvin of your religion; Zuther and Calvin seem first to have broached it, though with in this hundred years, we can trace them forth the years, motives, places, increase of their religion, as you may read in histories. We are not ignorant of the motives that made King Henry the 8. first oppose himself to the Roman church, though notwithstanding in his ●ir articles he held and ratified seven sacraments of the Church, and conformed himself to all points of the Roman Catholic church only excepting the point of supremacy: We can show so that lawful in his days and sworn to, which of some was held blasyliemy in the latter end of King Edward the 6: days; That also which was allowed of in his days in his communion book was defied in Queen Elizabeth's days; And that in her days that is rejected in K. James. And that in his Majesty's days now, whose Highness offers his religion to be tried by the united consent of the Fathers, and the 4. or 5. general councils, whose trial both his Bishops and you we are assured dare not stand to: That which the Protestants now held to be a true lantern and touchstone of the truth, you repute o●●iy as a stumbling block and a stinking snuff●.  
We can show that interrupted duration of the Roman catholic church according to that in Daniel the 9 Regnum, quoth in aeternum non dissipabitur; and 5. of the Arts, si ex hominibus consilium hoc, aut opus, dissolvetur, si vero ex D●o non potest dissolvi. We can show the prophe●y of the psalmist fulfilled, Dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam, et possession●m tuam t●minos terrae, Psal 2. Et dominabitur a mariusque ad mare. We can show multitudes of people converted to our religion in the East and west Indies, in japonia and China, by men of our religion, and sent by an Apostolical mission. We can show how that S. Peter about the 63 year of Christ came hither into England. 
Si● Metaph de Petro et pa●lo apud Lippo: Beatus Beda l. 1. c. 4.  Camden. in sua descriptione Br●tanniae pag. 52. et Nicephorus ut pse refert. We read how Pope Eleutherius sent hither anno 156. S Fugatium, et Damianum who baptised King Lucius: and lastly, S. Augustin and his companions Monks were sent into England and wrought the conversion thereof; and that S. Gregory whom D. Humfrey so far extolleth p. 2. ●e●uitis. rat. 5. pag. 624. Gregorius nomine quidem magnus, revera magnus, vir magnus et multis divinae gratiae dotibus exornatus, was with his followers of our religion, shall moninifestly be proved by D. Humfreys own assertion p. 2. ratione 5. p. 626. In ecclesiam vero quid induxerunt Gregorius, et Augustinus, nisi onus caeremoniarum, Missarum solennia, et Purgatorium; so that we see they held those opinions of Mass and Purgatory that of Protestant's is so extremely condemned. Now if we should urge you to show the succession of your interpreters and teachers from S. Peter, you will be mute, but we can show who succeeded each Pope, how long he lived, what doctrines he established. Lastly we can ●now all sanctity, unity and conformity of doctrine: Out of all which notes we can gather our church to be unam, Sanctam, et Apostolicam. But you can prove no one of these notes in your church. And when you shallbe demanded at the tribunal of Almighty God why you hold this faith you now profess: you can only answer, the holy and your private spirit told you it was so, though against all antiguitie of ●yme, just interpretation of scripture, consent of Father's Greek and Latin. But when we shall be demanded why we believe in the Roman catholic church; we shall answer by reason Christ himself teacheth us so, He that heareth you heareth me, and he that contemneth you cont●net● me; the church propoundeth unto v● to be believed so: the church, counsels, holy fathers, Doctors, fo●ders of all orders teacheth us so, in that the death of so many thousand Martyrs confirms it so, so many thousand miracles wrought in the confirmation of it, witnesseth it so. So that we may justly and confidently say with Richard● be sanet● Victore lib. 1. de orientate. Nam cum omni fiducia ideò dicere poterimus; Domine si error est a teipso decepti sumus. Nam ista tantis signis et prodigijs confirmata sunt, et talibus quae non nisi per ●e fieri possunt. Ponder and weigh well (Mr. Ainsworth) these few lines I send you, for I wish from the bottom of my heart your souls good, and that your eyes were opened to see the error wherein you have lived; and the more earnestly I wish it unto you for country, name sake and alliance; and that those good talents of natural understanding and learning God hath endowed you withal, should not serve as heapers up of your greater condemnation, if you should die out of the Roman catholic church which God of his infir●te mercy forbid. To whom I shall pray that he will of his free infusion of his holy grace, enlighten your understanding to see the truth, and incline your will with all fervour and zeal to embrace it. From Justice hall in Newgate the 22. of September stilo veteri. 1609.  
Your friend most desirous to give you satisfaction, to work your conversion john Aynsworth.  
The answer to the former writing.  
To Mr john Aynsworth, in Justice hall in Newgate; Grace and understanding from God our Father, and Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour.  
I Perceive by your second writing, Mr Ainsworth, your ready inclination, to controvert the differences between you and us, about the grounds of our religions; whereto (as in my first I signified,) I also am willing, for your or others good, to condescend, and prosecute as leisure serves me. God guide me in this my enterprise: and bless my labours unto you.  
The first thing which both of us were to agree upon, that we wrestled not in vain, was, how our differences shall be tried and composed, whether by the verdict of God, (as I hold) or of man? Hereunto. (after you have set down certain general things required that a man may elicit a supernatural act of faith; which hereafter if need be may be seanned;) you return me this word: I answer you directly enough though with a distinction, viz. that if you understand by what formal motive we shallbe tried in our belief, I answer, by the verdict of Gods written and unwritten word: but if you as● who shall determine our faith, after a propounding manner, so we say the Church concurreth after the manner of an applying condition, teaching what is canonical, and that which is not authentic.  
This answer which you think direct enough, seemeth unto me very intricate and full of fear. I had thought never to have me●t with a man professing the religion of God, that would either deny the differences of religion to be tried & composed by the verdict of God; or that would doubt to answer such a demand, without a distinction, when to a simple heart there is no doubleness or ambiguity. Again you distinguish with such terms, as do rather dim the light then clear the same: for these words, formal motive; to determine after a propounding manner; to toucurr after the manner of an applying condition, etc. are more ambiguous ●hen the thing itself propounded and distinguished. So, were I disposed to follow this game, we should h●re even at first, fall into contention and strife of words, which the holy Ghost hath 
* Me Logomachem. 2 Tim. 2. 1●  forbidden with earnest protestation. From this course I signified before, that I would be far: and will therefore plainly confirm that I hold, wishing you to weigh it in equity.  
That God only is to be the umpire and arbiter of all questions and controversies about religion, is manifested thus. 1. Because himself commandeth us his people, to 
† Deut. 5, 32  take heed that we do as the Lord our God hath commanded us, not turning aside to the right hand or to the left; not 
‡ Deut 12. 32.  putting any thing thereto, nor taking aught therefrom.  
2. Because the corruption of man is so great, as naturally 
Rom. 3, 10 11.- 19 1 Cor. 2, 14.  he understandeth not the things of God, neither can he know them; (which lamentable experience daily doth confirm;) man's wisdom is 
* 1. Cor. 1. 20.  foolishness and 
† Rom. 8. 7.  enmity against God. Whereupon all 
‡ Col. 2. 22. 23. Mat 15. ●  voluntary religion, and human precepts in divine worship, are condemned as vain and fruitless.  
3 Because, men being 
Eph. 2. 1. 5  dead in trespasses and sins, are quickened only of God, and do live 
* Gal. 3. 11. Eb●. 11. 6.  by faith, without which we cannot please God: and faith is by 
† Rom. 10, 17.  hearing, & hearing by the word of God. Wherefore without God's word, we cannot in faith assure ourselves of any point of doctrine, neither can our questions of religion, ●oundly without it be determined.  
4. Because, the Priests and Prophets of God, were bound 
‡ Eze. 3, 17.  to hear the word from God's mouth, and give the people warning from him; & not for to 
Eze. 13. 2. ●.  prophesy out of their own heart, or ●o●ow their own spirit Also in cases of controversy to teach them 
Deu. 17. 11. Eze. 44. 〈◊〉.  according to the law, and judge according to the judgements of God. Wherefore the verdict of God, is the only true trial and touchilone of religion, all other, are balances of deceit. The 
† Psal. 62, 9 secundum Hebr.  sons of base-m●n are vanity, the sons of noble men are falsity: in the balances they are together leighter than vanity itself. But the Lord 
‡ Prov. 2, 6.  giveth wisdom, out of his mouth cometh knowledge & understanding; 
●ā. 1. 17.  every good giving, and every perfect gift is from above, and cometh down from the father of lights. Had I to deal with an Atheist or Paynim, I would use other grounds: but writing to you a professor of Christ, it is enough to lay down such principles, as all of Christian religion will confess.  
The second thing we were to accord of, was, where this verdict of God is to be found, whether in the scriptures of the old and new testament, (which is my faith) or in the writings and mouths of other men? To this I have not your direct answer as I expected; yet you manifest your mind, in that you take upon you to prove, That only the bare text of the scripture, is not a sufficient rule of our faith. I will first briefly confirm, that which I set down: and then I will answer your arguments.  
In many parts and in many sorts (
* Hebr 1. 1.  saith the holy Ghost) God having spoken of old time to the Fathers by the Prophets; hath in these last days spoken to us by the Son: which Son having 
† joh. 5, 39  witness of the former prophet's writings, chose also special men to be 
‡ Act 10. 40. 41. 42. & 5. 32.  witnesses of his doctrines and actions unto the world, both by word and writing. Who have testified unto us, that whatsoever God promised to the fathers, he hath fulfilled unto us by 
2. Cor. 1. 20.  the Son; and have opened 
* Rom. 16, 25, 26.  by the prophetical scriptures, the secret and mystery of the Gospel: so as none need to say in his heart, 
† Rom. 10, 6. 7, 8.  who shall go up into heaven, or who shall go down into the deep; for the word is near us, in our mouth and in our heart, even the word of faith which they preached. And by them we learn that all 
‡ 2 Tim. 3. 16, 17.  scripture is the opneustos, inspired of God, & profitable for doctrine, for reprehension, for correction, for instruction which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be (artios and exe●tismenos,) perfect and perfectly fitted unto every good work. These also, after vocal preaching, did write their gospel, that such as read, mought believe, and 
joh. 20, 31  in believing might have life through Christ's name, and that 
* 1 joh. 1, 4.  their joy might be full. Wherefore as we are referred to the scriptures for assurance of our faith: so also are we willed not 
† 1 Cor. 4, 6. phronein.  to presume, (or be wise) above that which is written. This being the authority and authentia of the scriptures, as we are taught of God: let us now weigh your reasons alleged to disable them.  
Your first argument is:  
Nothing is to be believed, that is not taught or gathered out of the written 
1. Argum.  word. But that the Bible is canonical, is not directly taught, nor by evident consequence deduced out of the same. Therefore it is not to be believed, that the Bible is canonical scripture. The Major as you say is the common assertion of Protestants; citing Calvin, and the Apology of the Church of England. The Minor you say is approved by Hooker a principal Protestant.  
I answer; the pillars of your propositions being earth and ashes; the 
Answer.  whole frame and conclusion of your argument, lieth in the dust. I told you before we entered into this field, that it is God's word, not man's, that I would try and be tried by: Wherefore you bet the air in vain, if by any man's authority, you think to supplant my faith. Much less will I approve what every Protestant hath written. So leaving others, I return unto yourself. Your first proposition is too general, I grant, many things may be believed, though they be not gathered out of the written word: but I hold not any thing needful to be believed for salvation with God; but that which is taught by his written word. Which persuasions ground upon these and other like scriptures, joh. 20. 30. 31. 2. Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17. Eccles. 12, 11, 12.  
Your second proposition I deny. Your reason, learned from M. Hooker 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is▪ F●● if any book did give testimony of all the rest, yet the scripture that gives credit to all the 〈…〉 scripture to be credited, neither could we come to any pa●se whereon to rest, or assurance this way. I answer; All scripture (such as I rely upon) is theopneustos, inspired of God, and therefore authentik, and to be a canon and rule of our faith and actions. To discern what scripture is inspired of God, none is able but by the spirit of God. For the Apostle saith, What man knoweth the things of man, save the spirit of a man which is in him; even so the things of God knoweth no man, but the spirit of God; 1. Cor. 2▪ 11. Of this spirit God poureth out upon all his children some measure; without this spirit, none 
* 1. Cor. 12, 3.  can say that jesus is the Lord; though men should see all his mighty miracles, and hear all his gracious words, yet 
† joh. 12, 37 38. 39, 40. Act 16, 14.  could they not be persuaded, unless God opened their hearts. Therefore said our Saviour to Simon bar jonas, 
“ Mat. 16, 17.  flesh and blood hath not reveled this unto thee, (that I am the Christ the son of the living God,) but my father which is in heaven. And as of him, so of all, he saith, 
‡ joh. ●, 44.  No man can come unto me except the father which hath sent me draw him. Whither the word therefore be spoken or written, it cannot be believed to be of God, but by the spirit of God, which therefore is called the 
2. Cor. 4, 13.  spirit of belief or of faith; & which spirit is joined together with the word, in the Saints (as 
* ●sa. 59▪ 21.  Isaias prophesieth:) who thereupon are all 
joh. 6. 45.  taught of God; & have received (as Paul saith,) not the spirit which is of the world, but the spirit which is of God, that they may know the things which are given to them of God, 1. Cor. 2, 12. and it is the Spirit which testifieth, that the Spirit is truth. 1. joh. 5. 6.  
The whole word of God being of itself worthy to be credited, and having testimony of the same Spirit which spoke & wrote it, is also further confirmed by the power & effect thereof in the conscience, piercing more sharply than any 
“ Heb. 4, 12.  two edged sword, and discerning the thoughts and intents of the heart. The power, majesty, excellency, of the scriptures above all human writings, felt in the heart, and confirmed by the spirit; evidently prove to all that are Christ's, that they are of God; and if from him, then are they canonical, the rule and measure of our faith and actions: & these all do bear witness one to an other, the latter Prophets and Apostles commenting upon Moses the first divine writer, & john the last, confirming and abridging all other from the first, in his heavenly Revelation. The ear (faith 
‡ job. 12, 11  job) discerneth words, as the palate tasteth meat for itself; wherefore though the natural man discerneth no difference between God's canonical and man's apocryphal scriptures, yet the spiritual man 
1 Cor. ●. 15.  discerneth all things▪ and by testimonies of the scripture is able for to prove that the Bible is canonical, contrary unto your Conclusion; although perhaps he cannot persuade it, to them which are carnal & have not the spirit; as the 
* Jude, 19  Apostle speaketh. It this be not, as I have showed; but we must rely upon men, for the ground of our faith: then would I know, how you can persuade an infidel, to believe Christianisme rather than Mahometisme, to be the way of life. For the Turk will say & swear that the Alkoran is of God; as the Pope will say of the new Testament. And if men's voices shall carry it away, our belief in Christ is lost. If miracles be alleged, there is still the same controversy, whither they be divine or devilish: for heathens and idolaters have had miracles many; and Antichrist, as it is prophesied, shall 
‡ Rev. 13, 13.  shall do great wonders, making fire to come down from heaven on the earth, in the sight of men Your other allegations of antiquity, Universality etc. will not stop the mouth of Iuli●● the Apostata, but he will bear down Christianity and restore Paganism, as being ancient and universal. So there will be no settling of the conscience till it come unto God, and rest upon him alone, and receive the plerophorian, the full assurance by his spirit; without which men can not discern between the prophetical writings and the jews Thalmud, between Christ's Testament and the Turks Alkoran, or between God's oracle out of the Debir in jerusalem, and the Devil's oracle out of his temple in Delphos.  
Again, as the Israelites discerned canonical scriptures from others; so do we: for we Gentiles are 
‡ Ephes. 3, 6  coheyrs with them, and of the same body; for there is 
† Eph. 4, 4, 5  one body and one spirit, as there is one Lord and one faith. But they relied not on the Church, or on the Highpreist & his council: for had they so done, their church must have had privilege not to ere, (as you think of yours,) which if you grant a jew, he will overthrow your belief in Christ, seeing their Priests, Elders & people condemned Christ, his Apostles, and their writings. As you would answer a Pharisee for this point, so mind the like answer to yourself  
Finally your plea is overthrown & confounded by your own practice: for you will have us receive the scriptures for canonical, because your Church of Rome saith so they are: we must believe upon her word, Toby and judith to be canonical, but the third and fourth of Esdras, not: the first and second of the Maccabees to be canonical, but not the third or fourth. If any make question of this for conscience sake; you seek to resolve him by the definitive sentence of the Pope who cannot ere. But if he ask why the Pope of Rome may not ere, aswell as the Patriarch of Constantinople: you then allege (as after to me in this your letter) Christ's promise to Peter, Mat. 16 and there you scan every word, and press every circumstance of the text, to make him believe that Peter was the Rock and head of the Church, and consequently the Popes his successors. Ask he you again, how he shall know that Matthewes gospel (wherein this promise is written) is canonical, rather than Nicodemus gospel you will answer because the Pope hath so determined. Thus the very entrance and ground of your religion, bringeth men into a maze and Labyrinth: for we must believe the Pope cannot ere, because Christ saith such words to Peter; which the Pope expoundeth and applieth to himself: & we must believe that Christ said them words, because the Pope hath determined that he said them. Thus the foundation of our faith, must rely wholly upon man, (a clod of clay:) whatsoever he telleth us is scripture, that must we so esteem; how ever he expound scripture, so must we take it: what he saith is tradition or Gods unwritten word; we must so regard and keep it: be it never so absurd, against the light of nature, against reason, against the grounds of faith; against the evident testimonies of the prophets and Apostles; we must captivate all our understanding, faith and conscience, under the Pope's wisdom: and all because he telleth us we must so do. otherwise, if we may try this principle of yours by the scripture, through the light of God's spirit in us; then may we do the like of other, which be of lesser moment. Consider I pray you this first point seriously; and the Lord give you understanding in all things. And let me here put you in mind (though I be not yet come to the end,) of the last motive in your letter, where you tell me how when you shallbe demanded at the tribunal of almighty God, why you believe in the Roman catholic church; you can answer, by reason Christ himself teacheth you so, saying, He that heareth you heareth me etc. But deceive not your own soul; for when Christ shall ask you at that day, why you have worshipped images, sung mass and Dirige, prayed to Saints and souls departed, and 
* Mat. 15, 3.  transgressed many other of his father's commandments by your traditions; you will answer, because the head of your church the Pope did teach you so; when he shall ask you, how you knew the Pope to be head of the church, and to have such authority over your conscience; you will answer because Christ himself spoke such words to Peter as are written, Mat. 16. When he ask you again, how you knew that he spoke those words, or that they extended to the Pope of Rome, above all other: your answer will be (according to the grounds of your religion) because the Pope himself, with his senate of Cardinals did tell you so. Then will your hope be the web of a spider, and your house now seeming upon the Rock, will be found upon the sand: you shall hear the Curse pronounced upon 
* jer. 17. ●.  the man that trusted in man, and made flesh his arm, and withdre●v his heart from the Lord; and that all such 
Mat. ●. 9 Isa. 29. 13.  worshipped him in vain, as had their fear toward him, taught by the precept of men. The 
‡ P●. 73, 26.  Rock of my heart, who is my portion for ever, preserve me and deliver you from those syrtes and quicksands, where men make shipwreck of faith.  
Your second argument to prove that the bare & naked word of God 
2. Argum. answered.  cannot be an infallible rule or square of truth, is this; That which is difficult and includeth many fences, at least to the ignorant, cannot be a certain rule of faith: But the scriptures are thus. Your antecedent you seek to confirm by Luther, Te●tullian; and S. Peter also who (as you write) saith 
2 pet 3.  that in S. Paul's epistles there be many things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable deprave as all the rest of the scriptures, to their own perdition. To this of the Apostle I answer, first, you set the holy text on the centres, to stretch it out for your us●. The Apostle saith 
* 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  some things are hard to be understood; you would have him say, many things: he saith, they deprave these as the rest of the scriptures; you say, as all the rest. Secondly this testimony, though it were as large as you extend it, proves not your antecedent, but only the first part of it, and scarce that too. For to gather because part is difficult, therefore the whole is; is more than either his words, or good reason will bear. The later part, that the scripture cannot be a certain rule of faith, followeth not upon the former: it may be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though some part of it be difficult, though many men do deprave it. Our ignorance or perverseness, cannot make crooked that which is most straight, no more than our 
Rom. ●. 3.  unfaithfulness can make the faith of God of none effect. The artizen that worketh by rule and squire, ma● through want of skill or heed▪ work amiss▪ but himself is to blame, and not his rule. Again though some scriptures be difficult, yet many be plain and easy; and God hath so tempered them together, that the wisest should have wherein to exercise their wit, and admire God's mysterios▪ and the simplest should have plain documents, whereby to ground their faith. It is our fathers will also that to some, his word should be in parables; that 
‡ Mat. 12, 13. 14. Luk. 8. 10.  hearing men may hear and not understand, when to others it is given to know the secrets of the kingdom of God; who hath written his word 
Pro. 1. 4.  to give unto the simple sharpness of wit; to the child, knowledge and discretion. Again you allege the Eunuch, Act. 8. who confesseth that he could not understand the scripture without a master. I answer as before, this proveth no insufficiency in the scripture, but in the reader. I will further confirm it by your own position; where afterwards you undertake to prove, That the Pope's 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 without a master▪ if therefore your argument be good, your position is nought, and you must seek a new rule in matters of faith. Your human testimonies say no more than is already heard and answered: if they did say more and you pressed it, I would make answer as to you, but leave the Fathers to sleep in peace.  
You proceed with the second branch of your antecedent, saying, that the scripture hath many senses literal, many senses spiritual; whereupon you gather, siure is the old law when any difficulty happened, the Priest was to decide it, therefore with a far greater interest, the 
Deut. 17.  Priest of the new law, that hath the spirit of interpretation redoubled, and ratification of his doctrine assigned and confirmed by Christ Jesus himself, is to e●pound the hidden senses of scripture.  
I answer, first that there be so many senses literal & spiritual as you do 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 times, places, and persons. Pentheus' in the 
† 〈◊〉.  Poet, thought he saw two suns▪ in the firmament, when there was in deed but one: it was but the dif●●r●perature of his own senses that made him so to think. You suppose the word (which shineth as the s●n in the firmament of the church hath many meanings: when it is but the dazzling of your eyes. Secondly though it were granted to have many senses, yet the law in Deut. 11. maketh nothing against my faith. For I grant the scriptures are to be expounded by the Priests and Ministers of God. Deut. 33. 10. Eph●. 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. yet not by man's own judgement, or at the will of any mortal 〈…〉 but by the 
* 1 Cor. ●, 〈◊〉.  spirit of God▪ and by the scripture itself, as did 
〈◊〉. 8, ●  the 〈◊〉 in Israel. For no minister of Christ, (no not the 
† 2. Cor. 1, 2●.  Apostles; have de●●●nion over our faith: but are in declaration of the teach, to approve themselves to every man's conscience, in the sight of God, as 
2. Cor. 4▪ ●  Paul sayeth Neither mought the Priests of old, decide controversies as they 〈◊〉 themselves; their words were not oracles: but they were to inform the people according 
* Deu, ●▪ ●●  to the law; which the Lord explaineth by the priest Ezekiel thus; In controversies they shall stand to judge, and they shall judge it according to my judgements, etc. Ezek 44, ●4. Thus God's law is the rule of judgement; and the scriptures are not so bare & naked, as to need the rags of men's inventions to array them. If you yield not in this, I pray you what answer will you make to the jews, that shall plead with you against Christ, and allege, how their high Priests and Rulers which were to decide all controversies. Deut. 17. decided this controversy of jesus of Nazareth thus, that he was a seducer, a blasphemer, a traitor, & therefore to die the death. If the bare and naked scripture (as you call it,) help you not against their pontifical decrees and expositions; you will have but a bare and naked faith, the shame whereof, no ●igleaves will hide. But the Priest of the new law you say, is to decide with a far greater interest. I grant it; for Christ being come, 
† Heb. 9 1●  the high Priest of good things that were to come, hath far greater privilege and power then any legal Priest; and him we are commanded 
‡ Mat. 17. 5.  to hear. But he is not the Priest you mean: for you allege from john 2●▪ that Christ biddeth S. Peter and his successors, feed his flock with the spirit of interpretation, etc. I marvel how this will make for your opinion, that the bare word of God, is not an infallible rule or square of truth. For do you think in good ●arnest, that Christ would ha●●●th Apostle feed his flock, with aught save God's word, because he bade him feed? then all other Pastors must do so too. For the same Apostle writeth afterward thus, 
1 Pet. 5. 7. 2.  The Elders which ar● among you, I beseech, who am a colder, etc. seed the flock of God, & another Apostle saith to the Elders of an other church, 
* Act. 20▪ 28.  Take h●ed to yourselves, and to all the flock whereof the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops, to feed the Church of God etc. If the commandment to feed, privileged S. Peter above the law and word of God: then all Christian Bishops or Elders, have like privilege, because they have like commandment. But I deny either that Peter alone was to feed Christ's sheep, or that he mought feed them with any thing, save God's word. For the Apostles doctrines were the commandments 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. ●. 11. Wherefore ●ven Peter himself (who knew well the meaning of his commission,) taught the church, that their new birth was 
* 1 Pet. 1. 23 25.  not of mortal feed, but of immortal, by the word of God; and that was the word which was preached among them; and which he exhorted them still to 
† 1 Pet. 2, 2.  desire that they mought grow thereby; & willed them, that if any man spoke, it should 
‡ 1 Pet. 4, ●1.  be as the words of God, and referreth them to the sure 
● Pet. 1, 19  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 authority or sufficiency of the scriptures, because the Apostle was willed to feed the sheep of Christ; unless you think they should not have wheat but ●haff to feed upon. And if your chief shepherd of Rome use so to feed his flock, & gather such doctrines from Christ's commandment; I will never go over the Alps to fetch my food from him.  
You next allege Act. 15. where the Apostles meaning to decide a controversy, repaired not (you say) to their private spirits interprctation but to a council gathered in Jerusalem, where S Peter was head, where all was concluded with It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to us.  
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 applied the scriptures to their present question, by the same spirit which wrote them, which was no private but the most public spirit of God, 
* 1 Cor 2. 10. 11.  without which no scripture can be well interpreted. And where you say S. Peter was head of that council, you pass the bounds of the text which shows no such thing. Christ was 
† Mat. 18, 20 Eph. 1. 22.  the head, and he guided them by his 
‡ Act. 15. 28  holy spirit. Peter, after much disputation showed his mind, grounded upon the works and law of the Lord, Barnabas and Paul confirmed the same by their own experience: then james confirmed 
vers. 13. 14 etc.  Simon Peter's speech by the words of the Prophets, & thereupon 
* vers. 19 cr●●o.  gave sentence or judgement what should be done; whereto the Apostles and Elders with the whole church agreed. Wherefore if any man were head, reason would lead us to think Iames rather than Simeon was the man. Thus the decree had power and force from God's word, which by the holy Ghost was searched, scanned, manifested of 
† vers. 6, etc.  the Apostles and Elders; was approved and consented to, of the whole Church there, the 
‡ vers. 23.  Apostles, Elders and brethren; all which, and not Simon alone, said, 
* vers. 28.  It seemed good to the Holy ghost and to us. And that all care and diligence should be used to decide controversies by the word of God; I acknowledge but to deny God's word (which you call bare and naked, though it be gloriously arrayed with all ornaments of the spirit,) to be an infallible rule of truth; is far from my heart, and far from being proved by these your allegations. But you shut up your argument thus. Therefore let S. Peter himself conclude, 
2 Petr. 1.  that no prophesy of scripture (that is no interpretation as the holy Fathers interpret) to made by a private spirits interpretation. But the Apostle concludes not your purpose, that God's word or scripture is not an infallible rule of truth; therefore you are nothing halpenny this text, though you constreyn it to sp●a● otherw●is● then the auctor 〈◊〉 it down: which was not (is you say) by a private spirit 〈…〉; but 
* ●dias epi▪. 〈◊〉: propria interpretatione saith your authentik ●a●in.  of ones own interpretation, or of it own explication or 〈◊〉. This speech doth no whit disprove the authority, sufficiency, or infallibility of the prophecies of scripture, which the Apostle before did approve, (v●r●▪ 19) Therefore this standeth still firm against you, th●t Gods bare word (meaning without the rags of men's inventions,) is a● infallible rule of truth: but how this infallible rule is to be used, interpreted, applied etc. is a second consideration. And, though I would not swery from the question, yet to help you what I may, I will speak a little of that which you allege. If by 〈◊〉 spirit you mean an human spirit, or the spirit natural in man; I grant it: no prophesy of scripture is of private, or of a m●●s own interpretation: he can not by all his w●t, learning, or industry explain it, without the spirit of God. If you mean a private man's interpretation; as that no private man can interpret any prophesy: I deny it. For the public man with you is the Pop; & he interprets all; having his supposed sovereignty from Peter. But if all other be private men, save Peter and his successors the Popes; then do you injury to all the other Apostles, Prophets, Evang lists, Pastors and Teachers, at that time and in ages since: as if they without Peter or the Pope, could not interpret any prophecy of scripture. It is also against your own Bishops, Priests, jesuits, and against yourself; for none of you (but the public spirit of the Pope only) can interpret any scripture: which if it be so, why meddle you now with controversies about the scriptures against me, seeing you can give but a private spirits interpretation, which the Apostle (in your own judgement) condemneth? If all Church officers be exempted from the private number, and are among●th public, and may all interpret: then will your Pope have ●●le privilege from this place, above other Bishops▪ Or if you think, that no private that is (as you speak) no 〈◊〉 man, can interpret any prophesy of scripture, you do injury to God's people or laity. For were not all the lay o● people of the church in Cor●●th willed to 
† 1. Cor 14. 1.  covet spiritual gifts, and rather that they might prophesy; which 
‡ vers. 31.  all of them might perform in the church? Doth not the wind 
Ioh.▪ 3.  blow where it listeth, & God's spirit breath on whom he pleaseth? Prophecies of scripture never were of proper or private interpretation, yet Christ a carpenters son, brought up 
* Ioh.▪ ●. 15.  unlettered, neither Priest nor Levite, but a lay man in Israel, was permitted to 
† Luk. ●. 16, 17. etc.  interpret the prophecies of scripture publicly; and C●iaphas himself cavilled not against him, as being a private spirit. The Apostles also were 
‡ Act. ●. 13.  unlettered and private men, yet were they not for that, forbidden to interpret scriptures: but if they lived in your church, it seems they should, Consider I pray you of these things, and the Lord give you understanding.  
But you proceed with this matter, and thirdly you argue, and by 
3. Argum. answered.  your argument (as you say) break the force of a pretended answer, thus, Not only scriptures by themselves are not sufficient to prove what is canonical, and what is not: but also that scriptures helped by private men's interpretation, are not sufficient to prove the same. I see this your proposition, but I see no proof: in stead of that, you digress to complain that the poorest handicrafts man etc., is allowed to interpret the hardest places of scripture. But all this proveth not the point in hand, namely that the scripture is not a sufficient rule of our faith. For this it may be, and is: how ever men ere in expounding it. Of this point I have spoken before: your assertion is not an argument; and if there were but a pretended answer, yet your bare position would not break the force of it; the 
* Eccles. 10. 10.  iron is blunt, and you have not whet the edge; therefore you must put to more strength.  
Fourthly you argue thus. That which by the lights and lanterns of your opinions hath been wronged in the highest degree to bolster 
4. Argum. answered.  up heresies, cannot be a true and indeficient rule of faith. The assumption is a rhetorical flourish: for what more 〈…〉 quent (say you) with here●i●s then at their finger's ends to 〈◊〉 places of scripture? etc. And here you mention diverse points and persons, and then without conclusion, pass on to an other argument. The assumption which is personal, touching Luther, Calvin, etc., and unjustly b●nt against us; I leave to strive about, and could requite you with the like of your Popes and Prelates, who have wronged the scripture not in the least degree. Your proposition I deny: for though men wrong the word of God never so much, either ignorantly or wilfully; yet is the word never the worse, not less sufficient rule of faith. The Priests in Israel 
† Zoph. 3, 4.  wrested the law, by which they should have taught the people: yet was the law in itself a true and indeficient rule of faith, to which the Prophets 
‡ Isa. 8. 20.  referred the people, and blamed those that spoke otherweise, as wanting light. Our Saviour's most holy doctrines were wronged and depraved in the highest degree by Pharisees: will you therefore conclude, that his doctrine was not a true and indeficient rule of faith? Beware of such pleading, and learn rather of the Apostles, who though men 
2. Pet. 3, 16  depraved the scriptures; yet 
* 2. Pet. 1. 19  referred the Christians unto them, as being able to make us wise unto salvation, through the saith that is in Christ jesus, and to make the man of God absolute and perfect unto all good works. 2. Tim. 3, 15. 1●.  
Fiftly and lastly you argue many mysteries of our faith 〈◊〉 believed, 
5 Argum. ●●●v. ●●●d.  that are not explicitly declared in the word of God, 〈…〉 infallibly (prescinding from all traditions of the catholic church) 〈…〉 thence, so that they are sufficient to make one believe that 〈…〉 act as our faith requireth. Therefore that which makes these mysteries worthy of constant belief, is a rule of faith as well as the written word, whither they be traditions divine or Apostolical.  
The first part of this your argument I deny, for neither many nor any mysteries of our faith, are without their due and sufficient proof from the holy scriptures. You labour to confirm that you said, thus, because till Moses 〈…〉 word, but men were taught by tradition. You allege also Exod. 14. thou shalt tell thy 〈…〉 Deut 〈◊〉 ask thy father and he will show thee etc. job, 8 ask the former generation, etc. Also, how after our Saviour's coming, the Apostles preached viva voce, before they wrote etc.  
Your first reason is altogether insufficient: for though the scriptures could be no perfect rule of faith, before they were written; yet after the writing of them, they mought be, and so were. You might as well say, neither tradition nor doctrine by lively voice, could be a rule of faith, before it was spoken. You might also say, the scriptures are not sufficient to make one believe any one mystery of faith, seeing before Moses, all mysteries were taught by voice. The 
* Exo 25, 40  pattern of the Tabernacle showed to Moses on the mount, could be no perfect rule for him to build by, before it was showed. Was it not therefore a perfect and sufficient pattern, after it was exhibited? Even so the scriptures, now that they are written, are a sufficient rule and assurance of our faith. joh. 20. 31. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. Your other allegations out of Moses & job, will serve much better for the jewish traditions, then for yours; and confirm their Thalmud and Cabala, rather than your papal decrees. But the Apostles turned the jews from their 
† 1 Pe●. 1. 1●  vain conversation, received by the tradition of the fathers; and would not have them 
† Tit. 1. 14.  take heed to jewish fables and commandments of men that turn from the truth. Our Lord also reproved the traditions of the Pharisees, though received from their Elders, Mat▪ 1, 2, 3. etc. by which you may learn (God opening your heart) that Israel was not left to unwritten verities for a ground of their faith; but were to tell their children the works of God that they had seen and heard, (as we all are to do ours,) and for a rule of their faith and life, to 
Deut 6, 7.  teach them Gods written law. This you may see by the 
* In your Latin, the 43. & 77.  44. and 78. Psalms, where the fathers told their children such things as are written in the books of Moses & josua etc. which as they continued the rule & ground of 〈◊〉 rough out the Prophet's ages, so Malachi the last Angel of the old Testament commendeth them to the 
† Mal. 4 4.  memory of the church; even as from the first giving, they were the 
‡ Deu. 33. 4  inheritance of the same. The power and authority of which Law and Prophets was so great, as our Saviour saith h●● 
Luk. 16, 3●  that will not hear them, neither will they be persuaded though 〈◊〉 from the dead again. Beware therefore, lest while you ●●●k to support traditions, you supplant Christian faith: for a Jew will press you by tradition to receive their Cabala as well as their prophets, seeing you have had these all from them; & cannot without them (by your own grounds) tell what is canonical scripture, & what is not: and they do● affirm that God gave to Moses a double law; the one written, the other by wo●d of mouth. ●ambam 〈◊〉 Misnajoth. Your particulars insisted upon for the equal 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉. persons in the god head; the baptizing of infant; the pro●… h●ly Ghost; the keeping of the Lords day; the lawfulness to ●at blood &c: which you think can not be proved by scripture without tradition; sh●w that you are too much a stranger in God's book▪ for it afffordeth us sufficient proof for all of th●se▪ And 〈…〉 us, if we 〈…〉 without sure grounds from scripture: & shame would cover our faces, before Arrians, Anabaptists & other heretics, if we should le● go our 〈◊〉 foundation, to build upon your sands. As for other points of Mass for the dead &c: which you mention upon certain father's credit, as it hath no ground in God's book, so by the same it may easily be refuted: and what God condemneth, no man can justify.  
Whereas you all 〈◊〉 2 Thes. 2. and other like testimonies for traditions; I readily grant you to accept all traditions divine or Apostolical; for they were the 
1. Cor. 14 37.  commandments of God: but your church traditions I refuse, for they are the institutions of m●n. I grant you also that Paul taught more things by word, than were written in that his Epistle: but that he taught any thing as needful for salvation, without warrant from the scriptures, I deny; or that the sum and effect of all that he taught, be not in the Prophets, his own and other evangelical writings▪ If you will not believe me, believe himself who testifieth that he 
† Act. 26. 22  said none other things than those which the Prophets & Moses did say should come: believe an other Apostle which saith, 
‡ joh. 20. 31  th●se things are written that ye might believe etc. & that in believing ye might have life through Christ's name. And whereas you wonder how men should deny the necessary use of traditions, ask, if we will believe the Apostles, why then we will not believe them that lived in the Apostles days, and such holy fathers as flourished shortly of oer: you may stay your wonder, if you consider how Paul 
2 Tim. 3. 16, 17.  tea●h●th, that the scripture is able to make a man wis● unto salvation, absolute, and perfect unto every good work▪ for now there is no necessary use of other traditions, unless it be for works that are too good, and they be (I trow) work▪ of supererogation. You may also answer your own question, if you mind how there lived in the Apostles days, many 
Tit. 1. 10, 〈◊〉.  vain talkers and deceivers of minds, 
●. joh. 4. 1 & 2 18.  many false prophets that were gone out into the world and many Antichrists: and how after their departing 
† Act. 20, 29  there entered in grievous wolves▪ Now seeing such weeds flourished shortly after in the garden of the Lord, is it not more safe for us (think you) to keep the foundation of the Apostles & Prophets (on which Christ's church is 
Eph▪ 2. 20  builded) then to build upon the bo●●s of after writers? To conclude therefore this point, Christ sendeth us to 
* Ioh 5, 39  search the scriptures; his Apostles 
† 2 Pet. 1. 19  do the like; the Prophets before 
‡ Isa. 34, 16. Psal. 4. 4.  spoke also to like effect: this counsel by God's grace I shall follow 〈◊〉 these I will exercise myself, not doubting but I have chosen the better part, which shall not be taken from me. And unto you that ●…zelous for the traditions of your fathers, I show the counsel of the hol● Ch●st 
E●●. 20. 18  walk not in the ordinances of your fathers; 
Mat. 15. 3.  transgress not the commandments; of God by your traditions, and presume not 
* 1. Cor. 4, 6  above that which is written.  
The second thing you take upon you to prove, is, That the Pope's 
II.  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 confess) such an indeficient rule. But the Vicar of Rome is not this Pope; it is Christ himself that is 
† Isai. 9 6.  Father of eternity; and he is the 
‡ Col, ●. 18.  head of his body the church; and he hath forbidden us to call any man our Pope or Father upon the earth, for th●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 lo Satan hath desired you to winnow you as wheat, etc. but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not. Here first I observe how you labour to confirm the Pope's definitive power, by the scriptures: so that which before you pleaded against, as an insufficient ground, now here you make a ground of grounds▪ and so you are contrary to yourself. For before you taught me to believe this is God's word, because the Pope saith so: here you will have me believe your Pope's sentence to be a rule of faith, because the scripture saith something which you imagine makes for him. Thus you would lead me as in a round: and I cannot tell what you make the rock of your faith. But I will follow your argument. Christ prayed for Simon, that his faith (upon Satan's sifting) mought not fail. I grant it, neither did it fail, though he fell grievously. Yet this grace made not Simon, Pope or Head of the church: for it is a grace common to all the elect members of the body, whom though Satan sifteth, and they be often foiled, yet rise they again by belief in God; and though their faith often fainteth, yet it never faileth or is consumed. And this by virtue of Christ's prayer or mediation, 1. joh. ●. 1. 2. for God's gracious gifts are 
Rom. 11, 2●.  without repentance, and Christ giveth all 
joh. 10. 2●  his sheep eternal life, and they shall never perish, neither shall any pluck them out of his hand. You proceed and say▪ that this prayer was consequently for his successors. If you mean successors in his office, I know not who they be; neither show 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 called): 
* Titus 1. 2.  in which faith, whosoever succeed or come after him, (as also they that then lived in like faith with him,) they were & are and shallbe by Christ's mediation, confirmed that their faith (which is their 
† Abak. 2. 4  life) fail not. For example: Christ chose 12. Apostles, and one of them was 
joh. 6. 70.  a Devil. Iscariot (who was the Devil,) fell into sin, and Christ prayed not for him, so his faith failed (though he confessed his sin), and he died in dispeir, hanging himself; for he was the Son of loss or perdition, and therefore was to be lost, that the scripture mought be fulfilled. john. 17. 12. Simon Cephas fell also into sin, above the other ten, but he was one of Christ's sheep, no child of perdition, therefore he kept him from being lost, praying that his faith mought not fail. And as for him, for the rest, at an other time, he 
* joh. 17. 11.  prayed to his father to keep them in his name; and not 
† verse▪ 20.  for them alone, but for those also which shall believe in him through their word. Wherefore Christ prayed not only for Simon, but for all the Saints; though special need and use was for him at that time: yet as Paul saith of Abraham's justification, 
‡ Rom. 4, 23, 24.  it is not written for him only, but also for us; so say I of Simons confirmation by the prayer of Christ: for whatsoever is written, is written for our learning Rom. 15. 4.  
But you prosecute your argument thus, that S. Peter was bidden confirm his brethren; but only S. Peter and not the church in general hath brethren. Whereupon you would have me gather, that this was his special privilege, and no man's else, save his successors in the headship. Your assumption I withstand as a fallacy, proving Peter's popedom for confirming his brethren, no better then as if you should reason thus: Paul said to Barnabas, 
Act. 15, 36.  let us return and visit our brethren in every city etc. but only Paul and Barnabas, & not the church in general, have brethren: therefore only Paul and Barnabas are Popes of the catholic church, and visitors of the same, they and their successors. If this be not a good reason to prove a supremacy of visitation; the other is no better to prove a supremacy of Confirmation. For the church in general is a 
1. Pet. 5, 9  brotherhood, as the Apostle Peter himself calleth it; and of this brotherhood, Peter was one, Paul an other, john an other, and so the rest, not only the Apostles but all 
* ●. Pet. 1. 1— 10.  believers. Wherefore as Simon had brethren, so hath every Christian, and all are brethren each to other, and all brethren 
† Heb. 2, 11▪ 12.  unto Christ. And Peter as he was 
1. Pet. 5, 1.  a joint elder with the other elders; so was he also a joint brother with the other brethren: or else he was none of Christ's. And as for confirming his brethren, it is far from proving a popedom: for Paul an other Apostle, 
* Act. 14. 22▪ & 15, 41.  confirmed his brethren, and Timothee an Evangelist 
† 1 Thes. 3, 2.  did the like; and judas and Silas being Prophets, 
‡ Act 15. 32.  did the same; and all the Angels or ministers of churches, are taught of Christ to 
Apoc. 3, 2.  do likeweise. Wherefore Simons commission to confirm his brethren, made him not Pope, and consequently neither his supposed successors.  
But you press the circumstances, that our Saviour points out one particular man, saying Simon Simon; and after, having spoken of all, particularizeth the speech again, saying, for thee, thy faith, & thy brethren etc. I answer, there was cause why our Saviour should speak to him thus, because in his sifting, he should show more weakness than the rest: and a special fore, needeth a special medicine. But the fore being healed, the recured person is as an other man of his degree: and I showed before, that Peter had no privilege in these things above the other Apostles, Is●ariot only excepted.  
You next allege from Mat. 16. how Christ saith, he builds his church upon S. Peter; adding moreover, that he changed his name, and of Simon he makes him Peter, and Petra, and ●●phas, which name in the Syriah tongue signifies a Rock; thereby to prevent all frivolous answers etc. I wish you more wary in alleging of scriptures; Christ said he would build his church upon that Rock (petra) and had changed before Simons name not into that, but into Petros. And whereas CEPHAS the Syriac name is ambiguous to signify in Greek both PETRON and PETRAN; the ambiguity is cleared by the holy Ghost, in Ioh 1. 43. where Cephas the man's name is interpreted Petros, that is in English a stone. Moreover that Simons name was not Petra Rock, is plain by Mat. 16. where the Apostle distinguisheth the terms, adding also a pronoun demonstrative of the 
* ●aute.  feminine sex, which agreeth not with a man's proper name; & the syriac also by the demonstrative hada, distinguisheth the proper name Cipha, from the appellative ciphas, which otherwise by termination had no difference. As it standeth not with the grammatical construction that Simon should have the name of the Rock: so neither standeth it with the theological explication. For the Rock signified Christ himself, who was figured out to his Church by a Rock, 1. Cor. 10. 4. which is a title that Moses and the prophets after him, give unto God; as 
† Deu. 32, 4▪ 15.  perfect is the work of the Rock; and, the Rock of his salvation; and many the like: and that he only is the true and proper Rock of the church, we are taught by this and the like speeches, 
‡ 2 Sam. 22. 32.  who is a Rock save our God? meaning none else. So Christ is called 
Eph. 5. 23.  the head of the church, and not any Apostle; and he is the only foundation upon which the church is builded, as it is written, 
” 1. Cor. 3, 11.  Other foundation can no man lay, then that which is laid, which is jesus Christ. And Peter himself telleth us that 
* 1 Pet. 2.  Christ is the Rock and living stone, unto which all Christians as living stones do come, and are builded to a spiritual house. And Simon being a principal stone in this house, had therefore the name Peter Stone, of Petra, as we all of Christ have the name Christians; and as touching faith, are living stones, that is Peter's; having obtained 
† 2 Pet. 1. 1.  isotimon pistin, a like precious faith with Simon Peter himself, and the other Apostles: though as touching order, they were principal, next unto Christ, (as it is written 
1 Cor. 12▪ 28.  first Apostles, secondly Prophets &c:) and then other officers and brethren, in their due places.  
Moreover were it granted that Christ meant to build his church upon S. Peter; yet was it not upon him only; for it is written; 
* Eph. 2, 20.  Ye are built upon the foundation of th'Apostles and Prophets; and again, 
† Apoc. 21. 14.  the wall of the city had twelve foundations, and in them the n●mes of the lambs twelve Apostles. Wherefore Christ builded the Church upon the 12. not upon one alone; & it resteth upon you to prove that by saying super hanc Petram, Christ secluded Peter from the rest; for the rest had the rock, and belonged thereto aswell as Simon, though he were foremost in the r●w. And though he only had the name of Peter, a stone; that exempteth not others from this grace: for the two that were next unto him, james and john, only had the name of 
‡ Mark 3. 17.  Boanerges, that is, Sons of thunder; yet did not they only thunder out the gospel, or understand (as 
job. 2●. 14.  job speaketh,) the thunder of God's power; but the other Apostles also, had the same office, by preaching of the gospel; though perhaps not in like manner or measure of graces. The like answer I make, for the delivery of keys to Peter; (a thing which you barely mention:) they were not given to him alone. For as Christ asked his disciples jointly (and not Peter only,) 
Mat. 16, 15.  whom say ye that I am? so Simon answered not for himself alone, but for them all. Whereupon Christ pronounced a blessing, and annexed promises, not for him alone, but (as you grant for his successors also, as I defend,) for the other Apostles also. This may be confirmed by other like testimonies, as john. 6, 67. where Christ saying to the 12. will ye also go away? then Simon Peter answered, Master to whom shall we go? whereby it is plain, that Christ ask all, when one answered, he answered for all: therefore also the blessing upon the answer, must concern all; and so the promises not peculiar to Peter, but common with the rest. 
† The scripture plainly confirmeth this doctrine: for where one Evangelist writeth, Peter said unto him, Mat. 15, 15. another writing of the same, saith, His disciples asked him▪ Mark. 7. 17. so that Peter spa●e in the name of the rest; and his words were theirs likewise.  So also in this particular of the keys; for further proof whereof, set you down by the scriptures what is meant by keys: and I will show you by scriptures also, that the 12. Apostles had equal power in using them. Your supply of proof from testimony of later doctors, I leave as insufficient; their writings neither being authentik, nor any thing so ancient as the Apostles writings; and the most ancient records, I stand to be tried by. Yet if I listed to fight with such weapons, I could cite Doctors against Doctors, and many against you, & Augustine 
‡ De verb. Dom. Serm 13.  most plainly contrarying your opinion, and saying that the Rock was that which Peter confessed & knew when he said that Christ was the son of the living God; and that the Rock was Christ, not Peter: but I will not press you with man's authority; the book of God shallbe my panoply, and sufficient artillery.  
Your last proof is from john. 21. Where Christ said to Peter, Feed my sheep: which sounds as much (you say) as have care of my fold: but in S. John. 10. it is said, there is but one flock and one shepherd etc. and therefore he honours Peter thrice with the style of an Universal Pastor. This reason hath like frailty as the former. I deny that Peter alone was to feed Christ's sheep, for he sent all his Apostles with that charge. Mat. 28. 19, 20. and before this speech to him, he had said to them all, As my father sent me, so send I you, joh. 20, 21. Peter therefore as he was 
1. Pet. 5, 1.  sympresbyteroes, joint elder with the rest, (not archipresbyteroes, chief elder:) so was he also sympoimen, a joint Pastor with the rest, and not archipoimen, Chief pastor, (as you would have him,) for himself telleth us that Christ is he. 1. Pet▪ 5. 4. The same, Christ also confirmeth in the place you allege, john, 10. for there he saith, 
vers. 11. 14.  I am the good Pastor; and 
* vers. 15.  I lay down my life for the sheep; and 
† vers. 18.  I have power to lay down (my life) and have power to take it again, this commandment have I received of my father: and 
vers. 28.  I give unto my sheep eternal life, and they shall never perish. With many like speeches which cannot without blasphemy be applied to any mere man, but to him which is 
* vers. 30.  one with the Father. And therefore unless you will renounce Christ, and make Peter your Rock, your God, your Saviour, that laid down his life for you, to give you eternal life &c. you cannot make him that 
* vers. 16.  one Pastor over the one fold of jews and Gentiles. Wherefore neither thrice nor yet once, is Peter honoured with the style of universal Pastor; but only is charged 
† joh. 21.  to feed Christ's sheep, as other Pastors also are required; & our Lord jesus 
‡ Heb. 13, 20.  the great Pastor of the sheep, hath given not one but many Pastors for this work: Ephe. 4. 11.  
Having heard your reasons for Peter's headship, I expected somewhat for your Pope's pretended primacy; but for this you show no evidence from God's book; you have none I trow, so ancient. Wherefore your position That the Pope's definitive sentence as he is head of the church, is an indeficient rule in matters of faith: is far as yet from being proved. And though this pre-eminence were yielded for Cephas, yet would I not grant the like for Caiaphas: though Peter were the Rock on which Christ's Church is builded; yet your house may be situate on the sands, for ought you have said to persuade the contrary. But let us see what the 3. point in your letter will afford, which now next followeth.  
Lastly and briefly you take upon you to show that your Roman 
III.  church is the true and only catholic church of God, that holy city. Apoc. 21. etc. And first your church (you say) is catholic, for in your memory, you only are catholics, in so much that the name catholic was hateful to a puritan or a protestant, citing Beza, D. Humphrey, Sutcliff etc. Your reason hath no weight. What if others should say, your church is the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. because in their memory you only are lovers of that whore, in so much that the name whore is hateful to a puritan or protestant. Would you approve of this argument? Yea but it is (you say) against the article of our belief to deny the catholic church. I answer, we believe 
Eph. 3. 15, Gal. 4. 26.  there is a catholic, that is an universal church; no puritan or protestant I think denies it. But that your church of Rome or any other particular church in the world, should be the universal or catholic church, neither faith nor reason doth persuade. Wherefore the authors whom you cite, mought well blame you for taking to yourselves that ambitious title, which never was given you of God. If therefore you speak, let it be 
” 1. 1▪ Pet. 4, 11.  as the words of God; and if by his word you can say any thing to help you, sh●w it, and by his grace, I will hear▪ Otherwise your assumed name catholic, moves me no more than the name Apostolic, Pr●●tegiani (corruptly called Prester John,) among the Eth●●pians. I know the Apostle Paul gave the church in Rome no such swelling title when he wrote thereunto: and if you would have your church called by a new name, you should let the mouth of the Lord name it (as saith the Prophet Isa▪ 62▪ 2.) except you would have it noted to be none of his. Secondly you say your church is an ancient church: and God is more ancient than the Devil; truth then falsehood etc.▪ I grant your church is ancient; but I deny it to be the most ancient. Seeing then the most ancient (by your own grant) is the most true, bring ●orth the testimonies of your antiquity; and if in the particulars I show more ancient testimony than you, I will yield. But you proceed & say, If you grant that once our church was the true church/ but st●ce it hath swerved from her ancient purity/ show which Pope first gave place to the defects. etc. I grant there was a true church in Rome in t● Apostles days; so was there in jerusalem, in Ephesus, Corinth, Colosse, & other cities many What their faith & estate was, I see in the most ancient records, the Apostles a●s & letters unto them What your faith & estate is, I see also by your late council of Trident, & other b●oks of yours, maintaining a religion unheard of in ●h Apostles days, as in the particulars when they come to be scanned (after we have ended these general grounds in hand) I doubt not but to manifest. How Rome is come to be Lady & mistress of all churches, I know not by any ancient record of the Apostles, save by that mystery opened unto john in the wilderness, Apoc. 17. And if your Pope's lives were in God's record, as were the Kings of Israel; I could easily thew which Pope first gave place to the defects etc. but seeing they are not recorded by him, I will not 
* 1. Cor. 4. 6.  presume above that which is written. If upon men's report I should centure them, I mought do many good men wrong. They that are dead are gone to th●ir judgement, & have stood or fallen unto the Lord: you that are liv●ng must answer for yourselves, and your present state; which if you can not warrant by the word of God 
† 1. Pet. 1. 23  who liveth & indu ●eth for ever; your dead men's bones will be but slender pillars to underprop your church This I am sure of and testify unto you, Our Saviour and his Apostles forecold of 
‡ Mat. 7. 15 Act. 20. 29.  false prophets and of grievous wolfs, that should come soon after, and not spare the flock. Who was the first wolf in Ephesus, who the first in Rome etc., I can not tell: out if our Lord have given us a true rule, 
Mat. 7. 16.  ye shall know them by their fruits▪ we may know your Pope not to be head of the Church, unless of Antichrists, & your church itself to be 
Nú. ●5, 15  Cos bi-bath tsur, Falsity daughter of a rock, but not of Christ. Be not offended at my plain dealing with you; it is a case of conscience, and concerneth your salvation and my own▪ and I wish your welfare as my own.  
Your conclusion, neaping many praises upon your church, many dispraises upon o●ns & others that have forsaken her, remains hereafter unto due trial, when (having finished these first questions begun) you shall set down arguments from God's word, either for yourselves or against us. In the mean time, I observe your dispute against us to have no more weight or colour, then as if the AEdomites or Ismaelites (elder brethren to t●● Israelites) should have alleged their outward carnal privileges & possessions, against their poor brother jaakob in Egyptian bondage, and after, a pilgrim in the wilderness: or as if the Scribes and Pharisees should have pleaded for Annas and Caiaphas and their proceedings (from Deut. 33, 8— 11. and other scriptures many,) against jesus of Nazareth and his disciples. I know he magnificence and pomp of the false church dazzleth the eyes of many; her sorceries bewitch many; her fornications destroy many: but her cup is full of the wine of wrath, and her lovers shallbe cormented with her, but those whom God loveth, shallbe delivered from her▪ Wherefore search in the book of God, and read; let his law be your light, and make not fleth your arm: se●k wisdom as silver, & search for her as for treasures; so God may be entreated to show you the way of life, that you may escape from h●l beneath Which grace I wish, and shall do my andevour to procure unto you. So rest I your friend for all Christian help to my power;  
Henry Ainsworth.  
Your letter I received the beginning of this month December 1609. and I write this the 23. of the same; stilo veteri. From Amsterdam.  
john 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 readiness to write, but your unreadynes to answer all the grounds of my discourse. For where as still I pressed you with the authority, & uniform consent of those that lived in the Apostles times, and were their scholars: When I urge you with the authority, and most ancient record of histories: When we bring against you the whole body of councils and holy fathers, the whole school of Doctors: When we urge you with the assertions of Luther, C●lvin, Beza, I well, Whitaker, Hooker, pillars nay first founders of the protestant religion, out of whose near withered stock, the Br●w●●sts are newly budded, and even in the bud remain 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 l●t the father's sleep. As though the whole world had been in a dead st●ep of error, until this present age. As though the Apostles own disciples, that sucked knowledge from their mouths, had need to be discipled of you for their dangerous errors. As though the Apostles themselves, 
* Euseb c. ● Eccle. hyst.  Dionysius Areopagita, 
† Euseb. l 4. hist c. 8.  Egesippus, 
‡ Idem l. 2. c. 20.  Polycarpus, 
‖ lib. 3. c. 3. et 4.  Irenaeus, Gregor: Nazianz. Chrys. Tertul. S. Cypr S. Ambrose, S. Hi●r: S. Augustin were all deceived, all hoodwincut so long in error; yea that the whole church that was promised to be the pillar of t●…, that was seated on a roch should be swallowed up of hell gat●s for a thousand five hundred years contrarn to the firm promise of our Saviour, yea that Luther, Calvin, B●za, Jewel, Whitaker, Humphrey etc. these times grand jury men, and Doctors, were all d. c●●ved in giving up their verdicts: And so decrived that they are of you implicitly condemned as heretics. Surely such a verdict, can never win credit before any bar or tribunal in the world, where so many eye and ear witnesses cannot be heard, evidences, and records, of above a thousand years of age, are not admitted as currant; where infinite Doctors and professors, are refused in their own sciences to be believed: When our adversaries own fathers, friends, and adherents are held as partial; and all testimonies of what condition soever, braved with this that they were all but men, that th●y have all erred. What do you Mr Ainsworth but teach me a way to answer whatsoever you can bring. For I can say you are only dust and ashes, only a man, and lichlier sure to ere, than all they that have lived before you, and then all men that live in this age with you. Pard●n me in dealing so roundly with you, for it proceeds through no aversion towards your person, but only to demonstrate the truth of my cause, and the insufficiency of your answer.  
Now to descend down, more particularly unto your answer: you ●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; & therefore to make your journey the shorter, you would conceive it only in a continued, and dead way, deluding thereby yourself with imagination that your journey is shorter; And therefore I think you in a confuse dealing seem more fearful of the way to run then I that consider the question we are to handle by distinct points, dividing my answer by the eye of judgement into distinct portions. And therefore I answer you again when you demand of me what shall decide all 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 catholic church as by a propounding manner, & by way of circumstance necessarily required to show what is authentic, and what is not canonica; And so I hope this answer is direct and plain enough: Ask a Philosopher what burneth, and he will tell you the fire and his quality; but demand how approximation of the subject concurreth, without which the fire never naturally burneth, and he will tell you it is condicio sine qua non most necessarily required. Ask a Philosopher, who gives power to some hidden herb unknown, to have his operation; he will answer the nature of the herb 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 herb shows how it is to be applied, and used to have his due operation. So here I answer that Gods written, and unwritten word formally, and principally causeth us to believe, but the church that propoundeth it as God's word, concurreth as an applying circumstance; the church being the treasury of all truth/ the 
B. Anth. magnus epist▪ 4. ● D. Hill: 2▪ lib Trinit.  medi●●●e against all maladies, the ●howse of truth showeth us unfallibly what is to be believed and what is not. And therefore 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 intent briefly to show how my reasons that I gave to prove my assertion, viz: That only the scripture is not a sufficient rule and an infallible guide of faith, remain yet (for all your pretended answer) in firm force unshaken.  
2. I intent 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 spoke them or meant them.  
3. As occasion shall offer I will touch your answer to the other questions, leaving the exact and direct handling thereof until this controversy in hand be ended.  
First than you set down the first argument which I brought thus; Nothing is to be believed that is not taught, or manifestly gathered 
I.  out of the written word: But that the Bible is canonical is not taught, or gathered out of the written word, therefore it is not to be believed that the Bible is canonical. Mark then how Mr Ainsworth 
An ans. to his oppugnation of my first argument.  smooths up the matter that he hath given a sufficient answer; when he answers that the pillars of our propositions are earth & ashes, and therefore the whole frame of my Argument lieth in the dust. Then descending more particularly he answereth that my Major is too general. For he says many things may be believed, though they be not gathered out of the written word, so that we see he holds some tradition necessary besides the written word, for he says to be believed that is with an act of faith, now that which is to be believed must be certain, and must have also infallible, & most certain motives proportionable to so firm an act; and must be believed of those at least that are scholars, who are more precisely to examine the articles of belief than laiemen, so that we have drawn water out of the rock since you grant that tradition is necessary to your own belief: which afterwards you deny, when you say there is nothing necessary to salvation but is taught by the written word. For now I ask those many things that may be believed without the written word, either have their motives infallible and sufficiently propounded & so they shallbe faulty, if those scholars to whom they are sufficiently proposed believe not: or else the motives that are propounded are not certain, infallible, and constant, and so they shall only cause an opinion, or at most a human belief; and not a most firm, & constant supernatural art of faith, that is ever most certain and infallible caused by the written, and the unwritten word of God, and the church propounding. Moreover your answer is found halting, when you say, that there is nothing necessary unto salvation but is delivered by the written word, which is most false, since nothing with you is more necessary unto salvation then the written word, which word is not proved by an other written word, for so that also by an other, and so we should never have an end, so that hence you must confess, though against your position, that something most necessary unto salvation is to be believed, and that without the written word; now if that which is most necessary, and the rule of all the rest, be believed, in that it is delivered by tradition, surely things of less consequence though necessary to salvation, may also be believed, though there is no written word of God to affirm it, having tradition which is God's unwritten word time out of mind to deliver it.  
As for the proof of my Minor proposition, you put down these words I cited, though not learned out of Mr Hooker. For if any book gives testimony to the rest, yet the scripture that gives credit to the rest would require another scripture to be credited, neither could we come to any pause whereon to rest or assurance that way; and if you answer that all scriptures are theopneustoi that is in pired of God, I will grant you that, but I will demand how you prove that this book, or this parcel of scripture without tradition is inspired of God? For to say it is inspired of God, by reason it is scripture, and scripture by reason it is inspired of God, is to prove idem per idem, and petere principium, to suppose that prov●d, which is given you to prove: And beside I would know of you, how you know, that your interpretation is only true. But you have your answer ready ceyned, you say the things of God no man knoweth but 
* 1. Cor. 2. ●1.  the spirit of God. But how do you prove you have the spirit of God? How do you prove you have the effect thereof in your conscience 
† Heb. 6. 4, 5  piercing more sharply than a two edged sword, For the Mamchei, Montanist, Arian, nestorian, Pelagian, Semipe●agian, Lutheran, Calvinist, Familist will ●ll bo●st of this private spirit, will all say they are illuminated of God, that they have the 
‡ 1. Cor. 2, 15.  spirit that discerneth all things, & they are able as w●l as you to uphold their religion with wrested pieces of the scripture. Now whereas you object that the Turk c●n urge against us their Allco●ans antiquity▪ I answer no: 
Note here that when I say antitiquity is a note of the church, I compare only jews with the Heathens, and Christians only with Christians, so that it is a true note since those th●t are most ancient have the only true religion, & so thos● Christians that are more ancient have the only true Christian religion.  si●ce the Roman catholic church can show their beginner, beginning, increase, and their declining estate: And whereas you object again, that julian the Aposta●a may offer plea with us for antiquity▪ I answer no, since he went out of the catholic church, to whose faith he was Apostata, and therefore supposeth the catholic church to be more ancient than he, as he particularly opposed himself against her. And if it be here objected that the heathenism he ●●lo is ancienter than our Christianity, I grant all, but not ancienter than Judai me: For God is more ancient than the Devil, truth then falsehood, and so those Christians that are most ancient, have the most true religion.  
Your second Objection made against this point, I answer that 
II.  the high priesthood that was judge did not ere, 
* First we might answer that Aaron willingly & ex cathedra did not commit idolatry, but in fragility & for fear of the people's displeasure, & so it was an error of fact & not of doctrine. Psal. 98 Exod. 29 Levit. 8.  in that Moses was never ●viltie of Idolatry, & Moses was joint Priest with Aaron as it is recorded in the Psalms Moses et Aaron in sacerdotibus ejus et Samuel inter eos qui invocant nomen ejus. All which appears and is most manifestly shown also in that he ordered Aaron. Exod. 29 And in that there Moses is commanded to sacrific● Applicabis et vitulum etc. ma● abis eum 
Quod Moses erat sacerdos & princeps tenent Greg. Nazianz. in creatione de Moyse et Aaron Phylo judaeus lib. 3 de vita Mosis: Et hoc etiam deducitur ex Exod. 24. et 29 et 35. et Deu. 34. ubi dr. quod Iosue erat spiritu plenus quod Moses imposuit illi suam manum Deut. 18.  in conspect Dei etc. offeres incensum super altar And that Moses did execute all this it appears out of Levit. 8.  
Likewise I answer that when our Saviour jesus Christ was condemned, the high priesthood did not ere, in that the high priesthood remained in our Saviour; for he was then chief judge and decider, or ●he the high priest was our Saviour's superior which ye will not grant. For that priesthood was infallible only till Christ's coming, being also clearly foretold that at his coming the highpreist should concur unto his death and condemnation, and so not to be directed by the holy ghost.  
Finally whereas you would confute me by my own practice in that I resolve all things by the definitive sentence of the Church grounded on Christ's promise to S. Peter, Math. 16. that his faith should not fail, and that he being converted he should confirm his brethren all the other Apostles. I answer that as our Saviour was of infinite 
Mat. 16. Luk. 22, v. 31, 32.  grace, and mercy to promise, so he was of infinite power, and fidelity to perform. Now whereas you object that I know only this promise by Mat. 16. & that by the Popes & church's sentence I know only S. Matthewes gospel to be canonical, and that the gospel of Nicodemus is not authentic, I grant all, but I deny that here there is any maze or circle, that you would fayne from hence infer, since this mutual reference, and reciprocal dependence is in divers kinds; and than Aristotle will tell you, that it is no circle or vicious argumentation to demonstrate a causa ad effectum et ab effectu ad causam; and a young Philosopher will tell you that the materia and the form do mutually depend, and reciprocally cause one an other, but the one in genere subjecti, and the other in genere causae formalis. And as a jewel in his prize dependeth of the knowledge of a skilful lapidary, 
Mat. 13. et Marc. ●●c. joh. 14. ●● 16. 1. Tim. 5.  and yet the knowledge of the lapidary dependeth of the excellent nature, and quality of the stone: So we answer that the Church doth formally depend on the word of God that shows she is taught in all truth; and yet the word of God doth depend of the determination ● definition of the church: And therefore S. Augustin 
D. August. contra ep: fund: c. 5. Ego verò evangelio non crederem nisi me Catholicae commoveret authoritas, et postea: quibus praecipientibus evangelio credidi et his his jubentibus tibi omnino non credam.  said that he would not believe 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; therefore either give me leave to be of S. Augustins mind, or leave to marvel only at me, since that great Doctor, and holy father doth give the lily occasion to you of wonder.  
Now unto your Corolarium that bad rhetoric, and not solid reason gathered out from hence, that my faith and hope is grounded on the Spider's web: I answer that it is not seated on a web but on a 
Mat. 16. 18.  rock, against which all heretical persecutions, persuasions, blasphemies, which is as hell gates shall never prevail. For my resolution & account of faith that I told you I was one day to give before the tribunal of God, was no other than this which S. Augustin gives 
D. Aug. lib contra ep: fundament:  where he says. In ecclesia catholica etc. In the catholic church doth keep me the consent, and agreement of so many people, and nations, the authority of the same church began by miracles, nourished with hope, increased with charity, confirmed and established by antiquity; In the same catholic church doth also hold m● the succession of Bishops, from the sea of the Apostle S. Peter, to whom Christ our Lord after his resurrection commended the fe●ding of his flock, continued unto him, who at this present occupieth this place: And lastly doth keep me the very name catholic, which not without cause amongst so many heretics, this only church doth so obtain, as although all heretics do pretend vamly to be termed Catholics, yet if any stranger do chance to demand which is the church of the catholics, there is no heretic so impudent, as dareth show either his house or synagogue. And thus far S. Augustin himself taught me what answer of my faith I shall make before the eternal tribunal of God. But when you shall come there to give account of your faith, the best that you can allege for yourself is that you thought & judged it so, that your private spirit interpreted it so, though against the height of nature in very many points, against all antiquity of time▪ consent and unity of doctrine, against the whole stream of holy father's learned Doctors, and most true expesiters. Who now I pray you 
* jere. 17, 5.  putts trust in man and makes flesh his arm? Who are taught now by the 
† Mat. 15, 9  precepts of men? Who but you are led by their own inventions, spirits and illusions? Who but you, commits idolatry in worshipping the golden calf, the idol of your own invention? Therefore I will conclude with your saying took out of the Psalm 73, 26. The roc●. o● my heart who is my portion for ever preserve me, and deliver you fr●m that s●ylla of Calvinistical profession, and from that devo●●ing charibdis, those syrtes, and quicksands of Brownisme, and Puritanical 
Psal. 73, 26.  brotherhood, where men make shipwreck of their faith and souls. 
II.   
The second arg. you examine of mine to prove that the b●●e ● naked word cannot be an infallible rule or square of faith; you propound it out of my writings thus. That which is difficult & includeth many senses: at least to the ignorant can not be a certain rule of faith. But the scriptures are thus. My antecedent you admit proved by Tertullian S. Hierome, and S. Peter himself whose place you only examine; the others you turn over as you are wont deeming them unworthy of your consideration. You examine that of S. Peter now where he says that in S. Paul's epistles are certain things hard to be understood which the unlearned and the unstable deprave, as also the rest 
2. Pet. 3. 16,  of the scriptures to their own perdition. Here you except against me that I say many things in stead of certain; where in deed I cited only the sense of that place propounding it as the Protestant's use for yours and their advantage, meaning so tacitè to prevent an objection. For they answer here that S. Paul's epistles are not hard, but that many things in them are hard. For the Greek copies have en hois that is in which things; and some read en hais in which epistles: And whereas 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 been wrested to bolster up heresies: Thirdly you say that this testimony proves scarce the first part of my antecedent that scriptures are only 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 chief and principal Master. And as for the example of the artizen you bring makes much against you. For if an unst●●lfull Mathematician▪ or sea man knoweth not the right use of the Astrolabe or cross staff, the missing of a hairs breadth, in the right using thereof, makes him judge wrong of the object infinitely almost although the instrument in itself be most true: And if the Physician miss the right Dose, though he gives the right ingredients, he is liklier to kill then to minister help. So if a man miss of the right judgement & sense of those places of scripture touching predestination, reprobation etc. the corruption of that place is able to turn all the other places of scripture that leaves that way into his own nature.  
But now here to your reply that not all but only 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 plainly that place when he says Caro mea verè est cibus et sanguis mens verè est potus, My flesh is truly meat and my blood is truly drink. For Luther will have them one way to be understood, ●uinglius another, Ber●garius an other, and Calv● another Neither can the paralleling & comparing of one place of scripture with another r●n die this, or satisfy the infinite difficults that arise out of holy scripture. As that of the 2. Regum. 23. 11. The field is said to be full of lentils. But the 1 Parall: 11. 13. It is said to be full of ba●iy. And the 1. ●●eg. 7. 15. It is said that the bra●en pillars were thirty eight cubi●●● in length, and yer 2. Parall: 3. 19 but thirty five Math. 1. 8. It is said that Joram bega● Qzia●: 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 Ama●●●s, (not Joram) to Ozias otherwise called Azarias: Mat. 1. & 3 16. Joseph is called Jacob, whereas S. Luk. 3. 23 nameth him 〈◊〉: Mat 10 10. the Apostles sent to pr●ach are forbidden to have a ●reffe in their ●a●ds, and yet S. Mark 6 8 ba● them take only a staff, or rod in their hand, Mat. 26, 34 and Luk. 22, 34. saith that before the cock did crow Peter should deny him thrice, but S. Mark the 14. 30. saith Christ's words were, Before the cock shall crow twice thou shalt thirst deny me: Mar 15 25. ●ayth, our Saviour was crucified at the third hour: but S. John 19 14 saith it was about the sixth hour before he was condemned by P●●ate; So that you see the comparing of place only with place often times, may bring a poor man into a maze, or circle, except he add to this the authority of the Church, and the holy Fathers, and the learned Doctor's exposition by whose help all these seeming contradictions will easily be salved. Now whereas you may answer that these difficults are in matters of fact, and not of doctrine, & so it much imports not whither a man reconcil●s these places or no, I grant the first but I deny the sequ●●●. For since you teach that all difficults of scripture, may be helped by comparing of one place with another: now when as ignorant men shall follow this your rule as an unfallible guide, when they see themselves led by it unto a contradiction, they do not only begin to call into question this, but all other things contained in the scriptures, seeing the self same truth affirming the little as well as the great, and as much abhorring from contradiction of a little matter as of a great.  
The second branch of my antecedent which I bring is, that holy scriptures hath many senses, literal, and spiritual, yea and often many senses literrall and many senses spiritual. All this you deny & wonder that I do not prove it. I answer that no disputant useth to prove como●m●●●mes, and principles, and we use not to prove common 〈◊〉, at most Protestants allow of, viz. of a literal and a spiritual sense, the l●s● whereof they divide into three members, into an all▪ g●ricell tropological & anagogical sense: yea and not without great cause they allow of this since D. August. lib. 11. confess. cap. 26 et lib. 11. De ●●●●tate Dei c. 19 saith also that the scripture often ha● many literal senses. But you against the holy fathers held that it hath only one sense, but as you answer, appliable to divers places, times and persons. Here I wonder that you should be so considently hoveld with your own conc●●t, and so carried away with your private spirit that you see not that which to most manifest. But even as a pigeon that is seeled in your soaring spirit you see only 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 grant to sufficient to prove the second part of my antecedent. For if that one sense hath reference to divers times places and persons, it must needs be very difficult, & require some common help besides themselves to obtain their several true expositions: nay hear me thinks you grant that the scriptures hath divers senses, since you grant divers as it were formalities of senses respecting diverse places, times and persons.  
Here also in prosecuting of this point you seem to mistake our doctrine. For we hold that neither Apostle or the Pope have dominton over our faith, or authority to institut. Sacraments of themselves, neither can they make what they will as a matter of faith, or tradition: But it must be received time out of mind by the uniform consent of that Church which hath kept her perpetual 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 universa 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 only that such and such a thing is to be believed, and that by the inspiration of Almighty God guiding him as he is the head of the church. Neither doth he for all this omit to use all human helps of counsel and consultation with the learned, that though as he is head of the church he hath a promise from Almighty still to assist him, yet in that he might not seem to presume in omitting the use of natural and prudential helps and means, he useth all diligent ser●tinp therein. The place of 15. of the Acts which you examine of mine; where I lay that in the counsel held at Jerusalem all was concluded with this of S. Peter the head, It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us. This I said and still aver 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 counsel: where S. Peter was h●ad and vin●eere, though he used an Apostolical inguisition; and therefore it is noted in the 7. verse that Peter role up, showing thereby that he was head, and had the pre-eminence of place first to speak▪ noting also his privilege that the first Gentills were chosen by his mou●h, though S. Paul was designed to convert them. Now unto that which you 〈◊〉 that (verse 13. and 14.) S. James 〈◊〉. stan●● all and that hence we might rather hold him head of the Church. I answer that doth not hence follow, in that S. James in that he was an Apostle and Bishop of Jerusalem gave his sentence nert; For surely S. Paul and S. Barnabas also spoke, though their speech is interposed for the better declaration of the question to be decided, and for the greater confirmation of S. Peter's sentence: And though S. James said in his speech I judge, he doth not mean thereby that he gave the principal definitive sentence, since he and all the rest followed, and seconded by their suffrages the decision of S. Peter: as it is plain in the text: The whole assembly for reverence of his person, and approbation of his sentence holding their peace The which S. Hier●m affirmeth saying all the multitude held their peace, and 
D Higher▪ to: 2 epist. 89. ad Aug. c. 2.  into his sentence James the Apostle and the Priests did pass together. Wherefore I may conclude with S. Peter this point as I did before. That no prophesy of scripture is made by a private spirits 
2. Pet 1, 20  interpretation, and so consequently not by the naked word: And therefore S. John also bids them try their spirits whether they be of God, 1. Joh. 4. v: 20. And as for your distinction of private spirits 
1. Ioh 4. 20  it li●le availeth 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 fail him, and though he may e●● in matter of fact, or sin 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 ere, in that he is directed as Christ's Dicar in earth by the holy Ghost. Yet for all this he doth not neglect natural means for the decision of any weighty cause; But useth all usual serutivie of causes, and circumstances, takes advice of the learned councils. But you though you be also a private man, yet you can not show me any promise of the holy Ghost, made rather to you than to any other of your adversaries; neither have you greater signs 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 than the spirit of A●niball a merry companion; who when he had deceived poor 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 hear from lum delivered the word of the Lord: afterward showed unto the whole campany that flocked more and more to this their illuminated prophet the man of God, so strangely called, how he alone had deceived the poor man, saying, hang me if any other spirit, but the spirit of A●●●iball called thrife upon Bulbrook: Yet admit you should have a spirit to distinguish the truth of one mystery as I said, yet you have not the spirit to distinguish the truth of all: But that you might c●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 spirit, how then can a private spirit decide any controversy? And for that you bring of the Israelites, it were well if you with them from the mouth of the Priest would learn wisdom. And if you had that visible coming down of the holy Ghost that the Apostles had, if you had the gifts of tongues, the power to work miracles; if you were taught with them all truth; if your followers though illiterated were endowed with all these privileges of the Apostles, than might they with them take upon them to interpret the scriptures. For S. Luke recordeth, That our Saviour opened his Apostles understanding 
Luk. 24 45.  in all truth that they might understand 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 
III.  which I did occur a future answer. Not only scriptures by themselves, but scriptures by a private man's 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 seems to be partly proved in that which goes before. Yet to give you full satisfaction I will a little reinforce the force thereof: For since the scriptures hath divers senses, or as you say divers references to sundry places, persons and times; 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 unto you? For the communication of this infused spirit must either be by a public message be delivered you, so that those that are your adherents and followers may be assured, by some visible sign that the holy ghost dictates unto you: and I think by these visible apparitions and communication of the holy Ghost, you will not maintain your spirits interpretation. Or else the holy ghost secretly instil●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 heretic so senseless, or error so gross, but would tell us of this private assurance of the holy Ghost. And though the communication of the true spirit should be manifest to yourself, yet you could give no warrant or assurance thereof to us; to the Protestant adversaries, or to your own followers. How would you be able to convince an Arian, that will thwart you with that of S. John, my father is greater than I: If you say this place is to be understood in regard of his humanity and not in regard of his divinity, he will bid you show scripture plainly to affirm that. How will you answer an Anabaptist that will have no man to be baptised before they come to the years of discretion to give a reason of their faith? How will you answer us catholics or the Protestants when we demand of you why you follow the vulgar translation, in saying Elder, when the original and all other languages almost hath still the word Presbyter, which signifies Priest to all? Nay since the holy scriptures admitteth diverse senses and do not explain themselves, how should a poor artificer persuade himself that this sense which he apprehends is only the true sense; Nay that he is easily deceided herein by a p●…dicated opinion I will show. For when he comes to read that S. Peter in his first epistle salutes them from Babylon, he in that he may not admit S. Peter to have been 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 ●●ad Apoc. 1●, & 18. Babylon again, in that he hath rooted malice against Rome he will have her alone to be that Babylon, he will apply all these mischiefs 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 certain of that since that place with whom you are to compare it hath diverse 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 only decidants, why do 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 led with traditions; And when in diverse places the self same word imports Apostolical traditions, in stedd thereof they read, ordinances, institutions etc. Why did they in the printed Bible 1●62 thrust in Rom. 11. Baal's image, which now Bible ●595 to corrected. And if every image be an idol as they translate it, why Genesis the first can we not say God created Adam according to his own idol? And that all images in the old law were idols Exod. 25. 3. Regum. 6. Why do they make the Hebrew and Greek word that signifies hell when they list only to signify the grave; Though it be against scripture itself. Gen. 37. I will go down to the grave to 〈…〉 mourning, which cannot signify though racked in sense the grave, since he thought his son to be devoured of wild beasts, and so unburied without a grave: But when the self same word, Prov. 15. speaks of the dan●ied, they translate only hell, how then can the 
Prov. 15.  parallising and comparing of one place with an other settle all doubts of the ignorant, stop the mouth of the contrary part who shall affirm that it is not the true sense? Nay if scripture be a most manifest interpreter of itself: 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 understand says he the Bucolica of Virgil except h● be first five years a shepherd: No man can understand his G●o●●icks, except he be five years a husbandman: so let every man know that he hath not tasted sufficiently the scriptures, except he hath governed in it a hundred years. Nay if holy scriptures be so easy of themselves to be understood; why doth Luther call the epistle of S James stramineam, and unworthy of an Apostolical spirit? Why doth Beza writing on the eight chapter call into question the whole book of S. John, when he avers 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 
IIII.  lights & lanterns of your opinion, hath been wronged in the highest degree, to bolster up heresy, can not be a true, and indeficient rule of faith. You giant my assumption and you instance it in Luther, Calvin, Beza: Only to answer this you think it sufficient to say it is a rhetorical flourish. No flourish that by your own confession hath flung down your strongest pillars: But you say it is the fault in them, which willingly I grant, 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 judgements have been drowned, would you think, that bridge remaining, 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 only, and to their own wits and spirits have grossly and dangerously erred, will you hold it so remaining an undeficient rule? Nay if the bare word so confirms them in their errors, that without some one common and visible judge they still remain stiff in their errors: can the bare word be the indeficient, only, and the infallible rule? But that it is so: dispute against the Lutheran, Calvinist, Zui●glian, Anabaptist, Protestant, Fa●●list, and they will ell ●ite place of scripture, interpretation for interpretation, spirit for spirit ●ieng and relying you with places, and spirits dictam●ns, telling you long stories of the communication of the holy Ghost. Wherefore I will conclude briefly this argument that the naked and bare word of the scripture cannot be an infallible rule and judge, s●…t doth not make the party overthrown certain, that the sentence as much as lieth in the judge is passed against him; which is the property of the sentence of every supreme judge, that his decree be plainly seen and that without all contradiction the party overthrown in law may yield unto it; For else there is no end of sentence, no end of judgement if the party overthrown, may with the like probability as before recom●nence his suit, and offer plea without any ●●d.  
My fifth argument which you put down thus, Many mysteries 
V.  of our faith are believed which explicitly are not declared in the word of God, nor so infallibly (prescinding from all traditions of the church) deduted thence, so as they are sufficient to make a man believe with so firm an act of ●aith as is required. Therefore that which makes that worthy of constant belief is a rule of faith, aswell as the written word, whether they be traditious divine or Apostolical.  
Now to all the places I bring to prove traditions How the world was only governed and taught by traditions till Moses time, who was the first penman of the holy Ghost, and to that Ero. 14. Deu. 32. 37. etc. you grant that traditions were before necessary, but you deny that they are now a rule of faith. But you assign no reason but only this in disputing as if it were the total rule of faith; where I would infer only that it was a partial together 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. ●. Tit. 1. 14 as vain conversation and Jewish fables; Is plain against the holy scriptures Deu. 32. interroga patrem tuum, et anuntiabit tibi, majores tuos et dicent tibi. Ask thy father etc. Ero. 14. Narrabis filio tuo in illa die dicens hoc est quod fecit Dominus: Et job. 8. jud. 6. Psal 43. Psal. 47. Eccles. 8; where it is plain that the holy Ghost speaks of such traditions that are good to be followed & not to be esteemed vain, idle & fabulous. To that of S. Pa: to the Thes. is plain that the Apostle speaks of that which was taught by word of his mouth, yea of such traditions as you call human in us. For when S. Chrysost. comes to explicate the 2 Thess. 2. he explicates it so plainly for such traditions as we have in controversy that D. Whitaker de sacra scriptura pag. 678. says that S. Chrisost. spoke in this point inconsiderately, & unworthy of so great a father. Therefore S. Paul and S. Chrysost: understood more here by traditions than you would willingly understand. And that not only things of little consequence but of greatest moment, are believed only by tradition, I prove manifestly since the Bible can not be canonical without it were delivered by the hand of tradition from time to time as authentic. And beside, 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 Trinity? How are you able only by bare scripture to prove the remedy in the old law used to women children for original sin, and to man children when in danger of death before the eight day they necessarily were to receive remedy of their sin? How prove you that our blessed virgin Marie was a perpetual virgin, ante partum, in partu, et post partum? how are you able to prove this by the bare letter against Helvidius the heretic; 
vide D. Hier. cont. Helvid. et D. August: haeresi 84.  for he urgeth you with the plain text, and with original phrase viz. That he knew her not till the brought forth her first son; and the word know you know what it imports in the Hebrew phrase: As Abraham knew Sara: So that you see we believe this perfection of the blessed and perpetual Virgin Mary by tradition, though the bare text seems to make against it: How do you prove that our sunday should be celebrated on sunday and not on saturday by the bare letter without tradition? How do you prove the celebration of Easter as it is now, without tradition? How do you prove the Creed of the Apostles out of the naked word? How do you prove without tradition that you should receive the blessed sacrament kneeling? the receiving of it fasting? the eating of blood and strangled meats prohibited in the Acts of the Apostles? How are you able to prove all these or any one of these by convincing reasons out of the holy scriptures alone? All these you say you can prove, not alleging one place of scripture for any of them, though you have been most copious to prove idem per idem in other points to little purpose. Now you say only it would go hard with you if you could not prove these without tradition, and me thinks it goes hard with you since you prove not one particular of them all. Therefore I desire you that you would not confound your trace so like the fox, or hare in doubling, and turning; but that you would answer distinctly to each point as it lies if you answer. Wherefore to shut up this point I will conclude with S. August: Genes: ad litt: ●. 10. ●. 23. that as he says that the not rebaptising of infants were not to be believed if it were not taught by tradition: So I say these forealleaged mysteries were not to be believed without the direction of tradition.  
Now since we are come to the answering of your arguments, which are nothing but allegations of scripture falsely applied, me thinks I cannot better compare them, then as to so many orient pearls and rich Jewels, hung and placed out of order in an Judian, or ●thiopians lips, nose, arms and legs: so these places of scripture in that they are racked and wrested from their right sense and meaning, their lustre, and beauty is rather a disgrace than ornament to the wearer.  
For when you bring the place of Deut. 5 32. to take heed that we should do as our Lord commanded us; not turning to the right hand nor the left, and of that of Deut. 12. 32. not putting any thing thereunto, or taking any thing therefrom. I answer first granting that God commandeth this, but I deny that hence can be gathered that in that we should do as our Lord commandeth us, and that we should not turn unto the right hand or to the left, that the holy scripture should be the only rule and v●ptor of faith: F●r as it doth not follow, nothing is to be added to the fourth commandment, and the fourth commandment is to be observed, therefore there is only the fourth commandment, and it is therefore the rule of all the rest.  
2. I answer that all additions whatsoever are not here prohibited but only such as are contrary to the word of God; For many other Prophets as the pen men of the holy Ghost did add divers yea most part of the holy scriptures. But now it is plain that the definitions and traditions of the Catholic church, by whose mouth the holy Ghost doth dictat are most consonant to the text of scripture. For the holy Ghost speaketh by them though not tanquam calamus velociter scribentis.  
For Luke 10. it is said he that heareth you heareth me, and he that contemneth you contemneth me: Math. 18. If he do not hear the church let him be to thee as an Ethnic and a Publican, and S. Ambrose expounding the last of S. John 18 v. where S. John saith If any man shall add unto these things, God shall add unto him the plagues written in this book. S. Ambrose saith he makes not a protestation against the expositors of his prophesy, but against heretiches; For the expositor doth add nor diminish nothing, but only openeth the obscurity of the place, and showeth the moral and spiritual sense.  
Now to answer your second argument, I wonder how you being a man of understanding should be so much deceived as to think that these places make for you, against us. For we holding firm our assertion can cite all the self same places Rom. 3. 10. 11 19 that man naturally understands not the things of God; & that man's wisdom is foolishness. Coloss. 2. 22. For we affirm it the gift of the holy ghost by an infused habit of faith that we believe; and that by the direction of the holy Ghost promised that the Church cannot ●●r; neither do we when we allow of tradition make at our pleasure voluntary religion, for we acknowledge tradition also to be the word of God, the voice of his spouse that is taught in all truth, guided up the holy ghost unto the end of the world. Wherefore your argument proves nothing since you presuppose that proved that rests yet to you to prove.  
The like answer I give unto your third argument, viz. that men are dead in trespasses Ephe. 2. 5. Math: 15 9 that faith to by hearing, and hearing by the word Rom. 10 17. But I deny that the word is the total or only rule of faith, since we find many things to be believed that are not expressly found in the written word, nor thence deduced.  
And to answer briefly unto your 4 Argument, I grant that the Priests and Prophets were bound to hear the word, and that of Ezek. 13. 2, 3. that they should not prophesy according to their own heart, or follow their own spirit, but I deny that they should follow only the written word or that following the voice of the Church, the interpretaton of holy Fathers and Doctors they follow their own hearts and their own inventions. So that you see how weak your arguments be, so that they might with more reason be returned on yourself.  
The second thing which you say I take upon me to prove: but 
II.  more rightly to say only to propound, till the decision of this main question be ended; which was whether the definitive sentence of the Church and Pope be an infallible rule and guide of our faith. Thus question I say, I only intended rather to propound than prove, that we have not at one time divers pro●s together in the fire; But now to handle it by way of vellitation and not of purpose to prove as you would hence infer: But you so mangle in propounding the reasons that I do only point out, that they might seem not to prove that which they intent. For you leave out the force of the argument; as the circumstances of the promise unto S. Peter by our Saviour, and the prerogatives and privilege given unto 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 prevail against him, that he being confirmed should confirm his brethren; that our Saviour washed S. Peter's feet first; that S. Peter only 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 promit 〈…〉 the Gospel; That the first miracle in confirmation of our faith is made by S. Peter; That he as a supreme judge did condemn the hypocrisy of Ananias and Saphiras, that he first discovered Simon Magus and condemned him; All which and other circumstances concurring only in S. Peter shows manifestly that S. Peter had pre-eminence 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 nativity Simon, by the name of his father Bar jonae, and by his new imposed name Cephas; that no cavil might be took at a legacy so strongly and particularly confirmed unto S. Peter. Now all that you bring or can allege against this belike is that the name Cephas was interpreted Petros, which in Greek either signifies a rock, or a stone. I answer it availeth nothing, since Petros signifies, either 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 plainly appeareth out of the very text; For it is said 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 
Mat. 16. 1●.  of before, the which according to your grammatical construction you seem not much to deny, since you confess that Cephas signifies indifferently a rock or a stone, now your private spirits interpretation would only limit it unto a stone, though against S. Hier: most slit●full in languages and tongues in c. 2. epist. ad Gal. where he says it signifies a rock: Optatus lib. 2. contra Parmen: says 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 ●. so after a kind of a measured proportion S. Peter by the delegation 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 therefore 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 judgements, seems to grant him superiority, and pre-eminence: And though S. Peter was the mouth of the rest, I grant all, but not only 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 sons of Abraham be two sons in that they represented two nations. And whereas you object that all the other Apostles were foundations, A●oc. 21. 14. I grant they were but not the principal. Neither both the headship of S. Peter derogate from Christ Jesus our head, since S. Peter is but subordinated to Christ Jesus, and only of his free institution: and if that place 1. Cor. 3. be understood absolutely; Other foundation can no man lay, then that which is laid which is Jesus Christ, then is that of S. Pa: 2. Ephes. false where he bids us build upon the foundation of the Apostles: so that you see a less principal foundation or roch may well agree with the absolute, most perfect rock and foundation Christ Jesus, and that the Apostles may be a foundation though S. Peter be chief.  
And that no man might reply that this doctrine of the Pope's supremacy is but a late doctrine; see Carthw. lib. 2 pag. 507. 50. lib. 2 pag. 97. Fully against Saunders rock pag. 248. 271. upon the ●hemis● restament where he affirming that the fathers of the council of Nice began the foundation of the Pope's supremacy; which was one of the first 4. general counsels so many years ago.  
And that this poinet of the Pope's supremacy doth not lack force of reason to confirm it, I will only allege one general reason is prove it. The ecclesiastical Hierarchy is no worse governed, than any temporal regiment and government. And therefore Math. 25. It too compared unto a kingdom that is governed by one King, and Heb. 3. to a family well governed. Caut. 6. to a Camp well ordered. But in all well ordered common wealths 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 controversies 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 party, when it shallbe necessary: And lastly there must be one to compel those that refuse, to due observation thereof. Now since the church of God is as well ordered, as any other government, and that there ariseth the like difficults in her laws explication, as can happen in any temporal and political government; It is against the providence of God and love to his spouse the church, to deny her those helps, which necessarily must be granted to all well governed common wealths. Therefore as the sentence of a supreme judge in explicating the sense of the low is to be followed; so by a greater reason S. Peter's successor guided by the holy Ghost, in all difficults of moment is to be sought unto for counsel, is to be heard with obedience when he counseleth, is to be obeyed when he proceeds with his powerful jurisdiction.  
Now when you are come to my supply of later Doctors, branding the most ancient and venerable Fathers of the Church with novelty; and only you please yourself 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 aver, that you could cite in this point Father for Father, Doctor for Doctor with us: although you cite S. August. 11. de verbo Dei sec. 12. where he says that Christ was the roche and not S. Peter. I answer first he doth not manifestly contrary us. For though 1. lib. retract. c. 23. he doth approve rather of that opinion, yet doth he not manifestly contrary, that he thinks the other opinion false, or improbable; For he ronfesseth that the whole Church, in a hymn of S. Ambrose doth acknowledge that S. Peter was head and rock of the Church; Wherefore after he had proposed the common opinion of the Church, and his private judgement: In great humility he concludeth all. Let the reader choose 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 rack: and how you may enforce fathers to seem to speak for your cause in great number if you bring those that makes against you: & me thinks you that rely most in expositions of scripture, on still of languages, should not only rely of S. August: words here that in this for lack of skill of languages mistook a little: But this is certain that S. August: in Psal. 63, et contra parts Donati calls S. Peter & his successors the rock, against which hell gates shall not prevail: So sapes Tertull. De prescript. 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. comment, in joannem.  
Lastly you produce that which I bring out of S. John 21. where it is said Pasce oves meas seed my flock, in which words I assumed S. Peter's privilege and power to be noted; since here a Pastoral office is granted unto S. Peter, that is to feed with pasture, to lead, to defend, to govern, chasten, and heal. But you say that all the Apostles were alike charged here to feed. But the contrary is manifest out, since he said only to him feed my flock to whom he said before, lovest thou me more than they? In which words he excludeth all the others: 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. Wherefore S. Leo saith 3. anniversario assumptionis. saith Petro hoc singulariter creditur, quia cunctis Ecclesiae rectoribus Petri forma praeponitur; and so we may answer that in this general charge given to Peter, the particular charge implicitly was commended unto all the other Apostles.  
And though the other Apostles were said to be joinet Priests with S. Peter 1. Pet. 5, 1. It is spoken in regard that they were joinctly Priests in the exercise of their orders, and not in regard of the pre-eminence 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 little smoothed up yourself that you have done your part in this point, then begin you to say that my affertion is not sufficiently proved: But as for that, you might better leave it to the judgement of the indifferent reader, then to take upon you to be pliant and ju●●e in the self same cause. But whereas you say I lack antiquity to prove the supremacy of the Pope, I hope no, since the Protest 〈◊〉 own Doctors teacheth that it began in the Nicean council; and I think when we shall scan the matter how it come in then I know we shall prove it of equal 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 only to give you a taste what doctrine in this we follow; Therefore if in this you impugn Cardinal Bellar: doctrine as it lieth, you may at once impugn both that learned man and myself, to whose learning I acknowledge myself a scholar.  
The last thing which you examine of mine is about the name Catholic; which fain you would challenge unto yourself, but after better consideration you seem to refuse it, because it is not warranted by the written word. But why do not you aswell reject the name Trinity, consubstantiality, three persons and one God? Nay why do you not reject as well the Crede of the Apostles? For if the church be a catholic mother, surely she hath Catholic children of which you willbe none. But you belike say with Gaudentius the heretic that the name Catholic is a human fiction. D. August. contra Gaudent. 
in praefatione novi testament.  lib. 2. c. 25. Or with Beza you helshe when you call it a swelling title you think it a vain word, or with Humphrey in vita juelli a vain term. But you do well since you have neither universality of time, place, or person of the Catholics: Nor the unity of the Romans having such divisions and sectaries amongst you to deny both: But we can say with S. August: writing upon the Psal. 65. jubilate Deo omnis terra let the whole world & not only one corner of Amsterdan rejoice, we can show you the prophecy 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: Neither is this the voice of the Israelites or AEdomites against the Israelites in glorying of fleshly privileges; For, these are noted as principal signs of the Church of God, and that if it were as invisible as your Church was, it should be excelled far by the synagogue of the Jews that still for all their scattering, have retained in sundry places visible meetings and congregations, visible use of their sacraments and ceremonies: The which consideration made Castalio in the preface of the Bible of King Edward the ●. after he had considered the promises made by our Saviour to his Church that it should be spread over all nations and that hell oats should not prevail against it, and how invisible their Church had been, how unheard of the essential points of their doctrine, enforced him to say that either these promises are to be fulfilled, or that God else is a liar: This also made George David to deny the verity of 
Historis Georgij Davidis Antverpien.  the Bible in that the promised visibility of the Church was not performed. Nay then a little to see whither we or you make the best resolution of our faith, Let us consider that we Roman Catholics use all means and apply all helps 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: We have all antiquity, unity, universality, visibility, 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 doctrine through all ages with their bloods: 2. we have a certain visible, and infallible way to decide all controversies, which is the Catholic Church that propoundeth what is to be believed, and what is not: 3. we have Gods divine veracity speaking by the mouth of the Church which formally makes us to believe: 4. we have a supernatural judgement to believe in common at least in that all people all nations have so believed. And lastly through all these we have a pious affection through the working of God's holy grace to believe hic et nunc, hoc et illud, and that without any difficult, since we first believe there is but one true Church, and that Church cannot ere, and so with great facility we believe aught that the Church shall propound unto us to be believed. But you have none of these, but only a prejudicated opinion not to believe aught we say, and a presumptuous spirit to prefer pour interpretations before all the Doctors of the Church: And if you would endeavour to convert any Turk, Jew or Atheist, you could not make him of your opinion, till you had convinced him in each particular and several point. But when we shall come to deal with an Atheist or an infidel; we can give him such evident motives, such profoundness of reasons, that even by the light of nature he may think almost that our articles of faith are worthy of belief, and after we have persuaded him to believe that there is but one true church, one means of salvation, and that this Church is guided in all truth by the holy Ghost, with great facility I can induce him to believe any one article of our belief that this only 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 relics of the poisoned cup they are all too blasphemonsly false if you would pour them upon us; and I think they might be applied to your congregation if I would descend down into particulars. Wherefore that pour understanding may be enlightened and judgement corrected read the Bible but not only with the scholiast of your private spirit, but with the holy fathers and learned Doctor's expositions. Therefore I will conclude with that short exhortation S. Augustin sent unto his friend Honoratus lib: De unitate Cred. c. 8. You see you have been love troubled with these broils of parties in the world, and now if you think yourself to have been tossed and turmoiled enough, and would at length have an end of these verations follow the way of the Catholic discipline; in which the prophesy of Isoia the third is fulfilled. And there shallbe in it a path, and a way, and a holy way it shallbe called, the befiled shall not pass by it, but this to you shallbe a direct way, so that fools can not nuffe if they follow it.  
And thus Mr Ainsworth I have maintained my arguments, answered your objections, though not so speedily as I could have wished, having other business: And now here I could wish you do not secare lignum eadem lineà, that you would when you answer me examine ●. Beauties' grounds, reasons, doctrine and authorities as they lie, that so you may the better give yourself and others satisfaction, and the more worthily deserve an answer; And thus with hearty prayers for your conversion I leave you the fourth of March 1610. from Justice Hall stilo veteri.  
Your friend to give your understanding the best satisfaction he can. john Aynsworth.  
The answer to the former reply.  
To Mr john Aynsworth prisoner in justice hall, in London: Grace and mercy, from our Lo. Jesus Christ.  
Whereas my first writing gave you to understand that I held all differences in religion were to be tried & composed by the verdict of God, whereunto I humbly submit the trial of my faith & actions always, & in my second, (because I did not see you condescend hereunto,) I showed reasons of such my persuasion: you (Mr Aynsworth) in your reply, first tax 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, ● were their scholars, the most ancient record of histories, the whole body of councils and holy fathers, the whole school of Doctors etc. yea as one that hath implicitly condemned for heretics; Luther, Calvin, Beza, Jewel, Whitaker, Humphrey, etc. The first I leave to the indifferent reader's judgement, whither I have omitted any ground of your discourse pertinent to our present cause; or you rather have omitted of mine, in your reply. If you blame me for omitting discourses impertinent, I must bear it still: for still I mean so to follow the matter in hand.  
The second I leave to your own second consideration, & all unpartial judgement, what cause you have so to accuse me. Do I otherwise debase men, then by comparison with the most high God? do I speak of the fathers, worse than the scriptures (which I alleged) speak of all men? And will you match earth with heaven, frail man, with God, as joint umpiers in religions controversies.? If not, why are you offended, that I cleay to God alone: that I would leave the farhers to sleep in peace; (which you out of charity, do interpret a dead sleep of errors:) whom you (it seems) would rouse out of their graves, as if you thought to find a 
* 1. Sam. 28  Samuel at Endor, when the Lord himself answereth you not by urim, nor by Prophets. And much you mistake me, (if not purposely); as if I thought myself not dust and ashes as they, or any more privileged from errors than they. There be thousands of them whom you imply as taxed of me with error, whom I prefer for wisdom truth & holiness before myself: yea I match not myself with the least of God's servants: but by the grace of God I am that I am; & his word, (not my own) is that I st●d upon, & do oppose unto all the world: but I judge no man, neither will I be judged, in cases of conscience, by man's day. 
† Isa. 2. 22,  Cease you therefore from the man whose breath is in his nosthrels: for wherein is he to be esteemed?  
Or if you will not cease, the truth itself out of the mouth of God and man shall force you hereunto. For in my former answer, I set down four reasons, fortified with many scriptures, to prove this position: That 
The 1. point of controversy.  God only is to be umpire 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 falsely 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 only rule or umpire of faith. For (say you) as it doth not follow, nothing is to be added to the 4. commandment, and the 4. command is to be observed, therefore there is only the 4. command. and it is therefore the rule of all the rest. The reddition of this your similitude, shows not his face (perhaps lest it should blush:) but lies hid in silence.  
First you gather a consequence, which here I strewed not: I spoke of God, and of his verdict and authority; not of the scriptures as yet. For whither it be by writing or by speaking, or any other way that God manifesteth his will unto us, it is to me all one, and the authority of the scripture is a second point. Thus your answer is not here to the purpose.  
Your reason annexed, is a fallacy, concluding from a part against the whole unequally. The scriptures cited speak of God's commands in general: you take one in particular; and because one is not all, therefore all must not be all, but more than all must be observed; which what they will be I cannot tell, unless the commandments of men. Mat. 15. 9  
2. You answer, that all additions whatsoever are not here prohibited, but only such as are contrary to the word of God: for many other prophets, as the penmen of the holy Ghost, did add diverse, pea most part of the holy scriptures, etc.  
In deed this answer is your own, none of Gods: you show no tittle of his word for that you speak. But I will show you the contrary. Prov. 30 ●. Add not unto his words, lest he reprehend thee, and thou be a liar. Lo here all additions, and not only things contrary, are forbidden. Again; though it be but a man's testament, (saith our 
* Gal. 3. 15.  Apostle,) when it is confirmed, no man doth abrogate it, or addeth thereto. If you add 
This I. A. answereth not, but Gal. 1. for it.  to your natural father's testament, civil laws would count you an unnatural son; & your distinction would not help you: much less can it help you, for doing such wrong to the will of our father which is in heaven.  
Your reason is direct against you: for the Prophets being penmen of the holy ghost, added nothing of their own: the additions were 
: 2. Pet. 1. 21,  Gods own. If the Prophets & Apostles mought add nothing of themselves, much less may we. Thus God yet reigneth alone. And if you would have man's oil to lighten your lamp, hear what Chrisostom saith for this point: 
‡ In opere imperfect. cap. 7. Mat. See also Ambrose 1. de paradiso. 5. 12. where he condemneth all additions & concludeth Nihil igitur vel quod bonum videtur addendum est.  Every Doctor is a servant of the law, for neither may he add unto the law any thing of his own sense, neither may he withdraw any thing according to his own understanding, but preach that only which is found in the law.  
Whereas you add, that your traditions are also from the holy ghost, for Luk. 10. it is said, he that heareth you, heareth me, and Mat. 18. If he hear not the church, let him be to thee as an ethnik and a publican: First, these are spoken to all Christ's ministers & of all his churches: and therefore make no more for Rome, then for Corinth or Ephesus. But you still keep from the point, & yield the cause unawares. For be it tradition, definition or whatsoever, by whomsoever, if it be Gods, not man's, it is enough, & all that I would prove in this first particular. After it shallbe scanned whither your traditions be of God or no.  
Whereas therefore in answering my second agrument, you wonder how I should be so deceived, as to think the places that I cite, make for me and against you: you may wonder rather at your own mistakeing (that I say no more,) who when I plead for God only & his all-sufficiency, by opposing as the scripture teacheth, man's corruption & folly; you will not yield, though you have nothing to contradict. And even thus you turn over the 3. & 4. reason, by denying them to prove that thing, which I there did not cite them for. Such oversight hereafter I hope you will amend, that you weary not both me & your reader.  
Now to your former answer which was with a distinction in this plain point, whither God only, or some other, should be 
* Isa. 33. 22.  judge & lawgiver to his people for their religion & controversies thereabout: the same distinction you urge here again, which whither it be a meet & distinct answer, or argues not rather fear, let the prudent judge. For you yield not plainly to the thing by me propounded, which neither religion nor reason would stick at: only atheism will deny. For if there be a God, & he of man to be served, & man knows not the things of God till by himself they be reveled, neither may do more or less than by the Lord is commanded, (as I have before proved:) hereupon it will follow undeniably, that in all doubts & controversies of religion, God's voice & verdict must decide what is truth and what pleaseth him. Whither he show it by himself from heaven, by Angels or by churches, or by particular men, by writing or by speaking, it is & aught to be all one to us. But the more to convince you, you shall have human testimony; as of Ambrose, who saith. 
† Epist. l. 5. epis. 31 Sir also Hilar. l. 1 de trinitat et l. 4▪ ratio est▪ ●●a summi lovis.  The mystery of heaven let God himself teach me, which made (heaven:) not man, which knew not himself Whom should I rather believe concerning God, than God himself? Or if you be not moved by this Father's judgement; the heathen shall rise up and condemn you, who esteemed true law, apt to command and to forbid, to be the right reason of the great God; & that 
† divina mens summa lex est. The 2. point of controversy.  the divine mind, to be the cheiflaw. Cicero de Legib. lib. 2.  
The second point now is. Where this verdict of God is to be found; whither in the scriptures of the old and new Testament (as I believe;) or in the writings and mouths of other men. To this I had not before, neither yet have your dir 〈◊〉 answer. What makes you shun the light herein, is easy to discern. To confirm my faith that the verdict and will of God is to be found in holy writ, I alleged divine testimonies 
‖ Heb. 1. 1. Rom. 16, 25 29. & 10, 6. 7. 8. 2. Tim 2. 16, 17. joh. 20. 31. 1. joh. 1, 4. 1. Cor. 4. 6.  many: to them you answer not one word: neither yet do you yield to the truth. Beware you wink not with your eyes, that you may not see. But seeing the holy scriptures move you not; you shall have candle light, to see the sun shine.  
C. Bellarmine, (to whom you refer me, twice in your last writing, & to whose learning you acknowledge yourself a scholar,) ingeniously confesseth saying: 
‡ Preface to the first tome of his works.  Neq, n distputari potest etc. There can be no disputing (saith he) except we and our adversaries first do agree in some common principle: now we & all heretics agree in this, that the word of God, is the rule of faith, whereby men are to judge of points of doctrine: is a common principle granted of all men, from whence arguments may be drawn: & is the spiritual sword, which in this battle may not be refused. Behold here the first point plainly yielded by your champion: which you, without dark distinction, could not be drawn unto.  
The second concerning the scriptures is in effect also yielded, when he saith 
‖ Bellarm. De verbo Dei. l. 1. c. 1.  That the Prophetical and Apostolical book●, according to the catholic church's mind, explained both by the 3. council of Carthage. c. 47. and late council of Trent, sess. 4. is the true word of God, and the certain and stable rule of faith. Lo here again my second assertion justified by your C. that the word of God is to be found in the Prophets and Apostles writings. As for the meaning or understanding of these scriptures, explained by the church; that remaineth for a third 
* De verbo Dei l. 1, c. 2.  consideration. But further to confirm this second, he saith, The rule of the catholic faith ought to be certain and known; for if it be not known, it will be no rule to us; and if it be not certain, it is no rule at all But nothing is more known, nothing more certain than the holy scriptures, which are contained in the Prophetical and Apostolical writings: that most foolish must he needs be, which denies that credit is to be given unto them. Again he confesseth, that 
‡ ibidem.  the holy scripture is a most certain and a most safe rule of believing These things spoke your Cardinal, though perhaps not of himself but as being 
” joh. 11, 51.  high priest that year, when he disputed against the Libertines & others that despise though scriptures of God. And thus hath the truth obtained testimony out of your master's mouth whose learning I crow his scholars will not withstand; or if they do, this d●o n●s given against them by the lesait●: 
‖ Bellarm: ibidem.  They fight with Moses, with the Prophets, with the Apostled, which Christ 〈…〉 to God the father, and the holy Ghost, which contemn the holy scriptures and ●ael●s of God.  
Thus have I proved sufficiently as I suppos●, in my former & this writing, that God, word & will is to be found in the prophetical and Apostolical scriptures; that if you longer resist, you will be condemned of yourself. Other human testimonies out of 
‡ August. de doctr. Christ l, 2 c. 9 In has omnibus libris, nempe sacrae scripturae, timentes Daun, et pietate mansueti, quaerunt voluntatem Dei.  Augustine, Higher, & many like Doctors, I could further all edge to confirm this trach: but the witness of God is venough for me; & both it and the testimonies of your Cardinal, are sufficient against you.  
And now I come to your first assertion which you took upon you to prove, That the bare scripture is not a sufficient rule of our belief: ● that many mysteries and points are is be believed, that are not erp●●sl● 
The 1 of your assertions.  taught, or evidently deduced out of the holy scriptures. Against this I brought in my former writing, evident testimonies from heaven, as 2. Tim. 3. 16. 17 john. 20. 31. 1 Cor. 4. 6. & others, against which you open not your mouth.  
An ●…g your first argument, that we mought not by any equivocation 
The 1. of your arguments.  mistake one another, I showed my meaning distinctly, how things many man be believed, though they be not gathered out of the written word, understanding hereby a common or human belief, wherein men may vary without danger of damnation. As for example; a man may believe that the Apostle Matth ●wwis in AEthiopia, Thomas in India, Jude in Persia & upon the report of human● records And so Peter at Rome, if you will. But for salvation with God, I said, not any thing is needful to be believed; ●ave that which is taught by his written word. You in your reply, seeking advantage by words, conclude that I hold some tradition necessary besided the written word; & thus now have drawn (as you say) water out of the Rock, since I grant that tradition is necessary to m●… belief. Whereas I used not the word necessary, but may be: & evidently restrained things needful for salvation, to Gods written word: to that your water is spilled on the ground, & cannot be gathered up again; how ever you may strive about words, when matter faileth.  
Again, my assertion; that nothing is needful to be believed for salvation with God, but that which is taught by his written word, is you say, most false, since nothing with m●is more necessary to salvation then the written word, which word is not proved by an other written word etc. Where first you fight against God, who saith, in john, 20. 30. 31. Many o● her signs did jesus in the presence of his disciples, which are not written in this book, but these things are written that ye mought believe that jesus is the Christ the son of God, and that in believing ye mought have life through his name. And again, in 2. Tim 3 16. 17. All scripture (is) inspired of God, and profitable for doctrine, for reprehension, for correction for instruction which is in righteousness, that the man of God may be perfect & perfectly ti●t●d unto every good work These are the testimonies of the holy Ghost as yourself will not dency: and in them, both faith and all good works are deduced from the scriptures and what more, think you, is needful for salvation with God? ● how then is my assertion most false? do you not gave the lie unto the holy ghost?  
Secondly, I wish you to deal plainly & distinctly with me & my words; as I endeavour to do with you. I hold the word of God to be absolutely 
* Rom. 10. 9-17.  necessary as a means for man's salvation: which is the ●rst point, this word, 
† 2 Pet. 1. 21 Pherómenoi.  was first spoken, afterwards written: by men that weret●aried by the holy ghost. To our first fathers, the word spoken was necessary, & sufficient, whiles it was not written: to us now, the written word is left, as a necessary mean or instrument, sufficient to teach us Gods will, & bring us 
I mought better allege this against you, that your catholic church's set●nce, is not proved by an other catholic church's sentence.  to salvation: which is the second point. Against the sufficiency hereof you except, that this written word is not proved by an other written word: whereas before I have proved, that the scriptures of God do prov & approve, & confirm one an other, & his spirit which is in them, & ●n all his people, doth seal that they are true More sound & sufficient proof there needeth not, nor can be had. You rely upon the church; but I say with the Apostle, 
‖ 1 joh. 1, 9●.  if we receav he witness of m●: the witness of God is greater. As you carp here at the written word, so did the faithless Pharisees as the spoken word; yea at the eternal speaking word the son of God himself. Thou bravest witness of thyself (said 
‡ joh. 8. 13. 14.  they) thy witness is not true. Though I bear witness of myself (said Christ) my witness is true: for I know whence I came & wnither I go; but ye cannot tell whence I come, and which ●r I go. 
‖ vers. 15.  Ye judge after the flesh. Even so, the scriptures bear witness of themselves, (say I): you accept not this their testimony. And why? doubtless because you know not whence they came: you judge after the flesh. Our Lord jesus had the 
† Ioh 5 3●●  witness of john Baptist, & other men many; but he received 
” vers. 34.  not the witness of men, nor 
* verse 41.  praise of men. So the holy scriptures have witness of the church & saints in all ages: but they receav not the witness of men, as that which is most irrefragable. Christ had 
vers. 36.  greater witness, than john's: for the works which he did, bare witness or him, that the Father sent him. So the works which the scriptures do, in the consciences of men, bear witness that they are of God. The Father himself which sent Christ, 
* vers. 37.  bare witness of him: so the Father which hath sent u● the scriptures, beareth witness of them. Ye have not heard his voice at any time, (saith Christ,) 
† ver● 17. ●●  neither have ye seen his shape: & his word ye have not abiding in you, for whom he hath sent, him ye believe not. So say I to you; if ye believe not the scriptures, it is because the word of God abides not in you: if you hear not them, neither will you be persuaded, though one rise from the dead again: Luk. 16 31. But lo how you require proof of a received principle: (for which, by laws of right reasoning, you deserve not to be reasoned with; as a Christian. It is the speech of an atheist, to call for proof that there is a God: of a Turk o● paynim, to call for proof that our divine scriptures, are of God. Professed Christians grant this, why should we then war one with an other, about our own received grounds? The books that I hold to be inspired of God, authentik, canonical; yourselves grant ●o to be. Cease therefore I pray you to ●ight against God, least by your own mouths you ●s condemned.  
But as yet you cease not; for demanding how I prove without tradition, the scripture to be inspired of God; and my interpretation to be only true: you say I have my answer ready coined viz. 
‡ 1. Cor 2. 11.  the things of God no man knoweth but the spirit of God. It is well my answer hath been coined in the Lord's mint: and it shallbe well with you if you receive your money from no worse coiners. But what fault find you with this coin? you ask: how I do proov that I have the spirit of God? For myself, first I answer, with th'Apostle 
” 1. Cor. 2, 11.  what man knoweth the things of man, but the spirit of man which is in him? I cannot make proof of that to an other, which can be known but to myself: only as the tree is known by the fruits, so may my spirit by the 
* Gal. 5. 23— 25.  fruits thereof be discerned whither it be of God or no. For my interpretation I answer, it may be truth it may be error; let it be tried by the scripture itself, of them that have the 
‡ Quo spirituscripturae factae sunt, eo spiritu legi desiderant, ipsae etiam intelli gendae sunt. Bernard. ad fratres de monte Dei.  spirit of God Further proof there is none on earth: till the great day come, when all secrets shallbe made manifest. But for the scripture, (which is the thing you should keep unto,) it needs not my proof that it is inspired of God: it hath proof in itself of God, than which can be no greater. It is as if you should ask me proof, that there is light in the sun, my answer would be, all whose eyes have the spirit of life and sight in them, do see it: the blind and senseless can never discern it. So is it much more in the things of God. Learn it (I pray you) of our Saviour: who saith, that the 
joh. 14. 17  world cannot receive the spirit of truth, because it seeth him not, neither knoweth him: but ye (my disciples) know him, for he dwelleth with you, and shall be in you and 
” vers. 26.  he shall teach you all things; and 
* joh. 15, 26  he shall testify of me, 
* joh. 16. 14.  he shall glorify me, for he shall receive of mine and shall show it unto you. Now this Anointing or holy spirit, all that are 
† Rom. 8, 9  Christ's, have, (none other in the world;) and it dwelleth in them; and they 
‡ 1. joh. 2, 27.  need not that any man teach them, but as the same Anointing teacheth them all things, and it is true and is not lying. If you say with Nicodemus, 
‡ joh. 3, 9  how can these things be? I answer with Christ, 
vers. 11.  Verily verily, we speak that we know, and testify that we have seen: but ye receive not our witness. If ye cannot perceive 
* verse 8. Eccles. 11, 5.  the wound that bloweth; nor know how the bones do grow in the womb of a woman with child: how should ye know the work of God, that worketh all? If you see not God's spirit in the script ●res, it is because the eyes of your heart are blinded: yet the light 
† joh. 1. 5.  shines in darkness, though the darkness comprehends it not. If you still call for testimony and proof of the spirit; you have been answered, 
‡ 1, joh. 5, 6  it is the spirit which testifieth, that the spirit is truth: and if you refuse to walk in this light, you must grope in darkness till you lie down in sorrow.  
But you still object, (as having a mist before your eyes,) that the Manichie, Montanist, Arian and all other haeretiks, will v●a●● of this private spirit etc. be ●t ●o, and cannot you 
* ● john 4. ●  try the spirits (as the Apostle biddeth) whither they ●e of God? doubtless if you were of God, you should not only try and find out, but overcome them; for greater is he that is in the Saints, than he that is in the world: this promise have we received from the Father; 1 joh. 4, 4.  
Again you consider not (though you were put in mind) that jews & Turks and Ethniks, will beat you with your own weapons. For the I●w resteth upon the books of Moses and the Prophets, which are the ground 
† Act. 26 22 23.  of our Christian religion: and from them he reasoneth against ●esus of Nazareth our hope. To allege now against jew, the authority of your catholic church, or Pope, is no more than for them to allege against youth authority of Annas and Caiaphas, and the church of Israel. If you confound not the jew by scriptures (as did 
‡ Act. 17. 2. 3. & 18. 28.  the first Christians,) & by 
‖ 1 Cor 2. 4.  demonstration of the spirit and of power; yourself will turn back and be ashamed; for no other weapons, will win the victory in this field. And the same will foil all Antichristians and heretics whosoever: for though they take up the sword of the spirit, which is 
” Eph. 6, 17.  the word of God; yet the true spiritual man, whose eyes are in his head, will return that sword 
* Ps. 37. 15  into their own hearts, and slay them therewith. For the weapons of our warfare 
† 2 Cor. 10, 4.  are mighty through God, to cast down holds: and a wise man goeth up into the city of the mighty, and casteth down the strength of the confidence thereof: Prov. 21. 22. ay, but the Roman catholic church (you say) can show Turks their beginner, beginning, increase and declining estate. And will not the jew say as much against us Christians; that they can show our beginner, beginning, increase etc. If this be your best defence, the Turk will laugh you to scorn. And JULIAN the Apostata, would not have his mouth stopped by your slight answer, because he himself went out of the catholic Ch:, which was more ancient than he: for than if a jew should now come to your catholic church: his brethren jews might stop his mouth, (by your yeason) because he goeth out of a church more ancient than himself. julian pleaded not for his own person, but for Paganism as much more ancient and universal than Christianisme: which if they be unfallible demonstrations of the truth, our faith will perish; unless we deduce our antiquity from paradise, where in deed Christianity did 
Gen. 3. 15 20.  begin. And so the truth will prevail in antiquity against all opposites: but than God's word and spirit in his scriptures and servants, must be ou● bulwark, as now they be mine. If your Church, Pope, and traditions, will not stand you in stead against jews, Turks, ● thinks; but only for to contend a while, against your even Christian: then do you not build upon the Rock, nor lay such a ground as all 
* Mat. 16.  h●l gates can not prevail against: for these miscreants will prevail against it: but we that rely on God's word and spirit, shall by his grace stand for ever, even as the Apostles did by these, convert all nations under heaven.  
Whereas I further th●w●d you ●h insufficiency of your plea for church traditions, by example or Israel, whose church and priests ●ared, and codemned Christ etc. You answer m● 
Ioh 9 22. , that the high priesthood that was judge did not ere; n● not when ou● Saviour was condemned: in that the high priesthood remained in our saviour, for he was th●… if judge etc. But doubtless the Pharisees would have smiled anthis answer: wherein you ●●ke for granted, the main controversy Question was then in Israel whether jesus of Nazareth were the true M●s●●●, the high priests, scribes, ruler, said no, he is a deceiver, and hath a D●…l; & if any confess him to be the Christ, let him be excommunicate. Doth any of the rulers or of the pharisees believe in him? but this people 
† joh. 7. 48. 49.  which know not the lawer cursed. If you ●ad then lived it seems you would have confuted all the Rabbins with this, that jesus was the Messias because he was the chief priest, and judge; But had you not cleaved otherweise to the scriptures, (as did th' Apostles, and s●now do,) they would soon have stopped your mouth with this, that hard controversies were by the law to come unto the 
‡ Deu. 17. 9  Priests of the Levites, (not a Priest of juda, concerning which tribe. Moses spoke 
Heb 7. 14.  nothing touching the priesthood,) and unto the judge that should been th●se days, in the place which the Lord did 
Deu. 17. 8  choose (which uva jerusalem, not 
* joh. 1 46  Nazareth, or 
† joh. 7. 41  Galilee whence jesus came,) and h●y should show the sentence of judgement &c: and he that would not ●●a●ken to the Pr●●● or judge should die. But we are the Priests of the Levites (would they say), and by our o●ce must teach the people betweeneth holy & prof●n●, and in 
Ezek. 44. 23 24.  controversy must stand to judge; according 
Deu 17. 11  to ●h● law which we teach & tell, must m●n do: now we have a law 
† john. 19 7  and by our law he ought to die, because he made himself the son of God. If now your religion had been known that the Church, the priesthood, can not ere: the simple people might have chosen Bar●bb●s, rather than jesus, (as in deed they did,) and have had much more colour to plead for Annas and Caiaphas, than you have for your Pop●: and succession (the pillar of your catholic church,) would have born down all the disciples of our Lord. Beware therefore how you build upon these ●oggs, lest you betray the Gospel, unto stubborn jews.  
Besides all this, if you knew the scriptures, you might find long before, that the church of Israel erred. Did not the priests, rulers and people, condemn the Prophets of God sent in several ages; and was not jerusalem the 
‡ Mat. 4. 5.  holy city, and seat of the priesthood, g●… 
Luk. 13. 33 3●.  of their blood? Was not vile and gross idolatry practised often in juda and jerusalem: by the Priests and Princes? so that jerusalem 
Ezek. 23. 11.  A●OL●●AH, m●●red herself with inordinate love and with her fornications, more than her idolatrous sister AHOLAH or Samaria. For judah 
2 Chr. 2●. 6.  forsook the Lord, and turned their faces from his tabernacle, 
† vers. 7.  shut the doors of his house, quenched his lamps, and neither burnt incense nor offered burnt offerings in the sanctuary, unto the God of Israel: and will you say in all this, the Church did not ere? Vriah the Priest 
* 1 king 16. 10. 11 etc. 16.  made an altar idolatrous like that in Damascus, and polluted God's worship in the temple. Pa●h it the son of Imm●r the Priest 
† jer. 20. 1. 2  being governor in the house of the Lord, persecuted jeremiah for preaching the truth; and himself prophesied 
‡ vers. 6.  lies. A general defection was in the church, they, 
Ier 32. 32. 33.  their Kings, their Princes, their Priests, and their Prophets, the men of judah & the inhabitants of jerusalem, they turned the back unto God, and not the f●…, and s●● 
vers. 34.  their abominations in the house whereupon his name was called, to defile it, and 
* vers. 35.  built the high places of Baal, and offered their children into Molech. The heads of jerusalem judged for rewards, 
† Mica. 3. 11  & the priests taught for hire, and the prophets prophesied for money. And will you yet say, the church did not ere? The Lord said by Malachi, that 
Ma● 2. 5. 6 etc.  his covenant, had been with Levi, even life and peace: and he gave him fear, that he feared him, and was afraid before his name: the law of truth was in his mouth, and no iniquity found in his lips: for 
* vers. 7.  the Priests lips should preserve knowledge, & they should seek the law at his mouth; for he is the Angel of the Lord of hosts. But of the Priests that then lived he complaineth that they 
† vers. 8.  w●r gone out of the way, had caused many to fall by the law, & had broken the covenant of Levi; for which God made them 
‡ vers. 9  despised & vile before all the people. And where now is the privilege of the preistood, not to ere? And if the church then erred, (as many more proofs may yet be brought, if you still denev it,) how did the godly for a ground of their faith? Will not the law of the Lord & his good spirit which he gave to 
N●hem. 9 20.  instruct them, sustain is now, as it did them then, against all errors heresies and idolatries? otherwise Christians now under the gospel, should have less grace or benefit by the scriptures and spirit of God, then thee had then: which is contrary to all the promises. Th●se things I dor the more insist upon, to enforce you to a de●p●r consideration of your estate, & foundation of you faith, which you lay upon the sands: for though the church is to be respected and honoured above all societies in the world her doctrines, admonitions, censures to be regarded: yet may we not make an idol of her, nor set her in God's throne: himself hath taught us from the beginning, that the 
* Lev. 1. 3.  Anointed priest may sin to the sin of the people; a 
vers. 22.  ruler mought sin: the 
vers. 13.  wh●l congregation of Israel mought sin: and all were to offer sacrifie● for their trespasses: that all flesh may learn to be silent before God and confess themselves to ere But God's word ●tr●th not; his scriptures are 
Psal. 12. 6.  as silver fined 7 times, no dross is in them: therefore the scripture is above the church, and that perfect rule must guide us, not the imperfect doctrines of men.  
Now whereas I showed how the Labyrinth of your religion leadeth to the Pope, the centre of your circle; and maketh him a ground of grounds, whereon 〈◊〉 b●ild our faith that he must tell us what is divine scripture, and what is the meaning of every point of scripture, & what is unwritten verity etc. and none may doubt or contradict: you give me an ananswer from Aristotle & Philosophy, but altogether neglect the true sophy or wisdom that is from above. For by what ground from God 
jam. 3. 17.  may I be assured, that the B. of Rome, rather than of Eph s●●, etc., is the only man in the world, on whom my ●aith must rest o● that there is such a mutual reciprocation betwixt God's word & him, that the one necessarily depends on an other, the word on the Pope as touching us? I know the church, as it is manifested by the scriptures, so beareth witness again of the scriptures, & holdeth them forth, or should, as the pillar & ground of truth. But this not always, nor necessarily. For how th●n is it come to pass, that the church of Ephesus, which in Paul's time was 
† 1 Tim. 1. 3. & 3. 15.  the pillar and ground of truth; hath long since been swallowed up of heresies? Why may I not fear also, that the church of Rome, (whom Paul w●rn▪ d 
‡ Rom. 11. 20 2●.  not to be high minded out to fear, lest God who spared not the natural branches, the jews, would also not spare her, but 
‖ vers. 22.  cut her off,) is swallowed up of like evils? And to follow your own similitude; how do you manifest that the Pope is the only skilful Lapidary, that must value the Carbuncles, sapphires, and all other precious stones that shine in the scriptures? If a Lapidary should show you a chaulk stone, and say it 〈◊〉 a diamond, & prise it a●●ording: would you believe him and give him 〈◊〉 price yet, you believe the Pope, when he tells you that the fabulous books of ●obie and of judith & other like apocryphal; are canonical inspired of God, to be prized as dear as Mos●s and the Prophets. As he shows little skill in this art, that gives such rubbish in stead of the Topaz & Chrysolites so dare I not trust him in valuing the stones upon Aaron's Ephod, or showing the virtue & uses of them, where of he is more ignorant (as experience hath taught) them many other men. Yet you refuse the holy Ghost the spirit of all truth, who 
* 1 Cor. 2.. 10. 11. job 28. 12. 13— 23. etc.  only is able to value the word of God, and undoubtedly to manifest the wisdom of the same: to build your salvation upon a man, who may himself (as anon I will prove by your own confession) be the child of damnation. Now verily I am loath to put my soul into his hand, that hath so little care of his own: or make him the only Pilot of my ship, that sails himself into the gulf of h●ll.  
And whereas you would hav● me giv you leave to be of S●●●g●stines mind, who said he would not believe the scripture to be scripture, without the authority of the church: if he and you understand Christ the head of the church & auctor of the scriptures, good leave have you. But if you mean his supposed Vicar the Pope, (for so your catholic church shrinketh into one man) or any such prelate, you may take leave if you will, but I will give you none. For Augustine who written a book of ●etractations, replanting his own sundry errors and oversights, mought ere in this, as well as in other points: & it is not wisdom for any man, to follow him in all things, that was deceived in many▪ And this is such an assertion, as behoved him either w●l to explain it, or plainly to retract it: and not to leave a stumbling block before the blind▪ And if you will needs blindfold yourself and follow him: yet give others leave to use their eyesight, lest they fall into the ditch. And herein I (not you) follow Augustine's steps: for when controversy was between Hierom and him about Peter's sin, Galat. 2. & Hierom alleged many Doctors to back his opinion, & then desired of him (as you do now of me) to give him leave to ere with such men if he thought him to ere: Augustine answered 
† Epist. 19  that he had Paul himself, in stead of them all yea & above them all, and to him he did fly and appeal from them all, that were otherweise minded: and asked leave of them, that he mought rather believe so great an Apostle than any other how learned so ever. As you would have leave to be of Augustine's mind for the other point: so will I take leave to be of his practice in this.  
Your ●. argument now followeth, drawn from the difficulty & hardness 
The ●. of your arguments.  to understand the scripture. Whereto I answered granting some things to be difficult in the Bible: but deneying the inference, that therefore it is no certain rule or square of truth. You reply, that the testimony alleged (2. Pet. 3. 16.) doth prove it: for in what (say you) 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 chief and principal master. I answer, First you confound the things, with the scripture which manifesteth the things: whereas these two differ much. Predestination is a hard thing for men to understand, whosoever speak or write of it: but the scripture that treateth hereof is plain in itself, & Paul is not so obscure as your Pope. Secondly the Apostle saith that the unlearned & unstable do pervert (or wrest) these things as the other scriptures also: but what is this against those that be taught of God, and established in the truth by his spirit. Evil minded men will wrest all things 
‖ De intelligentia ●. haeresis, no de scriptura est: et sensus non sermo fit crimen. Hilarius l. 2. de Trinitat.  be they never so plain. Shall we therefore have no rule, no sure ground of our faith? To come then near unto you in this point, I freely grant that many high mysteries are in the scriptures, hard to be understood of us, ignorant men, but withal I add this, that those mysteries are made more hard, by your Pope's determinations. For whereas men mought have some good measure of light in these mysteries, by the plain scriptures: it is come to pass by your Popes & prelate's glosses, interpretations, comments, etc. that darkness & gross darkness hath covered many people, who if they had never read any thing but the book of God, inought have seen much more clearly, through his grace. You do not right therefore to complain of difficulty & insufficiency in the Prophetical and Apostolical writings: Why rather mind you not the●saying of the holy Ghost in the scriptures, Prov. 18, 8. 9 The words of my mouth are all plain to him that will understand, and straight to them that would find knowledge. But you make Gods holy & comfortable words, to be crooked, dark, deceivable rules: and his divine oracles given for the salvation of men, to be like the doubtful Delphik oracles of the Devil, uttered for men's destruction. You think the late fathers and your Popes can speak plain to simple men's understanding, but all the holy Prophets and Apostles could not (or would not) speak to the capacity of the simple, so you make them the greatest deceivers of souls in the world: & a pagan mought justly scorn our heavenly law, if it be a leaden rule, a nos● of waxy, as some have blasphemed it. But hogs esteem draff better than pearls; & though the wisdom of God poureth out her mind unto them, yet in them is fulfilled the true proverb, wherefore is there a price in the hand of the fool, to get wisdom, & he hath none heart? 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 Pope's determinations with the holy scriptures, he shall find as good agreement as between harp and harrow. For example; Gods plain law saith, 
* Exod. 20.  Thou shalt not make to thyself a graven (thing) or any similitude of things that are in heaven above, or in earth beneath etc. thou shalt not bow down to them, neither serve them: and again, 
† Deu. 27. 15  Cursed be the man that shall make a graven or a molten (thing,) the abomination of the Lord, the work of the hands of the artificer, and shall set it in a secret place; & all the people shall answer and say, Amen. These evident scriptures may persuade every simple heart, that it is a fearful sin to make & worship similitudes of God & of Christ, and of Saints departed or any the like▪ Now let him come to your catholic church's interpretation, and read your Cardinal's gloss, that 
‡ Bellarm. de imag sanct. l. 2. c. ●3.  such scriptures reprechend idolatry, that is to say, the worshipping of images which are esteemed for Gods; or, by which they are worshipped for Gods, which indeed are not but as for 
ibidem. c. 〈◊〉.  the Images of Christ & of saints they are to be worshipped, and not only by accident & unproperly but also by themselves and properly; so as they do terminate (or end) the worship, as in themselves they are considered, and not only 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 school points digged out of the abysm of the rock of Rome: & the man will be amazed to find such comments upon such a text; and make him ween his wits be not his own. But I make no doubt there be thousands and ten thousands upon earth, that if they read Moses law, and your churches comments upon this point, they will say Moses is surer and plainer & easier to understand, than your Cardinal, a great deal. And as of this, so of other things many▪ that to leave 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, wherein some things are hard to be understood: then doubtless your ●▪ assertion is overthrown, which saith, that the scriptures expounded by the catholic church, is a true & indeficient rule of our faith For by the catholic church you mean the Roman Ch●▪ and in the Roman church you restreyn all to the Pope: now his exposition doth often times as well clear the truth, as a cloud before the sun. Yea even the plainest places, which in holy writ are as bright as noon day; your church hath enveloped with Egyptian darkness: as Marriage honourable 
Bellar. de Rom. pont. l. 3. c. 23.  among all, and the bed undefiled; saith the text, Heb. 13. 4. If among all (saith * your gloss) comprehendeth all men wholly: then marriage shallbe honourable also between father and daughter, betweme mother and son, between brother and sister. etc. Drink ye all of this, (saith 
† Mat. 26. 27  our saviour:) Let a man examine himself (saith the 
‡ 1 Cor. 1●. 28.  Apostle) and so let him eat of this bread & drink of this cup. We yet see not (saith your quick eyed 
‖ Bellar. de Rome pont. l. 3. c. 23.  Cardinal) that place of the gospel where we be taught, that both parts of the sacrament of our Lord's supper are to be ministered to all Christians. For our Lord saith not, Drink ye all Christians of this, but drink ye all of this etc. Such catholic expositions do illustrate the scriptures, as the smoke of the pit did the sun & air, Apoc. 9 2.  
But me thinks you deny that the Pope hath dominion over (your) faith, neither can make what he will, as a matter of faith or tradition. He doth not make a matter of faith (you say) but beelareth only that such and such a thing is to be believed. It is well, if you can keep you here: for if he be but a declarer of the faith, he is by office but as all other Bishops and ministers of the Gospel: and Peter's primacy will be no more than Paul's, who said, 
” 1 Cor. 4. ●  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, than I trow, men may try his declarations, by Christ's word who hath dominion over our faith and souls. Then are not the Pope's declarations authentik, canonical, of necessity to be believed, unless he prove them by the scriptures, which himself acknowledgeth to be divine and canonical. And thus the scriptures will be found a sufficient rule of the Church's faith: & men must by the word and spirit, try the spirits of the Popes, as well as of other Bishops. otherwise when 
‖ Platina, in vit●. Steph. 6.  Pope Stephen the 6. repealed the decrees of P. Formosus, and condemned his acts: and contrariweise P. 
* Plat. in. vita Rom. et Theod. 2. etc.  Romanus and other his successors justified Formosus, and condemned Stephen; and yet after that again P. Sergius the 3. allowed Stephen, and condemned Formosus; (as your own records do 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, than the weathercock of the Vatican. And whereas you speak of all human helps that the Pope useth, of counsel and consultation with the learned &c. they be fair shows▪ but your Cardinal tells us, that the catholic church 
† Bellar. de Pontif. l. 4. c. 15.  hath always believed that he is a true ecclesiastical Prince in the whole church, who can of his own authority without consent of the people, or counsel of Priests, make laws which bind the conscience, can judge in causes ecclesiastical etc. and that when he teacheth the whole church, in things pertaining to faith; 
‡ Ibiden. c. ●  he can not ere by any hap or chance and 
‖ Ibiden. c. 5.  not only in matters of faith, but in precepts of manners also prescribed to the whole church, he cannot ere. What marvel is it then though your Lawyers say, 
” Extrav. de trans●. episc. Quanto: 〈◊〉 glossa.  His bare will, must be holden as a law; and that 
* Extra de concess Praeb. Proposuit. In gloss.  whatsoever he doth, no man may say to him why do you this; and that 
† Dist. 81. Si qui sunt. In glossa.  whosoever obeys not his precepts, incures the sin of idolatry & paganism. You may tell me, that the Pope hath not dominion over your faith: but your Canonist, tell me, that 
‡ 16. q. 1. Quicunque. In glossa.  he can dispense against the law of God; that he can dispense 
15. q. 6. Authoritate, In gloss.  against the law of nature; that he can dispense 
” Dist▪ 34. Lector.  against an Apostle; that he can dispense 
* Panorm. Extra. de divort. cap.▪ sin.  against the new testament; yea that he can dispense concerning 
† Summ. Angel. in dict. Papa.  all the precepts of the old and new testament. And may we now think, that he hath not dominion over your saith? or may we think, that when he is come which should 
2▪ Thess. 2. 4.  sit as God, in the Temple of God, that he will do greater things than these? But of your Pope's pre-eminence, we are to speak in another place.  
To return therefore to the scripture which you deny to be an indeficient rule of our faith: you objected that it had many senses, and still 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 therefore it is no sure rule of our faith: save by your church's exposition. For why might not the church in Corinth, which were made rich by Christ 
* 1 Cor. 1, 5.  in all kind of speech and in all knowledge, so that 
† vers. 7.  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, show any church or any member or Christ's church, the meanings of the scripture; and so it remain as a firm rule of faith, and the Spirit of God the sole authentik expositor of the same? But here you urge again your bastard phrase, falsely fathered upon S. Peter; 
‡ 2 Pet. 1. 20.  that no prophesy of scripture is made by a private spirits interpretation: 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 whole and to every member of the body. The same spirit doth quicken the hand and foot, that quickeneth the head and heart: although a greater measure is in the principal members, then in the inferior. Even so by the scriptures we learn, that the catholic church is 
Eph. 4. 4.  one body and hath one spirit; and though the many members of this body have 
” Rom. 12, 4. etc.  not one work, but have received diversities of gifts, yet it is 
* 1. Cor. 12 4.  the same spirit. To 
† vers. 8, 9 etc.  one by the spirit is given the word of wisdom; 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 public spirit that the church hath; and every member of the church hath the same: so there is no private spirit which Christians have, as you by tradition it seems have learned. Now seeing all Christians have the same spirit that the Pope himself (unless he have the spirit of Satan:) how is it that he only must be the public 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 fail him. This I deny. Now you believe it, because the Pope himself tells it you; for your own private spirit may assure you of nothing. I will disprove it by your next words, and known experience▪ For you say, he may ere in matter of fact, and sin aswell as an other man. then say I, he may go to the Devil for his facts, and sins, as well as an other man: then is he the successor of judas Iscariot, not of Simon Peter: then the gates of hell, prevail against him. And thus your Rock is rend in pieces; and your building is on the sands. You rely upon one whom you know not but he may be a reprobate; a child of the Devil; yea a devil incarnate as Pope john the 23. was found and judged to be by the 
† Sess. 11. & 12.  Council of Constance) and then he may 
* joh. 8. 44.  lie as well as his father the Devil; and then (if you take not heed) he may murder your soul, as well as his father the Devil. And how then dare you make him your rock, your hope, your confidence; to believe all that he saith; not to believe God's word, unless he tell you it is God's word, not to believe any meaning of the scriptures, but as he tell you the meaning is. If men were bruit beasts without understanding, they could not be more overruled then thus: but the Lord saith, 
† Psal. 32.  be not as the horse and as the mule. And if the inhabitants of the earth had not been 
Apoc. 17. 2.  drunken with the wine of her fornication, the great whore could never thus have benumbed their senses, and bereft them of heavenly light If you deny that your Popes may be reprobates and Heariots, though they may sin: your own popish records will teach you, by as undoubted marks upon them, as ever had Cain: the dearest lovers of your catholic chair, branding their holy fathers with titles of 
Geneb●ard. Chr. l. 4. Platina: in Benedict 4 〈◊〉 Christop●. 1.  prodigious, wonders, monsters, for their beastly lives; & so some of them are known to have died, without repentance or faith in God; that either they never had faith, or else their faith failed, and then Christ prayed not for them, as he did for Peter; & so their pretended privilege lieth in the dust.  
The 15. of the Acts alleged for Peter's primacy, I have before answered; and leave it unto judgement, you urge now again, vers. 7. that P●●er rose up, showing thereby that he was head etc. a strange collection, that if a man rise up to speak in an assembly, he must need, therefore be head; you mought better have gathered so, if he had sitten still & spoken; for sitting of the two, rather argues authority, then standing up. But tell me I pray you in earnest, when Gamaliel is said to 
* Ac●. 5. 3.  rise up in the council of the jews in jerusalem: would you gather from this, that he was the head of them all. Or when Paul 
† Act. 13. 16.  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 will not bear? But if you would plead for no other headship, than this, that your Pope may rise up and speak in councils; it will easily be granted: but then if others should judge and give sentence from the scripture, (as james 
Act. 15. 13. 19  there did) your chair of Rome would soon be overthrown.  
Like weight is in your next words, that the first gentiles were chosen by his mouth; for that you should say, 
* Act. 15, 7.  God chose that the gentiles by his mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe. What primacy of power you can build hereon, I cannot tell: order I am sure there must be in all things, so there was with them, and is with us, & we grant, unto you. But the Lordship which your Pope claimeth is to be 
* Bellar. de Pont. l. 4. c. 15.  a true ecelesiastical prince in the whole church, of his own authority without consent of the people or counsel of the priests, to make laws which bind the conscience etc. with other like exorbitant power, which hath neither proof nor colour of proof from this 15. of the Acts, but the contrary is plain by the scripture, as in my former writing I showed, and leave it to the judgement of the prudent.  
Your 3. arguments force you would reinforce by a long speech of private 
The 3. of your arguments.  spirits interpretation, of errors and heresies & unfit translations, manifold and ambiguous senses etc. where I must acknowledge, you have put to more strength, but you have not whet the edge, as I said unto you: so that your purpose is not effected. For all that you say, may with as good (if not better) right, be retorted upon yourselves; and the Pope himself, who hath as private and erroneous a spirit as all other Bishops, hath given as absurd and erroneous translations, wrested the scriptures, broached as deadly errors, & is as unable to prove his mission from Christ, as any prelat● or priest in Christendom. So in all your discourse you have neither proof from scripture, nor argument upon ground of reason: therefore I need not spend labour in vain; and the points some of them are before handled, othersome belong not to the matter in hand.  
With like success you repeat your 4. argument, that the scriptures 
The 4. of your arguments.  have been wronged by our men, to bolster up heresies etc. you say I grant your assumption; but deceive not yourself or others, I did leave to strive about it because it was personal, touching Luther, Calvin etc. who when they lived were able enough to maintain their cause against Rome gates, though as men they had their infirmities. I told you the like charge mought be returned upon your Popes and Prelates. Your proposition I deneyed, and showed reasons of my denial, from the scriptures. You reply (as your manner is) with your popular carnal reason, that all sorts of heretics allege scriptures & boast of the spirit, & unless there be a supreme judge, strifes can have no end. You have been answered, that so it must be, and 
† 1 Cor. 11. 19 Act. 15. 1. 2.  so it was in the Apostles times; who yet referred not Christians to the Pope as supreme judge; but laboured to compose controversies and correct errors 
‡ Act. 1●. 15▪ 16▪ 1. Cor. 15. 3. 4. 25. 27. 45. 54.  by the scriptures. Strife will continue without end, till the world have an end, than all war shall cease: in the mean while the church is militant, under her head Christ. and no other. He alone walketh 
Apoc. 1. 13  amids the 7. golden candlesticks; all churches have their several 
” Act. 20. 28 Phil. 1. 1.  Bishops and Pastors, and only Christ is 
” 1 Pet. 5. 4  Archpastour; at his appearing, shall supreme judgement be. In the mean time, they be Antichrists, that usurp his office and place.  
But why allege you this against the divine scriptures only? for do you not think that men have wrested the late Fathers also, to bolster up heresies: yea and councils too; yea and the Popes own decrees? Now if whatsoever be wrested to bol●●er up heresies, can not be a true rule of faith: then the world will soon be without rule; and so that 
† 2 Thes. 2. 8.  Anomos, that unruly and lawless fellow foretold of, will be fittest to be their captain even as he hath been now too long a day, sitting in that city, which in S Ioh is time 
* Apoc. 17. 18.  reigned over the kings of the earth, and fain would maintain that regiment stil.  
Your 5. and last argument, was for unwritten traditions. You affirmed 
The 5. of your arguments.  that many mysteries of our faith are believed, that are not explicitly declared nor infallibly deduced from the scriptures. I deneyed, that any mystery of our faith was without due & sufficient proof from the scripture▪ Now you reckon up diverse matters as before, and ask of me proof for them, otherwise then by tradition. My answer was and is, that some are your own inventions, & I will not undertake to approve but to reprove them by God's word: others that are truths I can prove by God's word, better than you can by mouth tradition. But you find great fault & think it goes hard with me since I prove not one particular of them all: & therefore desire me to answer distinctly to each point as it l●es etc. I marvel you would expect proofs of these points now. Would you have me enter into battle with Arrians & Antitrinitarians, Anabaptists & other like heretics, and sh●w how I can convince them by scripture? I list not so to digress. When th●se matters in hand are ended, if you will take up their buklers. I will fight against you by the scriptures only; if you will adventure the credit of your unwritte traditions, in the battle. In the mean time, make you proof (as order requireth) of your argument; and seek not to turn it away, by setting on foot new questions.  
The scriptures that you brought to prove unwritten traditions, I answered. In this your reply you say, that I dispute as if you made traditions the total rule of faith whereas you would infer only that it was a partial, together with the word of God. Then belike you grant some word of God without unwritten tradition: & where is that but in the scriptures? If we have God's word in the scriptures without unwritten tradition▪ how is it, that whilear you reasoned, we could not know scriptures to be God's word, but by such tradition? Do not you make mouth tradition the total ground of your faith? For take away this tradition; & the scriptures, you think, are lost; then God's word is lost, unless unwritten tradition give it us. So dead tradition is the ground of grounds, that must tell us what is scripture, what is the meaning of scripture, what is true beside scripture: and so in effect is all in all? Though yet to make it a partial rule of faith as you speak, is too much: man may not think to part stakes with God, his word is enough, if we can be content.  
You say I object that those traditions spoken of in Deuteronomis might make for the jewish Cabalists which are rejected by S. Peter etc. Nay, I know they make neither for them nor you: but, as I said, rather for them then for you. I proved unto you out of the Psalms, 
† Ps. 44. & 78. secundum Hebr.  that the Fathers taught their children written traditions; I proved by other divine testimonies, that enough is written in the scriptures, for 
‡ joh. 20. 3● 2 Tim 3. ●6 17.  faith & all good works. As for God's acts in all ages, fathers are to tell them to their children: such tradition I allow. We tell our posterity now by tradition, the great work of God in confounding the Spanish armada that came against England in the year 1588. If I in my days should see Rome ● become Rumee as Sibylla 
* Orac. sybil. lib. 3.  prophesied, and the Pope like Nabuchodno●or 
† Dan. 4. 30.  turned out to gra●●e, or like Pharaoh 
‡ Exod. 14.  drowned in the sea: I would hold it my duty to tell it my child, & my child's child, that it mought never be forgotten. But yet for a ground of faith unto life, I would warn my children to hold to the scriptures, as the instrument of God, able to make them wise unto salvation through the faith which is in Christ jesus; as Paul 
2 Tim. 3. 15  said to his son Timothee.  
You say, it is plain that the Apostle 2. Thes. 2. speaks of such traditions as I call human in you. I deny it, & have plainly disproved it in my former writing, by the same Apostles own testimony, Act. 26. 22 1. Co. 14. 37. and you have not a word to say against it, but shun those ancient Apostolic records, and betake you to later human writers, as Chrysostome. But remember your own words, God is more ancient than the Devil, truth then falsehood. The Apostle showed his own meaning, long before Chrysostome had a mouth to speak. But if you can better see by Chrysostoms' candle, then by Paul's bright sun: behold what 
Chrysost. in Mat. 22. homil 41.  the Doctor saith. Whatsoever is sought unto salvation all now is fulfilled in the scriptures. He that is ignorant, may find there what to learn: he that is stubborn & sinful, may find the scourges of the judgement to come, whereof he may be afraid: he that laboureth, may there find glory, and promises of eternal life. This speech doth far better become his golden mouth, than your plea for human traditions.  
The 2. thing which you took upon you to prove. (or, as now you 
The 2. of your assertions.  faintly say intended rather to propound then prove,) was, That the scripture expounded by the catholic church is a true and indeficient rule of our faith. I will ease you if I may of this labour; if you understand the position well, I grant it to be true. By the catholic church I trow you mean not the multitude, all believers: but the head of the church. So I willingly yield, that the scriptures expounded by Christ the head of the catholic church, are a true and indeficient rule of our faith. But when you came to make proof of your position, you set it down thus, that the Pope's definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith. Where all men may see your load star. You pretend the scriptures and word of God: but if a man deal with you by them, (as I now have experience,) you flee to later human writers. If you be followed in them, you retire to your Catholic church: ask your meaning by the catholic church, and it is the Pope with his definitive sentence, as yourself have expounded it to me: He virtualiter (as 
Hervaeus, de potest. Papae c. 23  one of your side saith) is the whole church. All the other are but stales, he alone is the man that must strike the stroke. And if he give sentence against you, I shall never trust him: so you deal on the surest side for yourselves. You intended rather to propound then to prove this point (as you say,) that we have not at one time divers pro●s together in the fire; and now again, you handle it by way of velitation (you say) & not of purpose to prove? Whereas it is the main ground of all controversy between us. For question being whither Gods written word, or the Pope's definitive sentence must judge & rule our faith: I cleav to the scriptures, you to the Pope. Now my ground is in part granted by yourselves, for the scriptures which I build upon, your council 
* Sess. 4.  of Trent hath allowed for canonical, and come from God: and whither you granted it or not, I have given you reasons that are unanswered. But your ground I utter lie deny, and grant not your Pope's definitive sentences to be canonical but heretical: and would have proof of that you say. You list not yet to have this iron in the fire, belike lest it burn your fingers. Yet in this your velitation, you bring most of your valiant men into the field, leaving out some few casshierd soldjers; and brave me with a great many of S. Peter's prerogatives, which are indeed but a cold iron for the Pope. For though all you say for Peter were granted, yet nothing at all is said for the Bishop of Rome more than for the Bishop of Babylon. You would have men think, that if you have so many men in a skirmish or velitation, you have many more against a day of battle. But if these your velitaries be discomfited (as some of them are already,) I suppose your armada will never enter this field. Let us therefore try their strength.  
1. S. Peter (you say) is named first among the Apostles. True, he is so usually, except in 3. or 4. places: This may argue a primacy of order, but of no authority over his brethren. The 
† Apoc. 21, 19  first foundation of the wall of the heavenly jerusalem, was a jasper, the stone of 
‡ Exod. 28.  Benjamin, th' Apostle Paul's 
Phil. 3, 5.  tribe▪ will you grant me hence to conclude that S. Paul was head of the catholic church?  
2. S. Peter alone walked (you say) with our Saviour on the water. True, and there 
” Mat. 14, 28 30, 31.  he showed his weakness more than others, & was reproved by our Saviour for his little faith. Doth this deserve the headship of the church? Elias and Eliseus walked 
* 2. King. 2.  through the water; and Shadrach Meshach and Abednego-walked in 
† Dan. 3, 25  the mids of the fire; and herein showed their great 
‡ Heb. 11, 34.  faith: yet were they not therefore heads of the catholic church.  
3. Our Saviour promised (you say) that hell gates should not prevail against him. Our Saviour doth say, not 
‖ Mat. 16. 18  against it, that is, the church; of which Peter was a principal member. Hell gates shall not prevail against 
* joh. 10, 27 28, 29.  any true Christian: are they all therefore heade●▪ But hell gates (if horrible sins be part of their strength) have prevailed against sundry of your Popes, by testimony of your own records: such I trow were not heads, unless of the beast. Apoc. 14. 17. 3.  
4. He was to confirm his brethren. So were all the other Apostles and Ministers, 
‡ Act 14, 22, & 15, 41 32. 1 Thes. 3, 2. Apoc. 3, 2.  as I proved at large in my former writing: and marvel you bring this argument now again bleeding into the skirmish, before you had cured any of his wounds. If you cannot heal him, you should let him rest.  
5. Our Saviour (you say) washed S. Peter's feet first. It may be so, though 
Bellarm. de Ronvere pō●, l. 1. c. 2●.  some Doctor's doubt of it. It is sure some was first, for they could not all be at once. It is sure also, that Peter showed then more 
joh. 13, 6 ●, 9  weakness than his brethren; for which he mought well have need to be washed, but not deserve to wear a triple crown, as your Pope.  
6. S. Peter only received a reveled promise of his particular martyrdom of the cross. Performance is more than promise. james 
Act. 12, 2. & 7, 59  and Stephen suffered martyrdom before Peter. And if the cross be that which must prove the headship, the penitent 
† Luk. 23 4● 43.  thief may lay claim to the crown.  
7. He after infusion of the holy ghost, first (you say) premulgates the gospel. I would the Pope were his successor in this. Peter was first I confess in many good things: for which he deserveth praise: but that he was first in this, you prove not. When they had the infasion of the holy Ghost, 
‡ Act. 2, 4. erxanto.  they began (saith the scripture) to speak. It may be Peter was indeed the first, for he was first in order among them, and as is like in age: but not in office above the other Apostles.  
8. The first miracle in confirmation of our faith, is made by S. Peter. And you shall work another miracle in confirmation of my saith; if from this (though it be granted,) you can by sound argument conclude him head, as your Pope expounds the head ship. Howbeit the first miracle was the speaking with strange tongues▪ (for that 
‖ Act. 2. 7, 11.  all men admired:) & who was first in that, neither I nor you can tell.  
9 He as supreme judge condemned the hypocrisy of Ananias and Saphira. And Paul as supreme judge condemned the blasphemy of Hymenaeus & Alexander, 
” 1. Tim. 1. 20.  delivering them to Satan: and the sorcery of Elymas, 
* Act. 13, 11.  striking him with blindness. If miracles prove supremacies, the church shall have many supreme heads.  
10. He first discovered Simon Magus, and condemned him. If the Pope would do so too, Simony at this day would not be so rise. When 
† Platina in vit. Sergius et Bened:  Sergius tertius, & Benedictus 4. got the Popedom with bribery, and Alexander the ●. 
‡ Guicciard. hist. Ital. l. 1.  bought the voices of many Cardinals: whither was Cephas or Magus their predecessor? If the virtue made Peter head: the contrary vice made your Popes the tail. How be it your Prelates (if 
Bernard. Epist. 42. ad Archiep●s. Senon. Budaeus de ass. l. 5.  writers say true) have been more ready to receive with 
” Mat. 26, 15  with judas, then to give 
*† Act. 8, 18  with Simon.  
All these and other circumstances concurring in S. Peter, shows (you say) manifestly that S. Peter had pre-eminence above all the other Apostles, that he is the rock and head of the church●●. They are shows in deed, & circumstances standing a far off: but never a one of them have stricken a stroke in this your ●●l●tation. Peter had for the most part pre-eminence in order, I readily grant: but his office and authority was one and the same with the other Apostles. Mat. 28. 16.— 20. joh. 20, 21. 22, 23. Paul relating the offices ordained of God in the church, saith; 
‡ 1 Cor. 12 28.  first Apostles, secondly prophets 〈◊〉▪ and again, 
Eph 4, 11.  he gave some Apostles, and some Prophets: but the scripture no where saith, first Peter the head of the church, than Apostles. And that Peter was neither head nor Rock, I proved in my former writing, if you will admit of proof from God's book: if not, then keep your shows and circumstances still, but make no such conclusions with a manifestlye.  
You proceed and say, that Peter was particularly pointed out by his own name, his father's name, and his new name Cephas, that no cavil might be took at a legacy so strongly & particularly firmed unto S. Peter. His legacy is no way by me impugned, I know it is firm, though not so great as you would make it. But you impugn the legacy of the other Apostles, unto whom in Peter was promised, and after to them all generally performed, whatsoever power Peter had in the ministery of the gospel. Mat. 28. joh. 20. Act. 2. yea you impugn the dominion of Christ himself; whiles you would make Peter the Rock and Head of the catholic church; contrary to the scriptures. 2. Sam. 22, 32. 1 Cor. 10, 4. Ephe. 5, 23. And whither you have answered all that I brought to prove Christ only the Rock, let the equal reader of my former writing judge; you make bold and bare affirmations, without proof of holy scripture, or human learning: Petros (you say) signifies either a Rock or a stone; but what learned auctor do you show for it? and he was called Petros (you say,) not Petra, because the masculine gender best fitted the name of a man: as if Christ were not a man, unto whom the title Petra, Rock, is by Peter himself given. 1. Pet. 2, 8. But he is unto you the Rock of scandal, whiles you stumble at his power, and headship, and give it to his enemy the Pope, under the pretence of Peter. And that your church hath made shipwreck against this Rock, not only of faith, but of learning also, appears in this, that you make Cephas, (upon Optatus credit,) in Greek to signify a head; as Christ (you say) is called the head, Isa 8, & 28. Dan. 2. Psal. 117. Mat. 21. Rom. 9 1. Cor 10. Ephes. 2. What, do all or any of these scriptures show that Cephas signifies a head? nothing less. You that entwite we with my private spirits interpretation, should have been better avized then thus openly and directly to oppugn the public interpretation of the holy Ghost, joh. 1. 43. where Cephas is interpreted Petros, a stone, & not Cephalee a Head. Or if you think the Apostle had also a private spirit, and knew not Syriac and Greek so well as Optatus, yet mought you have preferred the public approved learning of your own linguists, who 
* Dictionar. Syro chald ad sacri appar. instruc. Reg. bibl. Tom. 6.  interpreting Cephas a Rock, show that Optatus head wanted wit, in this that he said it signified a head; and they want conscience, that upon this false ground, apply these scriptures that speak of Christ the head, unto a mortal creature, whereas the 
† Tsur k●istes. 2. San. 22, 32.  Rock is the creator, & 
‡ Tsur Theos Deut. 32, 4, 15, 1● 30. etc. whereto your authentik Latin also agreeth.  God himself as the Lxxij Greek interpreters, (if you will learn of them) will teach you. But let me follow your arguments.  
You say my objection that S. Peter answered as the mouth of the Apostles, and therefore had not these promises made to himself alone, makes much against me, for to be spokesman of all the rest, the master-spring of all their judgements, seems to grant him superiority. If every spokesman were master-spring of all their judgements for whom he speaks: it were something that you say: but ask a jury of any 12 men in England, whither this be true in the foreman of the quest, The spokesman in a Council; the speaker in a parhament; are they the master-springs of all their judgements with whom they sit? When 
* joh. 14, 5.  Thomas, when 
† vers. 8.  Philip, when 
‡ vers. 22.  Jude spoke unto Christ in the name of the rest, were they master-springs of all the others judgements? I perceive your Rock the Pope hath but a weak foundation, that is born up, by such sandy conclusions.  
If S. Peter could not have the prerogative of place given unto him, in that he represented the church: no more (you say) could the sons of Abraham be two sons, in that they represented two nations. You want help to make up your argument, thus: But Abraham's a sons were 2. sons still, though they represented 2. nations: therefore S. Peter was S. Peter still though he represented the Church. Very true; & all the Apostles were Apostles still, though they represented the Church. And so Antichrist shallbe Antichrist still, though he take upon him to represent the Church, yea and 
‖ 2. Thess. 2, 4.  God himself.  
You grant me that all the other Apostles were a foundation Apoc. 21. but not the principal. Neither would I have you ●o grant, for Christ himself is the principal, vea & the 
“ 1 Cor. 3, 11  only foundation properly; & all the Apostles are foundations 
* Metonymi●è.  figuratively; among whom was order, 
† Apoc. 21. 19  first, second, third, etc., and excellency in graces; but not pre-eminence of authority; for they were all sent of Christ, as Christ of the Father, joh. 20. 21 and the church of Christ is builded upon them all, not upon Peter only. Ephes. 2. 20.  
S. Peter's headship (you say) derogates not from Christ Jesus our head, since S. Peter is but subordinated to Christ Jesus, and only of his free institution. That institution say I is yet to show whereby Peter should be head more than the other Apostles. The headship which you give unto Peter doth derogate from Christ; for as the church is but 
† Ephe. 4, 4  one body, and hath but one spirit, so hath it but 
‡ vers. 5.  one Lord & 
vers. 15.  head Christ, who is present 
Mat. 28, 20  with his Church all days till the world's end, walking amids the golden candlesticks of his Churches, that there needs no universal Vicar, but only the Angels of every particular church, as the 7. churches in Asia show. Apoc. 2. & 3. But he was a head of your church (and therefore I trow could not lie) which said 
† Pope Leo. Epist 8●  that Christ placed Peter as it were a certain head, to power his gifts from him as it were into all the body, for having taken him into the fellowship of the indivisible unity, he would have him named that which himself was. And elsewhere the same Pope preacheth that if God 
‡ Serm 3. in amnivers.  would have any thing to be common unto other Princes with [Peter], he never gave but by him whatsoever he gave to others. Thus roared the Lion of Rome, against the Lion 
Apoc. ●. 5  of the tribe of judah. What marvel was it then though an other 
P. Gregory the 7.  of your Popes, praying to S. Peter as to his God, said, 
† Platina in Greg. ●.  Jurline thine ears o blessed Peter prince of th'Apostles, and hear me thy servant, etc. acknowledging further his faith to be in him. If these things derogate not from Christ our head, I know not what can do. It is no marvel though one of your Canonists 
‡ c. Cū●nter. Inglossa extrav. joh. ●2.  called him Our Lord God the Pope: for the Pope is Peter (as Father Campian 
* Rat. 4.  telleth us:) and Peter (as Leo saith) is assumed into the fellowship of the indivisible unity, that is of God, and therefore is made a God, and prayed unto, as a God: and yet you would bear men in hand, nothing is derogated from God or Christ. Yea yourself in your former writing made him the universal pastor joh. 10 and he I am sure is God, for he is one 
† joh. 10, 30  with the Father. And if Peter was but subordinate (as you say) to Christ; your Popes (I trow) be now superordinate: for Christ's kingdom 
† joh. 18, 36.  was not of this world, neither did his servants fight: he was no 
‖ Luk. 12, 14  Judge or divider of inheritances: but Popes are 
” julins' 2. Gu●cciard. hist. Ital. l. 9  fighters with the t●poral sword, and have their kingdom of this world, as politic princes; and divide not only private men's inheritances, but even whole kingdoms, deposing Princes, & disturbing States, as the world hath long felt with grief.  
From Peter's primacy you slide along to the Pope's supremacy: for which having no word of God, nor any so ancient testimony 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 wheresoever it was hatched, I allege the whole new testament of Christ, where 
* Apoc. 2. & 3 Act. 20 1. Pet. 5. Ephe. 4. 1. Cor. 12. Luk. 22, 25, 26.  Angels and Bishops of Churches are found of equal authority, not one above an other. And me thinks I could fetch your pope's supremacy from more ancient ground then the council of Nice, even from Dio●rephes, 
† 3. joh. 9  who loved pre-eminence in the Apostles time But this ground is slabby, and the Pope I know willbe loath to set his foot on it. You proceed therefore, with a general reason thus.  
The ecclesiastical hierarchy is no worse governed than any temporal regiment. For it is compared to a kingdom governed by one King, Mat 25 to a family well governed, Heb. 3. to a camp well ordered, Ca●t. 6.  
But in all well ordered common weals, there is ever required some visible judge, besides the written law, since there must be a supreme judge to take notice of controversies when they arise a●. 2. there must be one to explicate the sense of the law, and to pronounce sentence etc. and 3. there must be one to compel those that refuse, to the due observation thereof. Now in the church there arise like difficulties in her laws explication etc. Therefore S Peter's successor endued by the holy ghost, in all difficulties of moment is to be sought unto for counsel: is to be heard with obedience when he counseleth, is to be obeyed when he proceeds with his powerful jurisdiction.  
This your reason is faulty from head to foot. The first part faileth in comparing together a visible human polity, and a visible hierarchy. Whereas human polities concerning worldly matters are merely visible, earthly, temporal: but ecclesiastical polities are partly invisible, heavenly and eternal. Those, respecting this world and life only, have worldly dominion and glory: these, respecting chiefly the next world & life; have no worldly dominion or glory; but is for the meek, poor, persecuted for righteousness sake etc. Mat. 5. My kingdom (saith Christ) is not of this world, joh. 18. 36. Again the rulers of the gentiles have domination over them, & they that are great exercise authority over them, but it shall not be so among you etc. Mat. 20, 25, 26. These things being thus minded & distinguished, I grant, that the church is no worse governed, considering the nature thereof, than any temporal regiment, considering the nature of it.  
Secondly you fail in applying to your Pope the scriptures intended of Christ only. For he (not the Vicar of Rome) is the King of that one kingdom, Mat. 25. he is the master of that one family, Heb. 3, 1, 6. he is the Captain of that ordered camp, Cant. 6. Apoc. 19 11. 13, 14, 16▪ etc. 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 well ordered common weals, the laws are above the magistrates, according to Tully's saying, 
De Legib. lib. 3.  as laws are above the magistrates, so magistrates are above the people. What good order may we then think is in the papacy where Popes are above Gods law? 2. That for explicating the sense of the law etc. in well ordered common weals, it is a ruled case, that 
† L. Si. Cod. De legib. et constit. princip.  he who made the law, should interpret the law. According hereunto, in the church, the laws given of God in the scriptures are above the Pastors 
‡ Ezek. 44, 24.  that govern the people by them: yea above 
Deut. 17. 18, 10, 20.  Kings: & God's spirit which gave those laws, is the supreme 
” 1. Cor. 2. 10.  interpreter of them. As for outward order, in difficulties, the 
* Mal. 2, 7.  Priests lips should preserve knowledge, and the people should seek the law at his mouth. If he 
† Zoph. 3, 4  wrest the law, and teach false doctrine, men should 
‡ Mat, 15, 14.  let him alone as a blind guide, lest they fall with him into the ditch. But herein you miss proportion in making many common weals, and but one church: whereas there be also many churches. For though there be but one catholic or universal church, which is invisible, comprehending the 
Eph. 3, 15. Heb. 12, 22 23, 24.  whole family in heaven and in earth: yet are there many particular churches visible, as 
* Gal. 1, ●.  in Galatia, 
† Apoc. 1, 4  in Asia, and other parts of the world. Now you imagine one visible catholic or universal church, having visible officers, and a visible head the Pope, invested as president 
‡ Ceremoniarum. l. 1 c. 4.  Vrbiet Orbi, all the world over: and all particular churches with their Bishops, to be under the guidance of that visible head. This is neither according to God, who appointed no such order: nor according to man; for is there any one Monarch over all the world, unto whom all nations with their governors do obey?  
Your conclusion is worst of all. For by Peter's successor you mean the Bishop of Rome only. Whereas Peter being an Apostle had 
1 Cor. 4. 9  no successor in his Apostleship: as he was Bishop or Pastor, all Bishops in all churches are his successors: and not only the Bishop of Rome. 1 Pet. 5. 1. 2. Act. 20. 28. Again you ween that your Pope is necessarily endued with the holy ghost, whereas the star of the Roman 
* Rom. 1●, 20. 22.  church, as well as of any other church, may 
† Apoc. 8. 10.  fall from heaven, and may have the 
‡ Apoc. 9, 1 joh. 19  key of the bottomless pit. And why Rome should have pre-eminence above all other cities in the world, I cannot tell, unless because ● by her policy our Lord Christ was crucified. For which, above all other cities she deserves the visible curse. And if God in justice hath wasted jerusalem 
* Da●. 9 26.  for this sin: how can we think that he hath blessed Rome, which hath spilled the blood of Christ, and of may other his Saints. The book of the Apocalyps shows plainly the contrary, Apoc. 17. & 18.  
Again you would lay an intolerable burden upon the churches: for every sinner is to be judged and excommunicated (if he repent not,) by that particular church whereof he is a member; as is Christ's plain rule, Mat. 18. 15. 16. 17. compared with 1 Cor. 5. 4. 5. 12. 13. but you applying Christ's rule to Rome only, would constreyn all men all over the world, (when they deal with their brethren for sin and follow them to excommunicatio they not repenting,) to come to Rome before the Pope, which is impossible; Oth●rweise, by what rule from Christ, cite you men thither? Wherefore you conclude that which your premises no way do prove; & beg the question, to gain the time.  
But you are angry that I jeav your supply of later Doctors▪ whereas I told you plainly at the first, that I would try and be tried in religion by the holy scriptures only; as being the undoubted rule of truth. If you would not thus have dealt, why began you the battle? I have far greater cause to except against them, than you can have against my records of the Prophets & Apostles: for your fathers are but children in respect of them, nothing so ancient, nothing so authentik, in any comparison; nothing so plain, nothing so constant: but contrary one to an other; contrary (some times) unto the truth; contrary to themselves▪ Example by Augustine, plainly averring with me: you bring him retracting, or leaving indifferent. How then should we trust him, that trusteth not himself? So I told you, Doctors mought be alleged against Doctors: you marvel at it Nay marvel at them & at yourself that allege them. You quote Chrysostom. homil 55 in Mat. and there though (these be not the words you mean,) he sauth upon this rock will I build my Church, that is faith and confession: whither this make more for you or for me, let indifferent men judge. You cite Origen, homil 5. in Exodun: whereas if you would read him on Matthew, you may find how he counteth all Christians, Peter, which the Pope will not allow. You produce Ambrose, serm. 47. whereas the same man, upon Ephes. 2. saith, upon this rock will I build my church, that is, in this confession of the catholic faith I appoint the faithful unto life. Thus if I would weary myself and my reader in your wilderness, I could send you up and down, from one father to an other; & from the same father in one place, to himself in another; as, for Hilary whom you quote, I may cite ●yssenus, in testimon. ex vet. Test. de Trinitate: and from Cyril. l. 2. c. 1●. comment. in joan. as you allege him, I can direct you to the same Cyril, de Trinitat. l. 4. And when now shall we get out of this wood? But wander you there alone if you will, I mean not so to toil in vain. Yet condemn I not the men, but reverence their labours: how ●eit I reverence God's word more: As for me, I would not have you or any rest upon my words, but upon the proofs which I bring from the book of God: which though it be 
* Apoc. 10. 2.  little, yet they that 
† vers. 9 10.  eat it, may 
‡ vers. 11.  prophesy among people and nations and tongues, and to many kings And me thinks, you need not be offended, that I refuse to fight with dead men, and do deal with you by the scriptures only: for you have (as you may think) the advantage, who besides my weapon, that single two edged 
Eph. 6. 17.  sword of God's word, which you may use also as you can, have likewise to help you the arrows of the Fathers, the halberds of the Councils, the bullets of your school men, the canons of your Canonists, with the panoply of your Popes; from whom all Bishops (as a Bishop 
“ Durand Rational l. 2. c. 1.  saith) do grow as members grow from the head, and of whose fullness they do all receive: that if my cause be not very good, you must needs drive me out of the field. Use therefore if you please the reasons of all or any of these, and I will answer them to you, not to the dead: but if you muster their bare names only; be sure, you shall neither fray nor hurt me. Next you retire to the place of john. 21. feed my sheep. I told you all the Apostles had that charge Mat. 28. 19 20 john. 20. 21. The contrary (you say) is manifest, since he said only to him feed my flock, to whom he said before, lovest thou me more than they, in which words he excludeth all the other.  
Think you, in good sooth, that the former charge laid upon all, was taken from them & now laid upon Peter only▪ because upon special occasion he was spoken to alone? Why then, Peter also was himself discharged, when after this, Christ spoke to Paul alone, 
* Act. 26. 17. 18.  sending him to the gentiles to open their eyes etc. & to 
† 1 Cor. 1. 17.  preach the gospel. But it is a strange collection of you, that when a company of men are sent with one commission, and one of them having failed in his fidelity, is in special excited unto duty & diligence; all the other should be excluded. Do you not see how after this, Paul showeth, (Eph. 4.) not Peter only, 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,) will be much more unreasonable. The point you undertook to prove, was that not God's word in the Bible, but the catholic churches (yea the Popes) definitive sentence as he is head of the church, is an indeficient rule in matters of faith. To confirm this heresy, you produce here Christ's charge to Peter, Freed my sheep. Behold Now the strength of your argument; If Peter was to feed Christ's sheep: than not Gods word in the scriptures, but Peter's definitive sentence (and consequently the Popes) is an indeficient rule of faith. But Peter was to feed Christ's sheep: john 21. Frgo etc. The unreasonableness of which consequence (if the bare rehearsal of it do not convince,) may be showed by the like thus. If the Bishops of Ephesus were to feed the church of God: than not Gods word in the scripture, but their definitive sentences were indeficient rules in matters of faith. But the Bishops of Ephesus were to feed the church of God, Act. 20. 28. Ergo.  
If the Elders of the churches of Galatia, Cappadocia, Asia and Bythinia; were to feed the flocks of God: than 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, ● 2. Ergo.  
Behold what deep waters you have digged out from the Rock of Rome: their spring, I trow, comes from the bottomless pit. If you say, those Elders were under Peter as a head, therefore they were to feed with his definitive sentence, not their own. First I deny that so they were under him; and you shall never prove it whiles Rome gates do stand though I grant their office was inferior to the Apostles. Secondly, if you could prove it, yet would it make against you: for if because Peter was their head, therefore they must feed with his doctrine only▪ than because Christ was Peter's head, Peter was to feed with Christ's doctrine only. But Christ was Peter's head, acknowledged by Peter himself to be 
* 1 Pet. 5. 4.  Arch pastor; so taught by Christ himself john. 10. Therefore Christ definitive sentence only, not Peter, (much less the Popes) is the indeficient rule of our faith. And thus my cause is confirmed, and yours overturned by your own weapon.  
Yet you proceed 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 all things, but prove nothing; unless your definitive sentence also must be taken for a law. But then I am sure it is against Christ's law: for, as he neither used the word general to Peter, nor the word particular to the other Apostles: so when he sent them with their charge all indifferently, it was unto 
† Mat. 28. 19  all nations▪ yea into 
‡ Mark. 16. 1●.  all 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 all 
●Ioh. 20. ●●  Christian Bishops their successors, have these precincts; in all nations, in all the world, and what place is over and beside, let your Peter the Pope have, there to menage his supremacy.  
But here you bring your S. Leo to speak for S. Peter: and I know he was his friend, for I showed before how 
” Epist. 87.  he placed Peter in the fellowship of the indivisible unity, so making him a God: I know also & have showed that in the same 3. anniversary sermon which you cite, he speaketh more for S. Peter than you bring here: how be it, though the Lion roareth, he hath got no prey. For the headship hath been proved to be Christ's, not Peter: & the Apostleship to be Peter's with the other Apoltles. And though you again and again do barely affirm S. Peter was head of all the rest of the Apostles: yet I must tell you again & again, that I hold not your definitive sentence (nor the Popes neither) to be 
Quicquid n. no● ab Apostolis traditum est, scele●ibus plenum est▪ Ambros. comment, in ●▪ Cor. 4. 9  a right rule of faith, but if you can bring the word of God for you; that, through his grace, I will gladly receive.  
In the end of this your velitation, you leave me to impugn ●. B. ●armines doctrine as it heath etc. But your captain comes not into this field, he lies entrenched within the walls of Rome, and triumphs in the Vatican. It is you that have bid me battle, and as you entered not these lists without an alarm, so you will not depart (I trow) without an io triumph. 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 sconce. Only 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 will let them die, you may sound the retreat▪  
The 3. and last thing which you promised to prove, was, that this rule 
The 3 of your assertions.  (the indeficient rule of faith,) is only found in the Roman Catholic church sentence, and not in private men's illuminations, or motions of a pri●●t and unseen spirit. Both parts of this your divided proposition, I disallow: and maintain a third, viz▪ that this rule is to be found in the writings Prophetical and Apostolical: because (as your Cardinal hath▪ well said,) 
* Bellar. de verbo De. l. 1. c. 2.  nothing is more known, nothing more certain, than the holy scriptures which are contained in them: and this 
Ibidem.  is a most certain and a most safe rule of believing.  
Before when you came to show your proof, it was, that your Roman church is the true and only catholic church of God. Which▪ though I do deny, yet if I did grant it, it would not prove your assertion. For it is the voice of the 
‡ joh. 3. 29. 36.  bridegroom, not of the bride, which is the ground of men's faith; the catholic church is 
Eph. 5 24. & 4. 15. 16.  to receive laws and rules from her head Christ; not to prescribe laws or rules to her members. There is 
jam 4. 12.  one Lawgiver, who is able to save and to destroy. But because your church must first be proved true & catholic, 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 only catholic; for I deny both What proofs you brought before, & how I answered them, I leave to indifferent consideration: and will now again take a view, how you maintain your proofs.  
First you say, I fain would challenge the name catholic unto myself. I answer, this is not so: The catholic church is the 
Gal. 4. 26  mother of all Christians, of which I am an unworthy child: but were not worthy to be named her child, if I would challenge her title which belongs not to me, nor to any her daughters, the particular churches on earth.  
Secondly, you say, that after, I seem to refuse it because it is not warranted by the written word; ask, why I do not as well reject the name Trinity a●. I answer again, the contrary to that you say is true: for I proved and that by the written word, (which it seems you could not do) that there is a catholic or universal church▪ and if need were, could bring many more proofs. Why then do you injury me so openly before the sun, and then run on to dilate upon your own wilful mistaking? such dealing doth not become any true member of the catholic church▪  
But you can show us (you say) the prophesy of Isaiah fulfilled, that the gospel is preached to all nations.  
But we need not be showed that by you; for it is showed us by the Ap ostle almost 16. hundred years ago. Rom. 10. 18. & 16, 26.  
The whole world (you say) is replenished with the fruit of your doctrine. The more is the pity, if it pleased God: for your doctrine is not the gospel, but the Pope's definitive sentences. But this also we have been taught many years ago. As all 
* Apo. 13, 3.  the world wondered and followed the first beast: so the second 
verse▪ 12.  did all that the first beast could do before him; and made 
‡ vers. 16.  all, both small and great, rich and poor, free and bond, to receive the mark. The waters where the whore fitteth, 
Apoc 17. 15.  are people and multitudes & nations & tongues. 
” Apoc 18. 3.  All nations have drunk of the wine of the wrath of her fornication. Papisme is large, Mahometisme larger, Paganism largest dispred, in these our last and most dangerous days.  
But our invisible churches (you think) are excelled far by the Jews visible meetings in sundry places. But the 
” Apoc. 12. 6 14. etc.  woman that fled into the wilderness, was seen of God, and dear unto him, though she were hid from the visible Dragon,, and his persecuting Angels. Esau had much more visible glory then his poor brother jaakob, when so many kings reigned in AEdom, 
† Gen. 36. 31. etc.  before any King reigned over Israel. Few souls were saved in the Ark, when many perished in the syn-floud. And this maketh many George david's to deny the verity of the Bible, & believe the traditions of Babel: because the 
‡ Apoc. 1●  promised visible destruction of the church of Antichrist, is not yet performed.  
But you Roman catholics have all motives (as you say) of evident credibility; as 1. all antiquity. Nay stay there, the most antic records of the holy Prophets and Apostles, you dare not stand to be tried by: but shun them, and flee to your late traditions, and Pope's definitive sentences. So your church will be her own judge whether she be a whore or no; whereas neither 
Ezek. 23. 4. etc.  Aholah nor Aholibah, would give that sentence against themselves, though men 
vers. 44.  went unto them as to a common harlot: but the righteous men, 
† vers. 45.  judged them after the manner of harlots.  
2. Unity] not in the truth but in heresy: for your church hath by degrees from age to age so declined from the laws of God, that she is one with herself; but become an alien from Christ. For proof wheof, let the ancient faith of the church in Rome, when Paul wrote▪ thereto, & the new faith of the church of Rome decreed in the Council of Trent, be compared together; and we shall find as good unity between them in many things, as between light & darkness. Besides what unity is in your religion; the late broils in England between the Jesuits and the seculars, (to omit all former schisms that have been in Rome it s●lf) may show. Though by the Pope's powerful hand, they are now tied together, at least by th● tails, like the 
I●●●. 15, 4.  foxes in Palestina.  
3. Universality], even as it was in the days of Noah, when the ●●ood came and destroyed them 
L●k 17, 26, 27.  all: for 
* vers. 30.  so shall it be in the day when the son of man shallbe reveled. Universality of abomination, shall procure from God univorsal desolation: for with her enchantments were deceived 
Apoc. 18, 23.  all nations.  
4. Disibilitie.] Even notorious to all that have eyes to see. For if a city can not 
† Mat. 5, 14.  be hid, that is situate upon a mountain; how should not that city be seen, which is set 
‡ Apoc. 17, 9, 18.  upon 7. mountains; on whose top, your woman saileth.  
5. Confirmed by the consent of Doctors:] for her 
Apoc. 18, 23.  merchants are the great men of the earth.  
6. By the institution of most holy religious orders:] for the woman is 
” Apo. 17. 4  arrayed in purple and scarlet, and guilded with gold, and precious stones and pearls: in her house are 
Pro. 7. 14.  peace offerings, and the payeth her vows; and 
† vers. 17.  perfumeth her bed with myrrh aloes and cinnamon: because Christ's institutions and most holy orders, are too mean and base for her royalty.  
7. The conversion of nations] for the 
‡ Apoc. 17 2.  inhabitants of the earth are drunken with th' wine of her fornication: 
Prov. 7. 26.  she hath caused many to fall down wounded, and great is the number of all that are slain by her.  
8. The power of miracles] showing 
* Mat. 24, 24. 2 Thes. 2, 9, 10-. 12  great signs and wonders, that if it were possible the very elect mought be deceived: but that all they may be damned, which believe not the truth, but have pleasure in unrighteousness.  
9 Infinite number almost of martyrs that have sealed her doctrine with their bloods, etc.] for among her other merchandise, are also the 
† Apoc. 18, ●3.  souls or lives of men; whom she exposeth by sending into the nations to sow her darnel, and to sell her wares: till the kingdoms of the earth, (
‡ vers. 6.  rewarding her as she hath rewarded them,) do cut off these chapmen from land of the living. How be it she herself hath made many more martyrs, by killing Christ's witnesses that have spoken against her, as England, France, Germany and many other nations testify: for in her must be found 
Apoc. 18, 24.  the blood of the prophets and of the saints.  
Thus have I confirmed your notes by the scriptures, which you did set down barely without proof: that all men may see, your marks may be showed by the word of God. Other 
* Apoc. 18, 14.  apples there are which your soul's lust after, all which shall depart from you, as God raiseth up the witnesses of his truth against you. But you proceed and say▪  
2. You have a certain visible and infallible way to decide all controversies, which is the catholic church, that propoundeth what is to be believed and what is not.] A sure way in deed, wherein you may walk safely, till God rise up to judgement against you. You boast to be the only catholic church; and to have the only true belief: we except against you by the word of God: your church which now stands charged to be a harlot, will be her own judge, and decide the controversy herself. If you grant Mahomet but this one ground for himself: I warrant you he will win the field. And if you can prove unto me, but this one ground, (which being the question, is here begged by you,) I will soon receive al● doctrines, traditions, ceremonies that your mother 
Isa. ●, ●0. Mal. 4, 4. joh. 5, 3●. Act. 17, 2. & 26; 2●. ● Tim. 3, 15, 16, 17. 2. Pet. 1, 19  church propoun ●eth. But I have showed you a more certain plain and infallible way, (the old and good way wherein our Fathers* walked,) to decide all controversies by, which is the holy oracles of God written by his Prophets and Apostles: which if you will not yield to walk in, but continue in your catholic aberrations: you and your church shall perish in the hour appointed; and then shall be said, 
† Apoc. 18, 20.  O heaven rejoice of her, and ye holy Apostles and Prophets, for God hath given your judgement (not her own) upon her  
3. You have (as you say) Gods divine veracit●e speaking by the mouth of the church, which formally makes you believe.  
But we (say I to you) have Gods divine veracity speaking by the 
‡ Luk. 1, 70 2 Pet. 1, 19  mouth of his holy Prophets, which have been since the world began; and also the 
● Pet. 3, 2.  commandments of the Apostles of our Lord and saviour, which effectually make us 
” Rom. 10, 17.  believe, through the spirit God 
* 1 Cor 2, 12. Isa. 59 21.  which is given unto us. That God 
† Mat. 22, 31.  speaks in them is p●ayn, and your 
‡ Bellarm. de verb. Dei; l. 1, ●. ●.  selves grant: that undoubted veracity is in his words, 
Ps. 19, 7, 9  is evident, and yourselves dare not deny: & by this divine veracity we submit ourselves, our churches, our faith, our actions to be tried of all. But your church lifteth up herself, to be her own judge and lawgiver: and will not suffer herself to be tried by the holy scriptures. Thus glorifieth th● herself, and liveth in pleasure, and saith in her heart, 
Apoc. 1●, 7.  I sit a Queen: but strong is the Lord God 
† vers. 8.  which will condemn her.  
4. You have (as you say) a supernatural judgement to believe in common at least, in that all people, all nations have so believed. You need no supernatural judgement for this, for it is a popular carnal reason, which the natural man easily receiveth. But the spiritual man by supernatural light from the law of God, believeth 
‡ Abak. 2, 4. Heb. 10, 38.  in particular, 
joh. 6, 66. 6●, 69.  though all people all nations should depart from Christ, because he hath the 
* 2 Pet. 1, 19  sure word of God in the scriptures, and the spirit of God, by a covenant from the Lord. Isa. 59, 21. And by this means he discrieth 
Apoc. 17, 3.  in the wilderness that woman, and her 
‡ vers. 5.  mystery, how she sitteth 
vers. 1.  upon many waters, or 
” vers. 15.  peoples; of whose wine the nations having drunk, 
jer. 51, 7.  therefore they rage.  
Lastly through all these you have (as you say) a pious affection through the working of God's holy grace, to believe her et 〈◊〉 hoc et illud, and that without any difficulty, since you first believe there to but one true church, and that church cannot ere. etc.  
I confess in deed you have the 
† Mat. 7, 13  broad and easy way, wherein you run on with great facility, (if God of his grace stay you not) unto your perdition. For by these false grounds your minds are so bewitched, that with 
‡ Prov. 7, 21.  her great craft she hath caused you to yield, & with her flattering lips hath enticed you, and ye follow her straightway 
vers. 22  as oxen that go to the slaughter, and as fools to the stocks for correction; 
* vers. 23.  till a dart strike through your live●, as birds hast●●● to the snare, not knowing that it is for their lives. For by believing this and that as your catholic mother doth propound, and not trying nor daring to try her propositions by the book of God: you have quite lost the ancient catholic and Apostolic faith which was in the Churches of God in Rome, Corinth, Galatia, & throughout all nations, as whensoever you bring your opinions to the trial by God's authentik writings, will appear. And though you glory of S. Peter for your Rock, as your ancestors 
joh. 8. 33. etc.  gloried of their Father Abraham: yet will you not follow his holy plain & Apostolical counsels, when he refers you to the 
2. Pet. 1▪ ●9.  sure word of the Prophets, and 
‡ 2 Pet. 3, 2.  to the commandments of them the Apostles of the Lord: giving you warning 
2 Pet. 2, 1, ●  of false teachers to come after, which privily should bring in heresies of perdition, whose damnable ways many should follow, by whom the way of truth should be evil spoken of.  
What remaineth then if you proceed in this evil course, but as you cleave to your late father's sins, so you be partaker of their plagues. And if you will not hearken to that 
Apoc. 18, 4.  voice from heaven, Go out of her my people: you shall hear and feel the effect of that voice which the 
Apoc. 19 17. etc.  Angel standing in the sun, crieth so loud, to all fowls of the heaven to come unto the supper of the great God, where they shall eat the fleshes of Kings and high captains, and of mighty men, and of horses and horsemen, & of freemen and bondmen, of small and great: when the beast, and the 
† vers. 20.  false prophet which deceived with miracles them that received his mark, shall be cast alive into the lake of fire burning in brimstone. To save you from this perdition, lo how large a letter I have written unto you this second time, testifying unto you the word of God, and against the erroneous grounds or quicksands rather, whereon you build your faith. God offering me this occasion by yourself, I have out of the love of my heart, endeavoured to save your soul from death, by showing you the way of life: choose life therefore that you may live. Look into the book of God, (wherein you seem to me to be a stranger,) and pray unto him for understanding in the same: so shall you find more light to your eyes, more comfort to your heart, than the ca●t loads of later Doctors, Fathers, Councils etc. can give unto you. And if you will not be warned, I shall lament your estate: yet whiles I may, I will do you good, and as for all reproaches, taunts, vituperies which you have already uttered, or may yet further utter against me, I shall willingly bear and bury them; and use all good means I can, to save you from the damnation of hell. God open you: eyes, and persuade your heart unto the sight & obedience of his most holy 
● Jude, v. 3  faith, ● once given unto the saints. Amen. From Amsterdam this 16. of April. 1610.  
Yours if you willbe Christ's Henr: Ainsworth.  
If you have said what you can against the scriptures of God & their all-sufficiency for man's faith: you may (if you please) show your strongest arguments for your Roman catholic church (as you call her) and her definitive sentences. Or proceed, if you think good, to some other grounds and main controversies between us. Only be advertised to follow the good counsel of him whom you count the Rock of your faith; If any man speak (let him speak) as the words of God 1. Pet. 4. 11.  
There being no reply to this second answer of a long time, about 3. years after H. A. wrote, as followeth.  
To his very loving friend M. John A●nsworth prisoner in Newgate: be these in London.  
MR. Aynsworth I was glad to hear of your former release ou● of bands, and expected your answer to my last letter, which you promised: but now lo some years are past and I hear not from you. It is not my desire to contend with you, but to save your soul from death, by converting you from popery to true Christianity. I had not begun this business, but that I was provoked by yourself: if you mean to give over and so signify, I also will so rest, but with pitying your estate and praying for you. If you think good to prosecute your work begun, I also purpose God assisting me, either to manifest your aberrations, or to yield unto you. I am the more occasioned thus to write, by reason of an other challenge lately made by some of your side: but reason would that the old be maintained, or let fall, before way be given to any new. Thus with unfeigned desire of your good, I commend you to the mercy of the most high, remaining your friend to command in all Christian duty▪  
Henr: Ainsworth. From Amsterdam this 12. of April 1613.  
I. A. his answer to the former short letter.  
To his loving friend Mr Henry Aynsworth ● Amsterdam deliver these.  
MR. H Aynsworth. That you were so kindly glad for my releasement out of prison, I am to thank you; but whereas you say you ery●cted my answer to the lost of yours as I promised, I cannot see how you can take any just erceptions. For first my releasement was but rather a chaynge of restraint, then absolute a freedom being a banishment, so that I have been enforced to coast many parts since: and before my banishment immediately all the books and papers I had, were taken from me here in prison, amongst which (I take) pours and my ●●●ferentes were. As for the latter reply, I can not tell where it is now; though I promise you I had half answered it, and had fully satisfied you therein, if my papers and I had not suddenly been severed. Although I aver there is no special point therein contained that I take I have not abundantly satisfied in my former. That you seem to say I gave the onset, it much imports not whether I did or no; I seeking to draw you from the Egyptian darkness, that is so palpable. But this I can remember, this question now controverted by you was by yourself proposed: howsoever in your former rep●●e you desired to change the thesis or discourse, which argued, you had little advantage or hope to prevail in the former. We both agree belike in the intention, each seeking each others conversion, though we are ex diametro opposed in our assertions. I wonder what hope you should have by any thing you writ, to pervert my obedience to the Church of God, that you so seeffingly term Poperte, but therein you show your ignorance, distinguishing a Roman catholic and a true Christian, although all Papists in your opinion are not true Christians▪ But I could with better reason retort; and desire to convert you from Death●nisme, or Judaisme to true Christianity. For I take according to your grounds a man might prudently doubt whether you are baptized or not, in that your Parents or Ministers might as much slight (as your se●t doth) the necessity of baptism. If I had your last papers though tedious▪ and long, in a few lines I could answer any thing that urgeth me therein, and that is not answered in my former replies. But this is sufficient you have p●●lded to me only quotations, and that d●sparatas, hanging together sine calce in am of the reasons, antiquity, universality and consent, which I urged against you from Distories the registers of time, from Holy Fathers and Doctors the interpreters of scripture, and from all kind of witnesses. All which you call carnal motives, the errors of flesh and blood, or some such other scornful term of the Fathers & Doctors. reasons I proposed to you (as I refer myself to any indifferent judgement) are full for all your pretended reasons in full force. But ●erein you mi●●e, for being only exercised to cope with Protestants, against whom your writings are in full force; in that they urge against you antiquity, visibility and consent of councils and Fathers; all which being brought by us against them, they fly presently from all these to their private spirit and interpretation, yet they are no reasons or urge not against us: For we catholics have still one rule of faith that must tri● all▪ Rom. 12. v. 7▪ for keeping of which rule the Romans 
Rom. 〈◊〉. v. 7▪ Rom. 6▪ v. 17. 1.  before▪ 6▪ 6▪ v. 17. were before praised; which square S. Paul commendeth into Timet●●e as in's depositum. This line of truth, and analogy of faith makes us all agree, and it makes us not to be 
Ti●▪ 6▪ 20.  vanqui●ned of our enemies.  
Therefore▪ 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉▪ 〈◊〉 Ainsworth ●f ● d●e not hear you, for I must ●●t believe you against this rule though you were an Angel from heaven in that by private interpretation against the rule of faith you invert the gospel of Christ. 
●. 〈◊〉.   
As for the beginning of your new subject, I know neither the controversy▪ nor your Antagonist. If you be minded to deal further in your question begun, answer my argumento, and that briefly and in form; For I charge you that by the multiplicity of quotations you have rather avoided then answered my reasons.  
But if you be weary of this subject, at your pleasure you may begin another, provided it be still a main, essential or substantial po●●ce.  
But since you seem so willing to give me satisfaction in any thing. I desire you briefly and yet distinctly to answer these questions I shall propose.  
First I demand how you challenge your faith to be the same of 
My first question.  the Apostles: I desire to know which of the Apostles s●h●ll●rs whether Abdias Bishop of Babylonia, whether S. Dyonis●●s ●rcopagita, S. Ignatius, whether S. Polycarpus, aut S. Clemens the scholar of S. Peter, or the canons of the holy Apostles did teach this your doctrine; if they did teach show how long it did continued in the visible church of Christ, what monuments you have to warrant you therein.  
2. Set down the essential and fundamental points without which your religion can not stand; and which being granted your religion is granted.  
3. Name the authors that successively from thence unto this time, have maintained these points you now hold.  
4. Who and on what occasion did suppress them. (Howsoever, I desire you to give a direct answer to these 〈◊〉. questions hers propounded.)  
5. Whether it was in time of persecution, or in the time of peace that your church begun to be invisible; In the time of peace there was no adversary to make it invisible; In the time of persecution; no man can persequ●te an invisible thing.  
6. I ask you which of the Martyrs of the primitive church yo● will allow of for your Martyrs; whether of S. Laurence or ●o. 
These questions can not be answered neither by Protestant, p●●itan or Brownist▪ or any other sectary.   
7. Whether you allow of Constantius the first Christian Emperor 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 profess.  
9▪ Whether you hold that those that have died or shall die resolved Roman Catholics, have been or shallbe saved?  
10. Whether you will grant the Church of Christ, or the synagogue of the Jews 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 ●●●etest to be followed?  
12▪ Whether sufficiency only (since I take you hold ordering or imposition of hands not to be used) is to be required to make one of your teaching Elders; or if only that sufficeth not, to assign what more is required.  
To these questions I entreat you Mr Henry Aynsworth, & that earnestly to give an orderly brief and distinct answer to each one of these questions▪ for on the resolution of these, many fruitful consequences may be gathered to make easy any point hereafter to be controverted between us.  
But now briefly to set down my arguments which I maintain▪ still, you have not satisfied in no one point: I will therefore briefly set them down in form desiring an answer as brief, yet as solid and as substantial as you can afford; only granting, denying or distinguishing, which in deed is to answer in form like a scholar:  
Your conclusion as I take was this. The written word of 
Mr Henr. Aynsw. position.  God contained in the Bible is the only & sufficient rule of our faith:  
My reasons were these in substance, to prove the contrary, though the same in word I can not affirm, not having one line of yours or my conference: 
●. Reason's refucing M. H. A. position, & yet unanswered: If you say answered, abridge them, ●s I have done my 5. Reasons. D. Aug. contra ep. fundament. Manich▪ c. 9 ●. Ratio.   
That which is not known for God's word, cannot be the only rule of faith:  
But scriptures by themselves are not known for scriptures:  
go. the bare scriptures which is the written word of God can not be the only rule of faith:  
My Major is most certain and evident; My Minor I proved out of Dr. Whitaker, Hooker, Zanchius, Brentius, all holding tradition necessarily to distinguish scriptures from no scriptures. Also I take I proved this out of the holy councils, & out of S. Augustin contra epistolam fundamenti Manichaeic. 9 Ego evangelio non crederem, etc. I would not believe the Gospel except the authority of the church should move thereunto.  
Neither did you answer my Minor, when you said scriptures ●r known by themselves; For first you slight and let slip the authority of those that in common reason I should believe assoon as yourself: 2. You do not answer to the authority 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 honey is sweet, no man could be● ignorant thereof that had all his natural faculties: and if more than the natural faculties, and the object disposed be required, you eats your own words. For than it is not so known a truth, And how shall I know I have this spiritual eye of discerning truth more than my adversary, that accepts of some things for no scripture, that I do 
Conc. C●rth. 3. canon● 4●. Laodi●. Canone 19  allow of as scripture? etc. Why had not S. Aug: this ●ie that with whole Council of Carthage accpted of the books of Maccabees 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 believed 
The ●▪ Reason.  before the written word of God, & many things are now believed that are not expressly taught in the written word of God, go: 
Divers things believed not expressed in the written word. The perp: virginity of our B. Lady.  the written word of God is not only the rule of faith: The first part of my Antecedent is easily proved; For the church of God till Moses time 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 expiating of original sy● in women. The mystery of the B. Trinity, that God the holy ghost did proceed from God the father and God the son as from one beginning. That Easter day should be celebrated on Sunday, and not on Saturday, That the Creed of the Apostles is to be believed; and yet no one of these is expressly taught in holy scriptures; you said yes; but you cited no place of scripture for probation thereof: Moreover you have not satisfied 
2. Th●s ●. ● 15.  the places of holy scripture I cited to prove traditions; especially you have not answered to that place of S. Paul▪ 2. Thes. 2. 
D. Chrys. hom. 4. 〈◊〉 1. Thes. ●.  v. 15. nor to the authority of S. Chrysost. homily 4. i●●. Thes. 2. wherein Dr. Whitaker says he speaks unworthy of so holy a father, nor to the place off. Basil or S. Hierom or S. Aug. 
S Basil: S. Hierome. D. Aug: De Genesi ad litteram lib. 10. c. 23. Conc. ●. Carth. canon 47. Council▪ Laodic. canon 59 D. Aug. lib. 1. c. 3●▪ cont●a Cresconium: affirms the book of Maccabees to be canonical.  De Genesi ad literam lib. 10. c. 23. where he tearheth many fasts, feasts, solemnities to be kept and believed only through tradition, and he testifieth there that in no wise we could believe the baptizing of children without unwritten tradition:  
Another which I used was this. That which is most difficult, 
The 3, Reason.  hard and almost for occurring difficults inexplicable, can not be to the unlearned at least, a certain and unfallible truth. But the scriptures are thus, as well witnesseth your own conscience, and diverse places I set down, that seem to contradist one another, go:  
Moreover how should an artificer know, whether this Bible be well translated or no, since he can neither confer 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 ●▪ chapter 
Epistle ●▪ Pet. ●, 〈◊〉.  v. 16. In which are certain things hard to be understood, which the unlearned and unstable deprave, as also the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition. No doubt S▪ Peter means 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 point of these, do cause error in many other places that depend hereupon But is these and more plainly examplified, I had nothing but quotations impertinently alleged, and no determinate answer to the difficult.  
That whose only the hath been defective and erroneous, yea to 
4. Ratio.  the greatest Elercks'; to every one howsoever unf●ilfull, and unlearned can not be a certain and unfallible rule of faith. But that the bare scripture is so, I showed by divers seeming plain piares cited by the Arrians, Pelagians, Semipelagians, Donatists, Eutherans, Anabaptists, ●t. All which vie scripture for scripture; If you give an interpretation of their place of scripture that they bring to confirm their hear, they will give also an interpretation of any place of scripture that you shall bring to refute them: if your interpretation be a correspondency to scripture, theirs also shall be so.  
The fifth Argument of mine I framed thus. God is as provident 
5. Ratio. The ●i●ch Reason.  for necessary means to direct his church; as he is provident to Empires, kingdoms, common wealths and families. But all these besides the written law, have ever some one decyder, unweere or tribunal to ●hoke controversies, or diffentions in the seed, to mow them down in the flower, to extirpate them in the very root. go, the word of God is not sufficient in itself 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 reply of yours. Now since my reasons remain in their full force; I can not see any reason why I should be bound to spend much time in answering fruitless and impertinent allegations:  
But here as I remember transcending the bounds 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 words c 16. says 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 
Mat. 16, 18. See Theophilact on this place. joh. 21. ●. 17. Chrysost: lib. 2. De sacerdotio. Luc. 22. 32. Math. 16. Tues Petrus. Concil. Chalced. Art. 3. pag. 118. Tertull: de prescript. Orig. homil. 5. in Exod. S. Cyp. De unitate Eccles. S. Hill: canon 16. in Math. S. Ambros. sermon. 47. 68 lib 6. in c. 9 Lue. S. Hier: lib. in jovinia. et in cap. 2. Esa. etc. Luc. 22. 32. vide D. Cypr. epist: 55. numero 6. D. Bernard●. epist. 190. S. Aug: interpreted.  that in one sense S. Augustin says the first, yet I deny that ever S. Augustine doth deny that the church of Christ is built on the person of S. Peter. And well map the Church be said 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 frail mortal creature, but is a strong unshaliable rock as the faith itself, In that Luk. 22. It is sand I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith may not fail: Since we believe that this prayer is obtained, we must believe that by the warrant of Christ's prayer, the person of Peter 
●ib. 1. retract. c. 2●.  & his faith shall never be severed; so S. Aug: calling sometimes S. Peter the roch of the church, and sometimes his faith doth mean one thing: The which S. August. himself testifieth, for remembering that he had taught that in the person of Peter the Church was founded; quoth in eo tanquam in Petra ●●●data sit Ecclesia in which sense it was fong by many in the hym●●s of S. Ambrose, Hoc ●●sa Petra Ecclesiae canente culpam d●●uit: At the crowing of the cock the rock of the chur● 
〈…〉.  (Peter) lamented his fault, he concludeth the whole matter of these two expositions. Harum duarum sententiarum quae sit probab●●●or eligat lector. Of which two expositions which to the probabler. I leave to the reader's choice: What have you not by this allegation of S. Augustine? Nay what will you lose if you should come to answer the holy fathers that affirm the church to be founded on S. Peter.  
That you write you are sorry for my error: I wonder you should be so careful for my souls good, that are so negligent of your own. For as I take in the last of mine I showed how full of fear the last resolution of your faith would be when you should give account at 
〈…〉.  that eternal tribunal; In that all you can answer for yourself is that your own fancy apprehended so; your private spirit interpreted so. Where my faith is warranted by God's word, driivered by the holy catholic church, confirmed by General and Provinstall Counsels, sealed by thousand of Martyr's blood, authorized by antiguitie 
〈…〉.  of History, ratified by holy Father's Doctors and instructors of holy orders in all ages, having the profession of our religion inserted in our natural ● language, churches, crosses, buildings, money ● most ancient monuments, all which motives warrant me that I shall render an answer without all fear or dread. All these and 〈…〉 motives you may have to yield to us; but you could never n●t ●●●we me the least semblance of reason why I should yield to you. God send you make right use of them for the good of your soul, that you man at length be reduced to the true church of Christ, for which I shall heartily pray.  
john Aynsworth.  
I received yours dated the 12. of April the 20. of the same, and I end this the 29. of April stylo veteri. Justice Hall in Newgate.  
H. A. his answer to the former letter.  
To his loving friend Mr. john Aynsworth prisoner in Justice hall in Newgate, be these in London.  
GRace and mercy from God the father of our Lord jesus Christ, ●e vouch safed unto you. 1. Whereas you g●ve me to understand (Mr. Aynsworth) that my writings among others were taken from you, so that you could not answer them as you promised, and that if you had my last papers, in a few lines you could answer any thing that urgeth you therein, etc. I have out of my love towards you, and in compassion of your estate, sent you a copy 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 yield unto the truth there showed you. You brought for your defence C. Bellarmine's reasons: I have manifested the weakness of them. If you can fortify them, or your cause by any other, I am willing (as I have begunn) to take notice thereof, & either to refute them, or yield you the Victory. If you leave off, I also will rest, and let the prudent judge what we both have said.  
2. You (as if you would begin a new combat) propound 12. questions for me to answer: I told you before, I would not digress to by matters, for so we might run into confusion fruitless and endless. Also your questions (most of them) are of Father's Doctors etc. since th'Apostles times, by whom I showed you that I neither might nor would try any religion, till the Divine scriptures be proved insufficient, which will never be.  
3. You then propound the controversy a new, as if we were now again to begin, when we are almost at an issue: so might both of us weary ourselves in vain. Your first long writing to me, hath made my answers the longer, for I desired (and still do) brevity with perspicuity. Lest through want of your papers, you should swerve from the questions in hand, I will set them down, in the words that they have passed.  
My assertions were question weise, when I should enter into dispute with you, to see if you would grant;  
1. That our differences in religion should be tried and composed by the verdict or word of God: not of men.  
2. That God's word is to be found in the scriptures of the Prophets & Apostles, who written originally in Hebrew and Greek. By these I offered my faith to be tried, and to make trial of other faith proposed.  
Yours were, which you said you would prove; and so endeavoured;  
1. That only the bare text of the scripture, is not a sufficient rule of our faith.  
2. That the scriptures expounded by the catholic church, is a true and indeficient rule of our faith: or (as you set it down when you come to make proof,) That the Pope's definitive sentence as he is head of the church, is an indeficient rule in matters of faith.  
3. That this rule is only found in the Roman Catholic church sentence, and not in private men's illuminations and motions of a private & unseen spirit. Or (as after you express it, when you labour to prove it,) That your Roman Church is the true & only catholic church of God.  
Your arguments for these were long discourses, I could not therefore answer, but by refelling your treatises. In these I follow your footing still in my last writing, now again sent unto you. Hold I pray you to the points in hand, and be as brief as you can, I will labour to satisfy you in few words. But if you make outrodes to long narrations; blame not the length of my answers, which are but according to your own size; & eke your arguments no more with human testimonies, till you have disproved the certainty and sufficiency of the Divine oracles: which if it were possible for you to do, you might colourably persuade fools unto Atheism, but no wife man would ever suffer affliction for your traditional and human religion. Be you warned, yea entreated, to save your soul from eternal flames; God hath offered more means of mercy unto you then to many others; if you shut your eyes against the light, (which shineth in darkness though the darkness comprehends it not,) you will but heap up unto yourself wrath against the day wrath; but my prayer unto God is for your salvation in Christ, to whose grace I commend you.  
From Amsterdam this 28. of May 1613. Henr: Ainsworth.  
I. A. his answer to the former letter.  
To his loving friend Mr Henry Aynsworth at Amsterdam deliver this.  
SOme week ago (Mr Henry Aynsworth) I received your letter and your last reply copied out again (as you say) to give me satisfaction. An answer whereof some three years ago I had returned, if the papers then, and I had not been severed; And long ere this since the intended delivery thereof I had fully satisfied each point thereof, if some three weeks after the notified aryvall thereof, the delivery had not been delayed.  
For your pains and good will I thank you. But I wonder that through private affectation, so much pains, and good will should be so far from being secundam scientiam, that a man might doubt rather whether you writ not contra conscientiam, since to any indifferent judgement the motives for our catholic religion, and for her doctrinal assertions are so clear, and therefore doubt not but that I shall answer you; although her well grounded truth would defend itself though I were silent.  
But God willing I will shortly send you the answer to your large biscourse, and to give you ta●t of that which I will prove in fully answering your replication (though to write so large a copy forth is more tedious than difficult) I will prove these seven points at least. First I will show the weakness of your reasons; 2. I will prove that not only the written word of God, but the unwritten word of God tradition, and the authority of the Church is the rule of our faith. 3. I will show how my five Arguments for all your pretended answers remain in full force. 4. I will prove how you walk in a circle, proving the word of God by your private spirit, and your private spirit by the word of Gods 5. I will defend our catholic opinion to be free from any circular or ridiculous proof. 6. I will show the Pope's definitive Sentence, together with a general Council at least to be an assured groundwork of faith: 7. I will show to you or any indifferent judgement that your building is on sand, and the resolution of your faith at the last day of judgement groundless and full of fear.  
But now to show that you have in nothing answered my last letter, I propounded certain necessary questions briefly for the more clearing of this or any other disputation to be had between us: of which though there were twelve in number, yet you have not answered one word to any, which either shows you glossed before when you said you writ all before for my good▪ or else rather that you could not answer one, which you might have done in four or 5. lines, denying or granting. So that I must needs infer that you cannot show which of the Apostles did teach your doctrine that you now hold: 2. that you can not show which are the essential points of your religion: 3. that no ancient Doctor did maintain the doctrine you now held: 4. that you can not show who, in what time, and on what occasion did suppress that doctrine: 5. that you can not show your church to have begun to be invisible in the time of persecution, or in the time of peace: 6 that S. Laurence nor any of the primitive martyrs were of your religion: 7. that you approve of no ancient history, and that you must grant Constantine our first Christian Emperor not to be of your religion: 8 that no one of the 3. conversions of England was to your religion: 9 that you must grant the church of Christ to be more subject to invisibility, ruin, & subversion then the synagogue of the Jews: 10. that you have no Bible or written word of God that you allow of in all, and so that you have no rule of faith for all. To all these you answer with silence in your heart calling them carnal motives no doubt.  
3. I answer you that in putting down briefly my 5. arguments in form, I show you have not answered: But you in your silence to them shows that your answers consists only in multiplicity of words that admits no abbreviation.  
4. You than set down your 2 conclusions and my 3. contrary assertions. ●ou blame my tediousness, but I answer, my outroades are to trace only your wild-goose chase, that is bounded in no circuit of a methodical discourse. I shall be the longer in this present discourse to come, so to avoid proliritie hereafter, still referring myself to this to come, how long so ever you shall dispute. Desist then Mr Henry Ainsworth to follow your private spirits fancy; & hold yourself by that three fold chain ●in●●ntius Lyrinensis prescribes, that is antiquity, universality and consent, so should you save yourself from that headlong precipitium that the author of evil the Devil tempts you to; when by the private interpretation of scriptures he inst●uates to a man Mitte deorsum S. Math▪ ●▪ for it is written Psal. 90. cast thyself from the rock of the church, scriptum est from the trabition and authority of the church, from the consent of holy Counsels and fathers; for scriptum est, your private spirit must be your tower. God send you may recover yourself from your imn●nent precipitium, that dying out of the church of God you do not eternally burn in the quenchless flames: from Justice hall Julie 24 1613.  
john Aynsworth.  
To this letter H. A. gave no answer, but expected the promised large reply from I. A. which now followeth: as the third in defence of the Church of Rome.  
To Mr Henry Aynsworth at Amsterdam.  6. 16. jerem. 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 reply was slight, and wily, rather seeking to transfer the question then to examine it to the true ground, bespangling the rough rug of your doctrine with multiplicity of wrested places of holy scripture, which makes me fitly resemble you to some AEthiopian, behanged all over ears, ●yes, nose, lips and arms with Jewels, and pearls that by their lustre, beauty, and misplacing makes the Nigroes' fowllness the uglier. Yet of such importance is the decision of this question being 
This question the chiefest question of contro●●●sic●.  the key, and Master-spring to all the other doctrinal, and controversial questions of religion: That howsoever your exploded doctrine and shuffling replication needs no answer, being like a Comet that consumeth itself, yet to comply with the worth of the question, and to satisfy your followers desires, I have once again returned you an answer.  
In which I will show that your reasons being rather seeming reflections then true beams (as you say) of the word of God, do vanish of themselves.  
2. I will prove that the true & indeficient rule of our faith is not 
The partition of the treatise into 7. parts.  only the written word of God, but also the unwritten word of God, tradition, the authority of the church of God in Counsels ● Father's is the ultimate decyder of all matters of controversy.  
3. I will show how my reasons for all your pretended answers, remain in full force.  
4 I will prove that in your opinion you walk in a virious circle, pro●● i● the self same by the 〈◊〉▪ the word of God by the private spirit, and the private spirit by the word of God.  
5 I wil● defend our Catholic opinion to be free from any such circular and ridiculous proof▪  
6 I 〈◊〉 show the Pope's definitive sentence together with a general Court 〈◊〉 at least to be a firm, and an assured groundwork, & rock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  
7 And lastly I will demonstrate to you, or to any indifferent judgement, 
Mr. H. A. his 〈…〉. How 〈…〉 steam of the s●●●pt. The 〈◊〉 ● of the fathers besides the written word of God required.  that your building is on sands, or spider's ●●ks your arc●ū●● and res●●u●●ō of your faith at the last day of judgement to be groundless and fu●l of fear:  
8 First then to begin with your reasons, which 〈◊〉 I maint●yne to be nothing else but a●●er a●●ous of scripture f●●sty applied, I do think it 〈◊〉 before I answer your reasons grounded on the bareterts of scripture▪ to signify what a worthy & most reverend esteem we have of the scriptures, and of each part of them. We reverence them as God's holy word derived from the fullness of truth. ●●e hold this volume wor●●● to be meditated on day and night. Jos. 1, 8 Psalm. 1, 2 〈◊〉 hold it as seven times refined s●●ver. Psal. 11, 7. A most clear light illuminating our eyes Psal. 8 8 that it is a light 〈◊〉 our steps Psal. 1. 8. ●2▪ & v 105 & 130. 140. We hold all the holy scriptures to be most just 8. 8. Prov. to be a frerie speech and buckler of defence. We also defend that the holy scriptures are diligently to be searched unto Joh. 5, 39 ●●om. 1. 1. ●●om. 15, 4. that whatsoever is writ in them is writ to our edification: that all the scriptures are profitable unto us 2 ●un. 3, 16 2. Pet. 1, 21. that men 
4. D. August. lib. 1 cont. juha: c. 2. et lib. 2. 〈◊〉 ep●log●ejus oper●s. As S. Aug did oppose the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 time, so we do oppose you. Mr. H. A. 〈◊〉 for calling the holy father's earth and ashes.  delivered this scripture inspired by the holy Ghost. Yet we hold also though we worthily esteem of them yet we can not ●●clude the e●plications of the holy church in the holy Fathers and Counsels, guided, and directed, by the self same truth. And S. Augustin did oppose by the authority of the holy fathers his predecessors, against Pe lagius and other heretics saying, ●rag●lis ●t arguta eorum novitas e●c. The weak and w●●● novelty of heretics is to be co●f●n̄ded by the authority of holy Fathers: and a little after this great Doctor▪ and holy Father● acknowledged by Calvin himself to be the faithful wriness of antiquity, 4. 〈◊〉 stitut. ●. 14, sess. 25 and B●za calls him the Prince of a● Divines concerning dogmatical po●●cis in c. 3. ●●om. v. 12 as if on purpose he did answer your barbarous contempt of them calling them dust and athes; ●et only in regard of their mortalize as the scriptures calls them, but when the uniform consent of the Father's Greek and Latin was objected against ●●u: What sa●es D. Augustin, shall light be darkness, and darkness light that 〈◊〉 aclestius. Julia: should on: lie see, and that Hyllarie, Greg. Amb●●se ●ier. August should b● blind So we see how two worthy champions of yours hath raised S. August: a Samn●l 〈◊〉 confound a 〈◊〉 not at Endor but at Amsterdam.  
● But whereas by your submission you would seem● to 〈◊〉 am●nd 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 that you 〈◊〉 th●re be a tho●●a●d of them that I sa● 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you pre●●● for 〈◊〉. trut● and holiness before 〈◊〉. For if you understand this of the 〈◊〉 fathers before 〈◊〉, I pro●● that you cannot 〈◊〉 that without ● vizard to 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉, since I will prove that in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dogmatical 〈◊〉 they differ from you, and so by your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 ●inpeere (except you will be wilfully blind) they 〈…〉 before you. If you understand Jewel, 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 etc. the Protestant Doctors, these in truth by your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neither do or can prefer before yourself (since by your 〈…〉 have no true church as I hear you teach against Mr. 〈◊〉 and so there difference must rather be heretical than 〈◊〉 and if it be a true church, why make you a sch●m● in departing from them▪  
Now to come to the solution of your arguments if there were any. 
〈…〉  There be 4 ●n number cited, as you say 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. ●. 32. Keep and do that 〈…〉▪ God commanded you, ●e shall neither 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉, but by that our Lord God commanded you 〈◊〉 you 〈…〉 What can you infer hence but that the law ought strictly to be kept▪ and that we ●ught neither to add or to take from the 10 commandments, that is to make the 10. commandments 〈◊〉 o● superabundant, what is this to your purpose to prove that the written word alone is sufficient to decide all controversies. For as here 〈◊〉 testification of the law or ●rp●icati●n of the law was 〈◊〉, (And that it was the office of the Priests to explicate the 〈◊〉 of the law appears Deut. 1●. v. 8 2 Paral. 19 1●. 2 P●● 26 16 〈…〉 Deut 32. v. 7. Psal. 43, 1. Prov. 3▪ 8▪ 〈◊〉▪ 6▪ ●6▪ 〈◊〉 8▪ 1●▪ 〈◊〉 4▪ 4 3. 2 Thes. 2▪ 15. 2 〈◊〉. 2▪ 1.) so we sa● the proposing of the word of God by the church; and the 〈◊〉 of the Church b● h●r h●ad, councils and half ancient fa●●●●● 〈◊〉 not resist but rather help the scriptures. And a● to ●●plicate the law 〈◊〉 neither 〈◊〉 de●it●e to t●e right hand or to the l●ft▪ no more 〈◊〉 ●● to 〈◊〉 the scripture according to universality, antiquity and consent: 
〈…〉  And here 〈◊〉 ●● to be understood that such an addition is prohibited that to 〈◊〉 to the law of God as appeareth up 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 chap. v. 3. where he brings in before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how he did 〈◊〉▪ B●al ph●gor for 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉▪ for adding or 〈◊〉 as the te●t ●●p●ies, v 2 ●. 4 Deut.  
Again 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Deut. 12. ●2. That 〈◊〉 I command 
●.  thee that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 Lord▪ thou 〈◊〉 ●●t add 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 c●nsicating the true sense of the law? And in the self ●●me sense ● prohibition 
No true explication prohibited  of an idolatrous or falsifying addition is prohibited Deut. 4 v. 2. ●●u shall not add unto the word I speak unto you, and in this sense that of the ●po● the last chap. v. 18, et ●9. and first of S. Paul to the Gal. chap. 1, v 8 as S. Aug: teacheth us in tract. 98. in Johannem. 
How the author himself slips in tripping of my reason.   
10. Now whereas you retort my reason urged against you, shows you have good will to maintain the tennis play how unpractised soever you are therein: For as I remember I reasoned thus taking occasion out of Deu. 5, v. 32. no man may add unto the fourth commandment & it is to be kept, therefore the 4 commandment is to be kept & only to be kept: As it should follow by the self same reason. No man may add in that ●●●●d to any particular scripture, and this or each parcel of scripture is the word of God; therefore this or each parcel of scripture is only scripture, or the word of God. Or thus, the scripture is a sufficient rule in that kind for that which it teacheth, therefore it 
The conclusion often tym●s with more art concealed, then v●rballie ever deduced The 1. of Gal. ●. v. makes against himself.  is the only sufficient rule; where you may plainly see if you will not blin●● that I conclude sufficiently against you. But you complain that my redditum or conclusion doth not show his head; I answer, we do not use ever in the schools the premises being presupposed ve●●●lli● to infer the conclusion which follows necessarily. As if I should argue thus. Whosoever builds his religion only on the private 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 will see what follows.  
11. Now to answer to that of the Gal. 1. v. 8. But though we or an Angel from heaven should evangelize to you beside that I have evangelised un to you be he an anathema: which text makes much against you; & doth nothing prove that which you would infer viz. that the written word of God is sole sufficient. For first there it is said besides 
Contrary glosses only prohibited. D: Aug: lib. 17. contra Faustum docet; qui supplet quod minus erat, non tollit quod mi●us ●rat.  that which I evangelize that is either 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 explication or true gloss on the text, but only that which is contrary, 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 Faustum where he teacheth that the Apostle says not more than you have received, but besides that you have received, or else S. Aug: says he should have prejudicated himself that did desire to come to preach to the Thessalonians, and he concludes; he that supplies that which was too little, doth not take away that which was too little or w●nting.  
12. And S. Augustin in his 98, tract notes that the word beside doth not prohibit more or other preaching or teaching (as the trabitio●● 
S. Aug. says the word besides prohibits only that which is contrary. S. john himself otherwise by M. H. A. should sin.  and explications of the church be) but such as are contrary or disagreeing to the rule of faith, and S. Augustine notes that the Apostle both not say if any do evangelize to you more than you have received, but beside: For if he had forbidden any more, S. John had sinned that wrote after the Apocalyps.  
13. You upbraid me in saying this answ. is none of the word of God but my own, 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 ●●te the 30 of the Proverbs the 6. v: add nothing unto his words lest he reprove thee; which text proves no more than the other text explicated; that conrrarie doctrine ● not explications a● here prohibited; so that we see our archer hath lost another bolt shot at rand●̄ to seek his brother.  
14. But whereas you say my answer is not warranted of God, is not true: For read Rom. the last, v. 17. Observe diligently those that cause division 
The like showed.  and diffention besides the doctrine you have learned, where Eras●us turns it in his translation contra against; and your Bezaes' translation reads so if contrary; S. Ambrose also reads si contra, 
My doctrine warranted by Gods own word. The desinations of the church are Gods. Mat. 18, 17. et 1●. De●. 19, 15.  so that we see repugnant, and not explicating doctrine, contrary and not more doctrine of the self same kind is prohibited.  
15. Whereas you say my reason is against myself, in that the Prophets did not add of their own but of Gods; no more I say the definitions of the church be man's own but Gods, there being one self sam●… of Christ and hi● 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 acordeth with the Roman catholic church.  
16 But where you say you will enlighten my eyes with the lamp oil that stinketh by your false interpretation of the holy father's sense, I am little beholden to you. For S Chrysost and S. Ambrose in those places cited by you will have nothing else understood, but that the expositors must apply themselves to the true sense of the scripture, & the law, ● not to corrupt the sense though on good pretences. But you 〈◊〉. H. A. if you would ha● the dust wiped of your spectacles, might have seen Dyonisius Areopagita in the year of our Lord 100 and 
In opere imperfecto c. 7. Math. D. Ambrose lib. de Pa●adiso c. 12. Nihil igitur l. quod bonum videtur.  the Apostles scholar in his first chapter of his celestial Hierarchy, show how the Apostles did declare their doctrine partly by writing & partly not by writing: yea you might 
Mark well Deut. 32. vers. 7. Psal. 43 1. Prov. 1, 8. Esa. 38. 19 jer. 6, 16. Eccle. 8, 11. 4. Esdr. 14. 3. 2. Thes. 2, 15. 1. Tim. 6, 20. 2 Tim 2, 1. and see whether unwritten traditions are not to be observed, seen. 〈◊〉. S. Chrys. plain words for tradition.  better have scamned first, and answered that place cited by me out of h●l● S. Chrysost: on the 2. of the Thess. oratione 4. Stand and keep your traditions, where the holy Father says it is plain the holy Fathers did not deliver all things up ●●istle but many things without writing, and those things 
See 〈◊〉 lib. 3. c. 4. Clemens Alexand lib. 5. Streat: c. 2. Orig. lib. 5. super numeros Athanas. epistolâ ad Epictetum D. Ambrose lib. de ●ide 3. c. 7. epistola 83. D. Aug: lib. contra Cresco: Grammat. c. 33▪ lib: contra epistolam Manich: quam vocant fundamentum c. 5. et epistola ●6. ad Casul. vide n. ●1.  also are worth● of faith; and S. Chrysost: says, Est traditio nihil qu●ras amp●ius; which words are so plain that they made Or Jewel to say they were words unworthy so h●lp a father: And that S. Ambrose did approve of tradition is plain out of his 34 sermon on Lent, where he reproving those that would keep certain days after Lent, when this after f●st was neither (as the feast of Lent) neither delivered by the authority of our antestors. So that we see if we should but give Mr. H. A. the S●●cons place but to put oil into our lamps, he would add his dust and asks to quench it rather 〈◊〉 contemning still as he doth the authority of the holy Fathers, in terming their authority produce● against him, dust and ashes.  
17. Mr. Henry Aynsworth objects against me that I have turned over his third and fourth Arguments o● reasons; denying them to prove that which they were cited for: I answer I possed them over; But see here Mr ●. A. hath turned them off the ladder to their last destiny; not showing that they proved aught what he intended by them: we may suppose his reasons were wounded to death in the answer●● the former, o● like runagates have forsaken their arms that 
THE II. PART.  of ●●●ted barely before, but one appeareth in his likeness; I hope ou● adversary will acknowledge or amend his slight dealing herein.  
18. The second part that jam to prove is that the rule of our faith 
The rule of our faith the written & unwritten word jointly. Tra●it: was once the total rule, therefore it may be th● partial. The ●h: of God taught only by tradition 2470 years. Tradition directed men after written law vide n. 16.  is not only the written word, but jointly the unwritten word of God, tradition and the authority of the church, councils and Fathers is the ultimate decyder of all matters of controve●ste.  
This I prove first thus: That which was the total rule of our faith before the written word of God, may be well the partial rule of our faith after, where the written word of God doth not sufficiently e●●ress● diverse mysteries of us to be believed. But tradition was a sufficient yea and the total rule of our faith till Moses time the first 〈◊〉 in of the holy ghost, go▪ tradition now together with the written word is a sufficient rule of our faith. My major through out this whole tract shall be proved; My minor is granted by Mr H. A.  
20. Secondly, Not only before the law of Moses men we●● wholly directed by the month of tradition, but after also as it appears in Deut. 3●, verse 7. Ask thy fatners and they shall annantiate unto thee, ask thy ancestors and they shall tell thee, showing that of many things that were to be believed we should depend of the instruction of our ancestors, for in the words young 〈◊〉 diatory before that is implied co●●ra generationes singulas; and Psal. 43, 1. Oh Lord we have heard with our ears, our fathers have 〈◊〉 unto us that which thou hast wrought in their days, and in the ancients days. Prov 8, 1. Hear oh son the discipline of thy father, and do not leave the law of thy mother. Isa. 38, 19 The father shall make known 
Many places of the old testam● for tradit:  to his son this truth; where truth & discipline shows rather matters of discipline, and doctrine, than matters of fact as Mr H. A. would interpret: and Jere. 6, 16. Stand upon the ways, and see & ask of the ancient paths, what is the right way and walk in it, and ye shall find rest unto your souls: which is plain there that the Prophet doth not only speak of matter of faith, but to prevent error and 〈◊〉 of doctrine: also see Eccles 8 11. 4 Esdr. 14, 3. 2 Tim. 2, 15. 1 Tim. 6 20 2. Tim. 2, 1. what can be hence inferred but that the Israelites and Christians were to be directed by the help of traditions. 
2●. S Dyon: Ar●opag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. Cl●meas Alex. Th●anc●●● father's most plain for the allowing of tradition. Origen S. Athanasius S. Basil.   
See the holy fathers so firm and so frequent for this great truth, that falsehood itself of our adversaries cannot tell how to oppose, see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. cited before number 16. 〈◊〉 in the ●ere of our Lord 80 lib. 3. ●. 4. calls tradition dives deposico●um a rich treasury or ●usrodie. E●emens 〈◊〉 lib. ● Strema: ● 4 in the year 200 say is that the knowledge of traditis by succession is come from the Apostles, et lib. 7 Stromat: ●. 9 he calls unwritten tradition the 〈◊〉 of truth. Origenes in the year 240 in his 5. 〈◊〉 in Numeros et tr●●t: 29 in Math: teacheth that we believe and do many things by tradition. S. Athanasius in his epistle ad Epi●t●te tu● says That it is sufficient to answer to his adversaries that it is not the doctrine of the Catholic church, & that the holy fathers have not thought so. S. Basil also says he can believe many things by the unwritten witness of the Apostles; the 2. Council of 〈◊〉 in actione 7. approves the authority of unwritten traditions. D. ●ier: in the year 390 in his dialogue contra Lucifer: affirms that for 
The 2. co●cel of Nice S. Hierom ● S. August;  his part if there were no scripture, yet the consent of the whole church were sufficient. And S. August: De baptismo contra Donatistas' lib. 7. c. 53 affirms, that which the universal church holds, neither is it instituted, but was ever retained we may judge most rightly to be delivered by the Apostles, idem epist. 86. ad rasul:  
Yea if our adversaries testimony is available in confirming a truth against themselves for us. See how Martin Luther in his 
22. yea our ●a● adversar●o● confirm this. M. Luther.  Lypsick disp. submits himself to the judgement, and determination of the holy church: and in his epist. ad Marchion●● Brandeburg: which is to be found in his second in German language folio 2▪ 3. He is not ashamed to say it is an horrible thing to hear or say that which is contrary to the uniform testimony of faith, and the doctrine of the holy Catholic church that from above a thousand with uniform consent she had kept. John Calvin in his book against Pig●●ius 
john Calv.  braggingly but with dissimulation affirms that he would not refuse the trial of the universal Church and warrant of tradition. Phil. Melancthon in his epist. ad Fr●der. Myream De locis veteris Theol de caena Domini affirms that it is not safe to depart from the consent 
Ph: Melinc.  of the ancient church, and in his epistle ad johannem Cratonem v●●tatista: he confesseth that doubt in a man's conscience is a torturer, and that the universal consent of doctrine must prevail for confirming of a truth, and he grants that the best Masters are Irenae us, Tertullian and S. Augustin that have left many monuments of truth for us, to whom they did adjoin the rule of faith the suffrages of the learned, the consent of the Apostolical churches, and this is that which he affirms they deduced from the Apostles or from Apostolical men.  
23. And not without great reason doth God use that means both to add estimation to his holy mysteries, & to preserve these precious stones for the Jewellers that did know how to prize them, that even natural reason 
Divers reasons whi● God useth traditions  hath taught, and that the very Heathen Philosophers have used, thereby to add prize and to distinguish the fitness of the auditor. Pythagoras therefore taught his scholars rather by word of mouth & relation of others then by Dictates or writing: Galen also lib. 2. de Anatomicis Adminiculis declares how the ancient Physicians did preserve and teach their medicines and receipts only by verbal relation from one from another. Cicero 1. De legibus affirms that it is a great error in a well governed common wealth to have all governed 
D. Hill: supra. 2. Psal. Orig. homil: 5. Num:  by written laws. And therefore the most ancientest and famous Rabbins and not only they but our Hyllarius and Origen do teach that Moses had not only delivered him the tables of the law in the mountain, but also most secret and hidden mysteries, and explication of the law which truth the author of the first book of Esdras doth not obscurely testify c. 14: 5. I have declared to Moses many miracles and I said unto him saying these words thou shalt speak openly, 
lib. 4. Esdras c. 14. v. 5  and these words thou shalt hide; and of such secret mysteries that of the Psal. 43. & psal. 77. Deutr 32. is to be understood. And in regard of these hidden mysteries Dyonis. Areopag: lib. de celest Hierarchia ●. 1. most diligently warns Timothy, That he should not disclose these things to the rude people. So that 
Dyonis. Areopag.  we see God writ in Moses' heart many things, that he did not write in the tables of stone; This made St. Paul to speak the bidden mysteries in secret, and to give the little ones milk in that 
1. Cor. 3. 2▪ Hebr: 5. 1●.  their weak stomachs could not brook other meat; And yet by pour rule Mr. H. Ainsw. new borne babes like Ostreches should devour pron, in freclie reading, applying and epplicating the difficult places of scripture.  
24. Now since the second and third question are so nearly confined that the ending of the one is the beginning of the other; the ending of my reasons the beginning of your answers; and so requiring a resutation 
The second & third parts confined.  of them I thought good having in general proved the necessity of tradition besides the written word, to end my second part, and with my particular proofs to begin the third point in interlacing the reasons & answers & replications together in order, but both as briefly as I can.  
25. My first Reason to prove that the written word of God without 
THE 3. PART. 1. Ratio.  the unwritten word of God Tradition, and the definition of the ●h: is not the rule of faith in sum is this  
26. That which is not known for God's word cannot be the rule of 
Major Minor Conclusio My Major proved.  faith: But scriptures by themselves are not known for God's word go scriptures by themselves are not the rule of faith.  
27 My Major is most certain, since nothing can be the indeficient rul● of all truth revealed, and to be revealed, but the word of the first verity God, which is either the written word of God contained in the Prophets and the Apostles, or the unwritten word of God contained 
27. Still it is God's word whether it be mediate or immediate: spoken or written. My Miner proved. S. August▪ saying. Proved also by Protestants.  in Apostolical traditions, definitions of the church and the uniform consent of holy Counsels and Fathers. For still it is Gods or a King's word whether it be immediately spoke by himself, or by the mouth of another whom he authorizeth to speak, or whither it be in writing: And nothing else can be unto us the rule to direct our faith except it first be known to be the word of God.  
28 My Minor is also true proved out of S. Augustine contra epistolam fundament: Manich: c. 5, Ego evangelio non crederem nisi me ad haec commoveret Ecclesiae authoritas; I should not believe the gospel except the authority of the church should move me thereunto. Lanchius in his confess. c. 1. and Brentius in his Prologo Kemnitij in examine Concil. Trident. Whitak contra Stapl. lib. 2. Hooker in his Ecclesiastical policy lib. 1, pag. 84. et lib. pag. 200. et 142. do all affirm that tradition of the church is necessary to distinguish what books of scripture be scripture and what not. And reason itself teacheth us, since we do not hear or see God or his known Prophets to write or speak this that is proposed unto us for the word of God: most convenient 
What S. Pa: mean● by his ●epositum. Platform of words & phrase over & above the scripture to be observed.  it is, lest we wander in infinitum in proving the word of God by the private spirit and the private spirit by the word of God, that there must be one certain rule or depositum fidei, and therefore St. Paul to Timothy ●. 6. ch. 20. Oh Timothee keep the depositum avoiding the profane novelty of voices, and avoiding the opposition of falsely called knowledge, which certain promising have e●red about faith, and what that depositum is S Paul in his 2. to Tim 1. v. 13, ●▪ 14▪ shows. Have thou a form o● sound of words, which thou hast h●a●d of me in faith, and in the love in jesus Christ. Keep the good depositum by the holy ghost which dwelleth in us: showing that Timothy and Christians ought to keep a certain platform of words, delivered to them over and above his epistles; which rule of words appropriated to high mysteries, and matters of our religion, as Trinity, Person, 
D. Aug l. 10. de ●iv. D●i c ●3.  Essence, Consubstantial, Transubstantiation, from one beginning Sacrament which the Apostle calls so●●●d words verba sana▪ ●  
29 You in 〈…〉 this my first a g●●nēt, say that things may be believed though not gathered out of ●he written word, understanding thurby 
His ans to my ●●st a●●  a human and a common belief. I know not what you mean by this, except you would have Gods written word only to be b●le●ved by a human faith. And therefore when I took you at your word and ●athered thence, that some tradition (or as you will term it traditum) is necessarily believed besides the written word. For wh● we speak absolutely of belief in divinity it is to be understood of a divine, and not of a human belief, and when you speak of the chief rule, you say it may be believed without the written word, I might 
I did rightly infer out of his words.  infer that necessarily it was to b● believed, since you hold that the word of God is the word of God, and that necessarily and so to be believed: So that you may see that your water hath rather wet your shoes, th●n that mine was spilled on the ground.  
30. 2. Whereas you say I do unjustly condemn your assertion that nothing to be believed is necessary for salvation that is not taught by the written word, I say most justly, and I convinced you of falsehood sufficiently when I said nothing is so necessary to salvation by you, as the written word, which word is not proved by another written 
The writ word not proved by another written word: go▪ by tradition. A place of script▪ produced, ans. Another answered.  word of God. To infirm which proof of mine you produce two texts of scripture John. 20, 30, 31. That the signs which jesus did, which signs are written that we may believe. And the 1. of Timothy ●. 16. 17, Where all scripture is inspired of God etc. is said to be profitable for doctrine, for reprehension, for correction, for instruction. etc. 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 signs were: for all the signs the whole world could not contain, 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 laws to all these ends. And one might deduce out of these words to better reason than you, each parcel of scripture in the old and new testament were sufficient for all this without any other. So that you see I do not fight with the holy ghost but with the perverter of the holy ghost.  
32. 3. You desire me to deal distinctly and plainly with your words, I answer I hope I do, Than you begin to answer 
Mr H▪ A. his first answ. how the word of God is known so to be.  distinctly to my words, vidz. the written word is not proved by another written word. You answer first that the scriptures of God do approve and confirm one another, and his spirit that is in them, and in all people doth seal that they are true. For proof whereof 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 testimony for himself. John 5, 33. But I receive no testimony of man, meaning that 
How Christ both hath no need, & hath need of man's testimony  he is greater than man & that his divinity doth not depend of man's witness, yet for the benefit of others S. John is said to give testimony 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 said to be witnesses: But now we do not say that scriptures in themselves needs any witness; for in actu 1. and in regard of themselves 
Scriptures in actu 2. & not in 1. needs witness.  they are scripture by themselves proceeding from God▪ but as they be in act 1 secundo and to be believed of others so they need testimony of others.  
33. After he sees this defective he flies unto the private spirit (though he says it is in all people) to unseal the authority of his word. For if he understand by that spirit in all people, that is of all ages, times & 
His 2. answer.  persons then must he accept of those books of holy scripture, and of that sense and explication, that by consent of holy Councils, Fathers Doctors and expositors haith been received.  
34. If he understand this spirit in all people virtually, and actually if 
What he means by the 〈…〉 in all people.  they do apply themselves to the right understanding thereof. This spirit by just reason they can not understand, since than we must rather believe St. Hierome that spent all his time and labour retiring himself to the desert for the understanding of the scriptures.  
35. What must Mr. H. A. understand else then that this spirit is in 
That this spirit is not in the church of Amsterda.  all the illuminated brethren of the church of Amsterdam●, and yet this can not be well understood, since I hear Mr. H. A. stiffly maintains by the word of God with his company against Mr. Johnson there and his, that this present church of England is not a schismatical but an heretical church: What is then one of these clear Eagle sight teachers blinded so in spirit that he can not discern by the word of God what makes a church or a man heretical?  
36. But now to prove that the comparing of one place with another 
His third Answer.  (which is your other refuge) is not sufficient to distinguish what is true scripture or the true sense thereof. For if it be so to be understood 
What is to be understood by comparing one place with another.  that after the collation of one place to another, that by the nature of the scripture compared so the true sense shall be understood; I infer no, but rather by this comparison the difficulty is often increased by a seeming contradiction. If it be understood that by comparing of one that by a little and a little. If it be understood that by comparing one place, with another by a little discourse the true sense and the scripture will be discerned; I say men's discourses are very erroneous without the especial assistance of gods holy grace which the church of God hath promised in her defining; yea 
Collatione in divers times in the self man often causeth diverse judgements Heretics have had still this comparison o● places.  the very self same man in diverse times out of the self same conferences of places of scripture hath inferred diverse 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 certain whether we pray as we ought. And since Novatus, Donatus, Sabellius, Arrius, Cunomius, Macedo: Jovinianus, Pelag: Caelest: Nestorius have had for their heresies divers texts, and conferences with others to ground heresies, how should one unfallibly to their judgements overthrow them in this. For if you object to the Arian, I and my Father am one; he will object out of the self same St. John, My father is greater than I: If you sai● this by ●●llation of scripture is to be understood 
Your ground not able to confute an Ar●an.  in regard of his human●●●● and not of his divinity. He will 〈◊〉 likewise that unity signified in the other place is to be understood by references of other places of scripture in regard of consent and vni●y of wil●, and not of nature.  
37. 2 And that the seal of your spirit can not distinguish this truth 〈◊〉, yea not so much as probably▪ I move. For frist I ask what this seal of the spirit is? Doth i● co●●●st only of Gods particular illumination that ye should have this touchstone 
What the seal of your p●it is.  to discern scripture. If so you contradict yourself Mr. H: A: for so you grant that a man hath a divine faith, and the spirit of discerning all before he read●s the scriptures: for this spirit must distinguish them, and so you have built without your ground, and guided your faith without your ruler the written word of God. 
His ground t●ach●th ● m●● bele●ves before he reads the scripture. Another a●s. of his. Calv. ●. inst c. 7. S. ●, 2. 4 〈◊〉 ●.   
38. If you answer this spirit consists in the evidence of the thing reaveled as you seem to grant: When you bid me ask your proof that there is a light in the same; seeming so with Calvin to grant that the scriptures are distinguished by themselves, as light from darkness, sweetness from sourness, this is most false, for then every one that had but natural perfection of the organ, and free proposing of the object should distinguish this light and sweetness.  
39 If ye answer this spirit consists in the authority of God, how will you prove this in particular to be revealed of God, and not the other part of scripture. If you reply you can prove it by the Majesty of the writing. How will you answer and show to every particular man's cie that there is more Majesty in Ecclesiastes then in the Ecclesiasticus? How will Luther demonstrate against the whole church that S. James epistle is strawie, the epistle to the Hebrews, Apocalyps etc. to be doubted of.  
40. When I object against you that the Mani●h●i, Montanist, Arrian, Pe●agian, and all other heretics will boast of this private spirit. Now answer that I have a mist before my eyes or else I would discern them. I answer I do distinguish them, and leave them 〈◊〉 
All heretics do brag of their private spirit.  by the church of God to the pit of hell, but not by my private spirit, but by the ordinary means the definitions and declarations of the church, whose office is to distinguish these spirits infallibly; whose doctrine we are punctually to follow, if we will have in all things this spirit of truth, and with one answer I satisfy 
How I distinguish heretics.  the multiplicity of places of scripture he ap●d up to no purpose.  
41. Whereas you would whet the edge of the Jews sword against m● in that they may object against Christians the law and the Prophets, 
The jews cannot object against us the law and the Prophets.  yea and antiquity. I answer the law and Prophets yea antiquity itself promising our Saviour's con●ing, and fulfilled by his coming in each particular cirstumstance prophesied and promised, doth rebat the edge. And I could show out of the 〈◊〉 rabbins themselves▪ S●hillaes prophecies preaching of S. John Baptist, conversion of S Paul▪ the destruction of Jerusalem, their ●●rse and continued dispersion only to be justly inflicted on them for tru●●fying of our Saviour; I could show strange motives of their 
General motives to con●●nce a jew.  〈◊〉 errou●. Neither can the Jew (as you object) as we against the ●urk or and H●r●sie our beginner, beginning, increase and declining estate. For the Jews can show our beginner their Messias, our beginning he burial of the ceremonial law prophesied and performed by all titles of truth, but who can justly show our declining estate.  
42. Neither is the objection of a Jew against a new Christian because he went out of them of such force as our is against Jul●an or any other Apostata. For they cannot defend themselves with any show of truth as we can defend our cause with evident motives of ●r●dibilitie, as I shall hereafter show. And Julian might object that Paganism is more ancient than Christianiti●: but not then the 〈◊〉 law, which was complete and perfected as it was prophesied and promised, by the coming of the new law. Where you say God's word and spirit in the scriptures must be the bulwark, I answer a bulwark, but not able to defend you from gun shot, and a s●onse only for yourselves. For as yet there was never any of your sects, protestant or any other heretit● that was able to convert any nation to their religion: But men of our religion have converted all nations & do still convert as well witnesseth both the Judges, Japonia yea and C●ina itself.  
43. I showed you one way how the high priesthood did not err in the condemnation of our Saviour, in that the priesthood was ●●served 
How the high priest hood did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉.  in Christ Jesus person. True it is the Hipghpreists, Scribes; & Rulers questioned this, but their ignorance was most vincible by their own law, and by that law he should live, since that law declared him to be the son of God.  
44. Against your forced rock, and running over many wr●sted places of scripture to prove the church of God invisible, it were sufficient for me to oppose many evident and clear places of scripture interpreted by the holy father's Greek and Latin for the perpetual visibility of the church. 2. 〈◊〉. ●. v 13. 1. Pa●●l. 22, 10. Psal 4●, 17 Psal. 45, 5. Psal. 47. 9 Psal. 86. 1. Psal. 88, 29 Psal. 101, 17. Ps. 128, 1. Psal. 131, 14. Cant. 3▪ 4. Isa. 9, 7. Isa. 33, 20. where the perpetual flourishing of the church of God is described Isa. 40, 8. 
Many places o●●ol● scripture to prove the visibility of the church.  Isa. 59, 21. Isa. 60, ●9 where it is said the Sun and Moon of the church shall not cease: Jer. 6 16. Dan. 2 44. Ose. 2, 19 where God is described to espouse eternally his espouse unto him. Mich, 4, 1. where the church is described to be a high seated mountain to whom all people have recourse. Mat. 5, 15. where the city seated on a hill can not be obscured. Math 26. 18. where the church is described to be built upon a rock against which hell gates shall not prevail. 28. Math. 2. Our Saviour says he will be with his disciples to the end of the world Lu● 1, 32. Lu●. 21. 32. Luk. 22, 31. Where Christ says he prayed for S Peter that his faith should not fail him. Joh. 14. 1●. He says the father shall give them another spirit which shall remain with them eternally. John 17, 11. Act. 5, 38. Ephe. 4, 11. yea and the Creed made by the Apostles doth acknowledge the perpetual flourishing of the church of God. I believe the catholic church: whose generality can not stand without visibility▪  
45 I answer to your contrary doctrine that the church of God 
That the church of God hath never erred. Adam did not ere in doctrine & if he did against our adversaries own grounds.  never since it was a church hath erred. If Genes. 6. there was then a church, Adam the head did ere in fact not in doctrine, & if we should grant that he did ere our adversaries are bound as well as we to answer, since not only the visible church then with us, but the invisible church with them should have erred: But true it is that there's was then no perfect church, but only a material, and a formal beginning of a church.  
46. To that of Gen. 6. where all their hearts are described to be set on mischief, is not to be understood that all than were nought. For not long before M●●husalem and diverse holy men died Sem & J●phet also were zealous of God's honour, and their wives also most religious, in whom the church of God might be preserved.  
47. I answer also. In the time of Moses, Aaron and the people did commit idolatry in worshipping the golden ●alfe; yet Moses 
Moses & all the Levites free frō●dolatrie.  the head of all; and all the Levites were free from that sin. So that we read Erod. 32. If there be any of God (says Moses) let him jo●ne with me, and all the sons of Levi were gathered unto him.  
48. I answer, In the time of Judges after Josh. The Israelites 
judg. 2. How the word all is to be understood. In what sense Elias was said to be left alone.  are described as though they had sinned all; which is an usual figurative speech of Synecdoche of the whole for the part, as Exod. 9▪ 6. where it is said all the beasts of Egypt are dead. Isa. 2. v.▪ All nations shall flow unto him. Phil. 2, 21. All men seek their own, joh. 3. v. 33. And no man did receive his testimony.  
49. To that of the Prophet Elias 3. Reg. 19 where Elias complains that he is left alone. I answer that then the people were divided into two kingdoms, the one of the Jews, and the other of the Israelites. A●hab did govern the Israelites, but holy Josaphat did govern the Jews; the one did destroy altars and kill Prophets, the other did hear Prophets & erect altars. And though we should grant that Elias did think himself left alone in Israel; yet Almighty God did answer him; I will leave 7. thousand men in Israel that have not bowed their knees to B●al  
50. I answer that Esay the Prophet in his first chapter doth use the self same fi●ure of Synecdoche; also the self same manner of speech is used the 4. ●eg. 21. For Manasses himself did repent and redeem m●nn, and many were never seduced; so understand that also of the Prophet here.  
51. That of which Azarias doth prophetise 2 Paral. 15. is to be understood of the Israelites that were dificient, and not of the Jews that were constant. I grant also that at the coming of our Saviour the church was but a little one: yet I say it was preserved in Marie, Joseph, Zacharie, Elizabeth and Anna the Prophetess; In just Simeon and the Pastors.  
52. That of Daniel the 9 the host and sacrifice shall fail is to be understood of the destruction of Hierusal●m, and the c●●●ing of the Jewish sacrifice, Luk. 18. Our Saviour doth not absolutely speak of faith but of an external faith; and of an excellent faith. 2 Thes. 2. Is to be understood the particular departing of Antichrist and his ●rew from the church. And so by these grounds to the usual objections against the perpetual visibility of God's church, we may answer any thing that hath been or may be produced.  
53. Yet to confirm this truth with one short reason, I argue thus. 
A brief r●● so that the ch. of God is and hath been stil● visible.  This church of God if it must be invisible: Either it must begin to be invisible in the time of peace or in the time of persecution; in the time of peace there was no opposition to make her invisible; in the time of persecution no body could persecute an invisible thing.  
54. Now whereas you said you show how the labyrinth of my religion leadeth to the Pope the centre of our circle. True it is I said the ultimate resolution of our religion is to be resolved into the veracity of God revealing as into the formal caus●, and into the authority of the church as into the applying ●ause. And I am glad you have tra●ed me not to your heretical quicksands but to S. Peter's rock.  
55. And that you may see the resolution of my religion is no other but that of S. Cyprian lib de unitate Eccles. where he compares ●ou 
The resolution of my religion the same with S. Cypr.  in regard of the church of Rome as Beams in regard of the sun, as boughs in regard of the tree; as a river in regard of the fountain. So that he concludes he that separates himself from the church of God he must needs vanish, fade and dry up, in that they lack their origen by which all unity is preserved▪  
55. I gave you 2 or three instances to show how the word of God might in a diverse kind depend of the Church, and the church of the 
How the word of God & the Church may dep●●  word of God, as we prove the self same a priori et a posteriori, the operation of the stone or herb depends of the skill and knowledge of the herbalist and lapidary, and their skill and knowledge depends of the innated and inward propriety of the stone and herb. For neither can have his effect without mutual help of both, except chance which is no regular action be the applier; and so I take you have thalked yourself a way to a ridiculous building without foundation as I shall show anon.  
56. You answer nothing to this but that I prove out of natural philosophy as though divinity though it excels is not concordant to natural reason: whereas we can believe nothing that we see implies by the light of natural reason.  
57 To the places that you object of the 1. of Timoth. 1, 3. rather proves against you then makes for you. For it shows all the while that she did not reach otherwise to the church she remained sound. And that which you cite 1. Tim 3, & 15. would make you trest salve if you did daily consider it. For there he warns her that she might conform her conversation to the house of God the pillar of truth; And though the text says in the house of God; yet it must be understood in the particular church that must have reference to that place (as we shall prove hereafter) where S. Peter did establish his chair. joh. 14, 16. Mat. 16. Math. 28 Ephes. 4, joh. 17. Luc. 22. Psal. 2. Eph●s. 2.  
58. When you seem to draw out of my speech that I deny for my witness the spirit of God is your error and fraud. For I hold 
I do not deny for my witness the spirit of God.  that which is taught out of these places 1 Cor▪ 2. 10, 11. job. 28, 2 13, 22. etc. to signify nothing else but that the holy Ghost teacheth the church in all truth, and her members with reference to her; and my private spirit I ought not to follow; so that if I might be your Pilot I would save you from that bottomless gulf that ghaspes to receive your erroneous soul.  
59 St. Augustine's authority you let slip denying him a fit Master to follow, you say he might retractate this; but neither you do nor can show that he did retractate it.  
60. As for S. Augustine's opposition to S. Hierome, it was in some small matter, and not in a matter defined up the consent of the church.  
61. My second Argument was this in substance.  
Major. That which is hard and for occurring places almost inexplicable cannot be to the rud▪ & ignorant at least a certain ground of faith. Mmor. But the scriptures of themselves are thus.  
Conclusion. go the scriptures by themselves can not be a certain and infallible rule of saith to the ignorant and rude at least  
62. My major proposition is most certain. For a rule must be known and certain, and more fit to our capacity to be conceived then that which is to be ruled and certified thereby.  
63. My Mmor also I prove both in regard of many seeming contradictions, of the Hebraimes, nature of things therein contained being high mysteries.  
64. In answering of this Argument, you say some things are hard in the scriptures, I proved this difficulty and hardness was in 
The difficulty and hardness of th● scriptures in principal matters.  principal matters which I proved out of the second of S. Peter 3. 16. Our most dear brother Paul according to his wisdom given h●m hath written to you as also in all his epistles speaking of them in these things, in which are certain things hard which the unlearned & unstable deprave, as also the rest of th● scriptures to their own destructio. Hence is gathered that not on lie the places of S. P●ul touching vocation, justification, sanctification, predestination and ●●pr●bation in●●p●icating which points S. Paul is most frequent, but also any other place is subject to be depraved as the word implies as also the rest of the scriptures. And S. August. in his book de fide et operibus c. 14, shows that one of the chief matters they did deprave was about justifying by faith. And I showed you here as erring a little in some 
Parvus error in principio magnus est in fine.  mathematical instrument, makes a man's sight and judgement quite contrary as appeareth in the use of the Astrolabe or cross staff: So I say the least error in any of these transcendental doctrinal points doth shake the whole body of belief.  
65. You say the matters are hard, but the places that treats of them are easy, as though in such short words of points that desire 
His answer refuted.  so many hundred quires of paper to examine them they can be easy; as though the words do not befit the matter. And that not only the matter, but that also the manner of penning is difficult appears out of S Augustin 2. lib. de doctrina Christ. et epist. 119, and S. Ambrose epistola 44 in principio acknowledgeth the difficulties he had to understand the manner of writing of scripture: And S. Hier: to Paul: epist. 103. c. 5. 6, 7. et epist. 65. c. 1. confesseth that in his old age when rather he should teach then be taught he went as 
Not only the matter but the manner of proving is difficult.  far as Alexandria only to hear Didymus, and to have his help to understand the scriptures. And S. Augustin in his epistle 119. c. 21. acknowledgeth that there were more things he understood not then that he did understand.  
66. That of Proverb. 8, 8. 9 is to be understood either of general doctrine or of precepts of manners and good life, and so God's words are easy: which explication we give you as a jewel unto your hand to that cited of you Prover. 17, 16. Wherefore is their price in the hand of a fool. etc.  
67. Then you seem ingeniously to grant the scriptures to be hard but you instance that the determinations of the Pope doth make them harder. You say Exod. 20. Deut. 25, 15. Images are absolutely and plainly prohibited here: But I deny it and prove that idols are 
The brazen serpent before an image became an idol.  only here prohibited, and not images. Which that of the brafen serpent proves that as long as it was an image it was erected, and kept by God's commandment, but when it grew to be an idol, when the people began to adore it as God (as S. August notes in his 10. lib. de civitat. Dei c. 8.) Ezechia● 4. Regum. 18. broke it into pieces. And that of the 2. of Cor. 6, proves as much; 〈◊〉 that place can not be understood of images but of idol, for the temple was adorned 
a. Cor. 6, 16.  with Cherubins which were images. And therefore it must be read How agreeth the Temple of God with idols, and not with images 
Our adversaries ignorance like that of the Moabites & 〈◊〉.  as you commonly read and translate. But I 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 you as S. jerom says in c. 25. Eze. of the 〈◊〉 and 〈◊〉 that were idolatrous Gentiles, that comm 〈…〉 of 〈…〉 and seeing the propitiatory shadowed over 〈…〉 Cherubims, 〈…〉 as the Gentiles so Judah also hath 〈…〉 then religion they putting no more difference between the Gentiles heathenish idols and the Jews lawful images than you.  
68 As for your wilful error in citing of Cardinal Bellarmine's probable opinion as the determination of the Pope, I must much blame you: But you may know that both his opinion, and the different opinion of Ga: Dasques are both probable in schools.  
As for the subtle and most true distinction, of the worship of Latria, 
Latria. Dulia.  Dulia and Hyperdulia must needs seem strange and insipidd to him that never tasted peradventure one grain of the salt of the Universities, or one line of the schoolmen.  
69. Yet here you take upon you like a great ●abbin that I say the Pope cannot make of himself a matter of faith, but that he only declareth what is a matter of faith, and that such a thing is to be believed. It is well you say that I hold me here. But than you infer● that the Pope can do no more than other Bishops; and Peter's primacy will be no more than Paul's which you prove 1. Cor. 4, 1. So let a 
All the Apostles alike in power of order but not in jurisdiction.  man esteem us as the Ministers of Christ, & the dispensers of the mysteries of God: I answer they be all alike in power of order but not of jurisdiction, and in a juditiall determination to settle controversies in the Church of God: which appeareth in that in the council of Chalcedon that had determined the matter controverted, and 630. Bishop's having subscribed, the Pope's Legates being also present in that Council having defined and judged with the rest, what needed 
The Pope's confirmation of the Council of Ch●lc. required. contra hereticum Eutich.  then a solemn ratification by the Pope's own letters to confirm the Council, but that the Emperor and other Bishops did acknowledge a sovereign power above all other particular Bishops. See Leo epistle 61. et in epist: ad Martianum Imperatorem 59 where he says Constitutionibus synodalibus etc. Unto the constitution of the Council which hath pleased me both for the confirmation of the catholic faith, and for the condemnation of the heretics I have added my verdiet. And this verdict or sentence was not a bare consent, but a judicial confirmation, and ratification of the Council, appeareth out of his letters sent the self same time unto the Empress Pulcheria 
This was a judicial confirmation.  saying, Whereas the most godly Emperor hath willed me to direct my letters to the Bishop's present at the Council of Chalcedon; quibus quae illic de fidei sunt regula definita firmarem, by which I should confirm such things as have been there defined touching the rule of faith I have gladly fulfilled his request.  
70. And he addeth this reason immediately; Ne fallax cujusdam simulatio sententiam meam vellet habere incertam, To the intent that no man by any deceitful dissembling may take my verdict or sentence herein uncertain, To the intent that no man by any deceitful dissimbling may take my sentence or verdict herein uncertain.  
71. So also the African Bishops having discussed the heresy of Pela●ius and 〈…〉 sent their definition therein to the See Apostolic to be confirmed by Silvester, and the Council of Constantinople by Damasus & the Council of Ephesus by ●aelestinus. 
Divers Councel●s confirmed by Popes.  Doth not all this Mr. H. A. prove to you that the prerogatives of the Pope in defining and ratefying any thing is above all other Bishops, which privileges all ages would not have given, but that they did see as s. Peter had primacy over the other Apostles, so his successor must have over other Bishops.  
72. And to show this I will follow the thread of your matter, ● not the manner of your discourse that in the interim is farced up with fowl mouthed slanders (as I shall touch anon). The next 
Act. 15. against M. H▪ A.  page you begin to examine that of the 15. of the Acts of the Apostles alleged by me as a congruency to argue S. Peter's primary, v. 7. Peter rose up, showing thereby that he was head of the Church. Where first you show your wilful fraud, in that you would have me gather his superiority by his bare rising up. Where I gathered rather by the due circumstances that passed there in that place. For the text says, when there was made a great disputation Peter rising up said to them, you know that of old days God amongst us chose that the Gentiles by my mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and believe. In which chapter first we may note by the way verse 6. that the Apostles and ancients assembled to consider of this word, which place ●ōfutes your proceedings that would have all men to give their voice and to be present in Council, which is the place of the Apostles and ancients, and not of many others though holy men that were at Jerusalem, according to that of Deut. 17. Malach. 2. Agge 1, 2▪ Lur. 10. 16. where the sentence of the Priest is said to settle that which is hard difficult & doubtful; must keep the law, must be heard as God.  
73. 2. I note the 7. verse that when there was made a great disputation 
Note.  each party producing his reasons, and arguments for their assertion. S. Peter rising up and speaking by his authority composed that great disputation, that is settled the height of their difference which argues superiority. For what decorum or manners were it, if two Doctors of like authority disputing, the third of the same or of less authority as Calvin would have, should stop the current of their disputation, when it touched the point of the difficulty, when there was a great disputation, when their reasons as the text both not obscurely note were in aequi librio unsettled, when there was made a great disputation. So that we see it is a sign of great authority to speak so first as to interrupt the great disputation to prefix an end, to firm a definition to the proposed question.  
74. As for that which you object out of the 13. and 19 verse from 
The 19, v. examined.  that of S. James giving sentence from the scriptures shows that out of your partial affection you would be content to give with Calvin primacy to S. James so to derogate from St. Peter's and the Pope's authority. When nothing else can be inferred out of S. James but that which S. Hierome epist. 12. inter epistolas Aug: inferro, & that which is implied in the 12. verse et tacuit omnis multitudo, and all the multitude held their peace showing thereby the power of his 
S. Hieron.  decision, and that as Saint Hier: infers S. James and all the Apostles did pass. Who will not then acknowledge a general authority in him that with his sentence composeth different suffrages and motives.  
75. That which S. James speaks verse 15. and 16. is nothing else but a confirmation or an explication of S. Peter's sentence. First 
Also v. 15. 16. Act. 15.  he approves S. Peter's vocation mentioned by S. Peter, by the testimonies of the Prophets, and nextly he doth as to win the goodwill of the Judaizing Christians moderate that sense of S. Peter, that would have all legal ceremonies removed; that so they might take that speech better at his hands then at S. Peter's, S. James being their Bishop of Jerusalem he expounds that which he thought most conventent to be done: And the whole Council and not only Saint James promulgates & determines that decree. So that we see the 
The reason why S. james did speak.  definition of the principal question is only S. Peter and the prudential Council to the settling of the business to each parties liking is only S. James.  
76. But presently after to signify his willingness to say something, he objects that Peter's sitting still would rather argue authority than his rising up: To which I answer that admitting most true it were his sitting doth argue his authority as well as his rising up: and S. Peter's judicial and attentive hearing the debating of the question till there was a great disputation, and then being noted to begin to rise that to rising the heat of disputation coming to head, and the disputers vehemency requiring a period, that he began then to 
S. Peter did not speak risen but rising.  rise argue pre-eminency of authority. And it is not said that he did speak these words risen, but when he was rising: what have you then concluded.  
77. But on goes our subtle disputer to prosecute his great doubt, and argues out of the 5. of the Acts 34. where Gamaliel is said to rise up in the council of the Jews v. 34. But here he conceals what the Church distinguisheth calling him a Doctor of the Law and so signifying that it was his office as Doctors that be Cardinals do 
Why Gamaliel rose up.  in the Pope's conclavi to cramine matters by way of argument, and not to determine and define; then he conceals the immediate cause of his rising up including a far inferior office then that of the head, v. 35. to command the men to be put forth & only a while to signify that he spoke rather like a friend then like a judge. And that Gamaliel did secretly favour the Apostles then, the very words of the text 
Gamaliel spoke rather as a ●●●ind then as a judge.  teacheth and notes how your doctrine not grounded on God and reasons as yours s●●●l come to ruin, he bids them take heed what they mean to do with these men, showing that Thereas and four hundred men, Judas and his company that followed all perished: and here inferring that they should leave to persecute them. For if their work were not of God, of itself it would come to ru●, as all other heresies and sects have and shall, so that we see the text cited by you is the pronouncer of your own ruin.  
78. And that Gamaliels' sentence was rather a favourable persuasion than a chief Judge's resolution appears that howsoever he 
Gamaliel did use rather a favourable persuasion than a definitive sentence.  was a politic statesman, yet he was a secret favourer of the Apostles and their preaching. For he did procure S. Stephen's burial 20 miles from Jerusalem as B: Lucianus Martyr notes in the invention of the body of S. Stephen. Also he receives and nouriseth Nicodemus when he was spoiled and expelled by the Jews, & buried him there by S. Stephen as B: Lucianus testifieth.  
79. And that which you bring out of the 17. of the Acts 16▪ rather hinders than furthers your purpose, since we may gather that as S. Paul being entreated by the princes of the synagogue verse 15 to preach, took upon himself without any more to do, rising up and 
Act. 17, 16. makes against him.  with his hand beckoning for silence, shows there that he was the chief preacher, so S. Peter rising and composing their controversy shows that in that kind he was the chief. So that we see we have woven the web to entangle flies of your own kind.  
80. That which you bring before out of the 2. of Peter v. 20 cited by me thus, No prophecy is made by private interpretation, you call but do not prove it a bastard phrase, showing that such ill befiting terms proceeds from a bad conscience. Your gloss Ephes. 
His similitude against himself.  4, 4. Rom. 12, 4. 1 Cor. 12, 4. v. 8, 9 urges against yourself. For though there is the very self same soul in the head and foot, and in each part, yet it worketh otherwise in the head then in the foot; as the spirit in the cheese of his Church, than his members; so as it is the office of the head to decide busyness, and not of the foot, so it belongs unto the head of the church and not to every particular craftsman to interpret scriptures; and verse 21 the self same doctrine is explicated in that it is said, For not by man's will was prophecy brought at any time, but the holy men of God spoke inspired by the Holy Ghost, showing that the self same spirit whrewith they were written and resident in the church must interpret scripture. And that you ought not condemn (as you do) the uniform consent of all the fathers of all ages and nations. Thus doth Mr H. A. as a boy hoodwinked at blindman buff belabour himself and his own fellows in stead of his adversaries.  
81. And that which I bring for congruency for the primary of S. Peter Act 15, ver: 7. where he would gather that if the Gentiles were chosen by his mouth to hear the gospel that he was chosen also to preach unto them: his inference is nothing to the purpose since we grant the Pope's primacy is from God and not of the election of men. 
The First▪ of Pope Stephen examined.   
82. I grant that Pope Stephen the 7. called Stephen 6 did revoke many decrees (which yet are not definitions of Pope Formosus in the year 89. But this argues only a violence in fact, and not an error in doctrine, and faith. And hence I infer that it argues an essential assistance of the holy Ghost that could maintain his church though in the hand of the bad, water the garden of the church through stony water pipes, make his ark of Noah to fluate though in the tempestuous flood Genes. 7, 8. maintain his church against hell gates. But all that can be opposed herein doth not prove that the Pope. Stephen did this as the head of the church, but out of the violence of his private spirit, which appears in that Sigebertus notes that all that were with him reclaimed from that violent proceeding. And in the Council he did approve only of his fact, being flattered by factious Cardinals Sergius Benedictus & Martinus.  
83 Note also that at this unaccustomed course of the Pope the corporal church of Lateran fell down, and the Images of the church where Pope Formosus body was entombed did salute Formosus as Luitiprandus lib. 1. c. 8. witnesseth. And though I grant that 
Pope Formosus witnessed for a holy man  Pope Stephen was a wicked man in the course of his private spirit, yet we may see the great respect that Fulco the Arch B: of ●hemes did humbly and submissively salute him, which was not in regard of his particular defects but as he was head of the church. In which respect S. John the 9 that condemneth him and his complices, yet calls him Pope of happy memory. All which motives makes a strong argument for us, that since of so many Popes so few could be ta●ed (though most of them unjustly of our adversaries) yet for all the wickedness of some God hath still preserved the unity of faith; that although all the other sees have had many heretics that have governed. Yet the sea of Rome had never any that by his definitive sentence did define heresy. And we have read of an Arrian Bishop promoted to the see of Rome that he might defend Arianism, yet he being elected to that sea he did condemn that heresy.  
84. The Canonists that you cite, as to extend the power of the Pope above the law of God, no doubt are falsely understood or cited; But to disprove them in each particular I cannot, in that I am not so well read in the canon law; and if I were I am in prison, and have not commodity of books, and to send for 10. or 12. great volumes to look 3 or 4 places that I assure me are either falsely alleged or injuriously applied, will not quit cost, especially since I convince you of one especial untruth hereafter where you say the Canou●sts call and esteem the Pope our Lord God the Pope.  
85. But disfurnished of books as I am I thought good to let the author to the protestant pulpit babel, that hath no doubt seen & pondered the decretals answer you, that on credit of some cracked & cracking Crashaw that ingrosses such babels for whole sale, whose citation or such like you are glad to re●●●le.  
86. For that which the author cities out of Decret 40▪ in appendice 
Decret. 40▪ examined.  ad c. 6. The words of our Countryman Boniface, famous for sanctity of life and justly called the Apostle of Germany. Where he sets down rather a history then a decree of doctrine, a matter of fact rather than a doctrinal definition. True it is he says men rather sought instruction from the mouth of the Bishops then from mouth of holy scriptures, and tradition. Yet to show how far he 
Boniface no flatterer of the Pope.  was from flattery, he shows that as the Pope may do most good, so he is eternally scourged with the Devil himself, if he draw by his example others into hell. So that we see he shows rather what was done than what should be done. As if a manshould say such a man is his Master, it follows not that he should approve the unnatural mastership. Yea S. Boniface was so far from preferring the Pope before God, that in the self same canon he teacheth the contrary in eadem appendice ad cap. 6. dist. 40. Where he affirms Christianity 
ad ● 6. distinct▪ 〈◊〉.  doth depend of the Pope in secundo loco post De● in the second place after God.  
87. And whereas Decretum distinct. 19 ●. 6▪ where it is said that the decretals are numbered amongst canonical scriptures; that is to be understood in regard of the canonical writings of the Counsels, and not in regard of canonical writings of the scriptures, in which sense both the beginning, body, and end of the book shows that Cretian speaketh.  
88 As for that M. H. A. writes that the Pope can dispense against 
How the P. dispenseth against the law of nature in some sense.  the law of nature, you must know that things may be prohibited by the law of nature after a threefold manner. First when there is a prohibition of a thing intrinsical ill in itself, and that by no circumstance it may be made good, as to hate God or to lie; and this is indispensible to the Pope. 2. Other things are intrinsical ill and prohibited till some matter or circumstance be changed, as to steal in extreme necessity, or to kill and execute by public authority; and in these the Pope can dispense according to the cessation of the matter or mutation of the circumstance: 3. Things in their nature may be commonly ill, yet for the public good there may be given some dispensation, and so the Pope doth dispense in marriages: if you would have satisfaction to what accurring doubt soever therein read, Sanches de Matrimonio.  
My third Argument as I remember was this. That which 
●●▪ My third Argument.  hath still been a rule to them that have erred, cannot be a certain 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 & most horrible errors, go the scriptures though directed by the private spirits interpretation cannot be a rule of faith. My major is most certain. My Minor is also certainly known, since there was never yet any heresy so absurd or monstrous, that did not pretend to use 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 say 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 say you can retort it on the private spirit of the Pope's determinations and definitions: but you can not dame but that the church 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 afore bruife by 
M. H. A. contented to be dry beaten.  the blows. And it is the greatest disgrace a man can have still to be dry beaten as you confess you are and are sure to be; But for your virtual 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 rank: and when time, place, and paper will scarce give sufficient vent to our reasons I wonder you should blow abroad these glassy bubbles breathed against the Sea Apostolic. But the best that you can answer is that they will serve your children of Amsterdam to run after. I never return your jests 
The uniform consent of the church may easily distinguish whether scriptures 〈◊〉 ●acked.  but provoked by you. Where you say that counsels and Fathers may be racked to favour heresy as well as the scriptures I deny that they can be, but that the uniform and general consent of the church may easily distinguish them.  
92. My Fourth Argument as I take was this.  
THere be many things we believe by a divine, and not by a humane art of faith which are not revealed in holy scripture, nor with such evidence deduced out of holy scriptures (if you exempt the authority of the church. My antecedent I proved by instances; that we believe against Helvidius our Lady's perpetual virginity; 
Many things believed not expressed in the 〈…〉.  that God the holy Ghost proceeds from God the Father and the son as from one beginning; the twelve articles of our belief as they ●●e; the abstaining from strangled meat, baptizing of infants, relebration of the Sabaoth on Sunday and not on Saturday, the receiving fasting and kneeling ●c. All which I did urge against you. You answer you have sufficient proof of these things that are of faith; but you show neither scripture, or deny them to be believed with a divine a●t of faith, or give reason why we practise other things out of scripture contrary to the practice of the primitive church.  
93. And when I have twice or thrice desired a distinct answer 
That●…  ●o ea●● particular, you would satisfiable with your marvel that I would have you enter battle with the Arrians. Antitrinitarians 〈◊〉 and have you convince them by scriptures. And with great reason I prove I urge this: For since you adventure to assign an adequate rule of faith, you are bound to show me how this rule of yours is able to maintain itself against whosoever, and to distinguish truth from falsehood, as I offer to do by my assigned rule: So that this is not to put on foot new questions, but it is properly 〈◊〉 press the footing of our chief questions answer.  
94. You proceed and would have me to maintain Tradition to be the total and not the partial rule of faith together with the written word of God. Hence you infer that I grant some word of 
Intri●secal he the word of God is so of itself▪ but to be known of us it depends of the tradition of the Church.  God without tradition to be known. I answer the word of God as it is extrinsical the word of God and to be known of us depends of tradition, and the authority of the church. Though intrinsecallie and in itself it is the word of God though it be known to none; so that you may see in what sense I make tradition to be the rule of faith, and apostolical tradition also I affirm 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 remembered to children, & after ages; as you say to see the destruction of Rome, but we know certainly the opposers by their opposition, will work themselves their destruction, and confusion of their Babylon. And we know that Balaam in stedd of cursing God's people did bless them. John Fox was your Nabucodonosor turned so out to grass that he durst not come near the wall (by reason of a deep melancholy apprehension for fear of being crazed like an urinal.) As for the spanish Armadoe whatsoever the Spaniards intended to do here in England, our Countrymen did perform much at Cales, howsoever they ded speed at Lisbon before. I answer only this, God and St. George for my religion, King, and Countrymen. I would do that which befitted a good subject, but these your instances are malicious and odious.  
96. To that plain 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 plain that S. Chrysost: affirms S. Paul herein to have meant of unwritten traditions, that Doct. Whitaker says his speech is herein very unworthy so holy a father. And that which you bring out of S Chrysostom against me, shows 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 contrary to the Apostles speeches. As for that which you bring the 1. of the Cor. 14, 37. is nothing to the purpose. For we do not deny but those things that are written are true. But if you would have more plain places of scripture in defence of tradition, ●●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 means he explains himself chap. 16. v. 4. He delivered unto them to keep the decrees that were decreed of the Apostles, and ancients that were at Jerusalem, which delivery 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 
THE FOURTH PART.  in a vicious circle, proving the self same by the self same, as the authority of the scripture by your private spirit, and your private spirit by the authority of the scripture, by which manner of proof you may prove any thing.  
99▪ For first and foremost you do not distinguish what are scriptures and what are not, by the authority of the church. For so you should admit of all that she doth receive, and if ye reject any thing that she hath doubted of you should as well as you refuse those books called Deutrocanonici of the old Testament, you should as well reject those Deutrocanonici of the new testament as the epistle to the Hebrews, Judas epistle and the Apocalyps, but the touch of your trial is the private spirit, and the unction not of the holy Ghost, but of an addle head, and a self conceited fancy.  
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 
Mr. M. A. walks in a circle.  you have confined yourself in the self same circle I prove.  
101. For first I ask how you know the scripture of the Prophets and Apostles is God's word; you answer the spirit of God, the testification and witness of the spirit, the anointing of the spirit do testify 
joh. 15, 16. joh. 16. 14. joh. 3. 9 11  to you that they are written by God. But then again I demand how you prove that you have that spirit of God this spiritual anointing.  
You answ. what man 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 
Here it is proved that he doth petere principium.  of that to another that is only known to himself; & again no man knoweth how the wind bloweth, or knows how the bones do grow in the womb 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 spiritual anointing, and you prove you have this spirit by the scripture. As if a child should prove he were no bastard, in that his mother says so, and she likewise prove that she herself were honest in that he says so: Or prove the Church of Amsterdam to be a true church, in that the Amsterdamian spirit interpreting the scripture says so. And that the Amsterdamian spirit is a true spirit, in that the Amsterdamian spirit says so. So I demand of you how you do know the scripture to be God's word, you answer out of the 
Mr H. A. walks in a circle.  testification of the holy ghost; And how you know the internal testification is from God, you answer likewise out of the scripture interpreted by the Spirit. My sheep hears my voice, and how do you know how it is the scripture? You answer by the testification of the 
Jo. 10. 27.  inward spirit, so that we see your discourses like puppets have their motion from one string, & speak by the mouth of the same interpreter. 
His discourse is unprofitable.   
102. But now to show the falsehood and unprofitableness 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 well as your inward habit or act of faith: and then again I ask 
Mr H. A. to solution circular, fruitless & endless.  whether you be certain by the certainty 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 we shall run 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 certain persuasion 
He cannot tell what this inward testification is.  or speech of God belonging to the understanding; and so it must be a certain notice or cognition. If it be obscure I ask how it is distinguished from faith: if it be clear & evident how is it to be distinguished from the knowledge or vision of a thing; so that we see you affirm a thing that indeed you do not understand what it is.  
104. But before I gathered your mind when you said the scriptures of themselves are so clear that by themselves they appear for scriptures, so that you seem to resolve that which you believe in 
Mr H. A. resolution uncertain.  to the holy scriptures and the formal reason why you believe it into the testification or persuasion of the spirit, yet this also you do not hold to always. For other times you resolve both the one and the other into the testification of the inward spirit with you most often, which shows your great inconstancy grounded on sear.  
105. But admitting that you had only said the things to be believed, or fides externa were to be resolved into the holy scripture only. Yet so you should admit of as great an absurdity. For so you should say the gospel of S. Matthew, or the whole scripture taken totally together are not canonical and authentic, nor that Mr. H. Aynsw: is predestinated or that his sins are remitted. All which 
Many absurdities sequels of his doctrine  Approve. For nothing he is to believe, for which he hath not the express word of God. But none of these are expressed in the word of God. If he will say he will gather these by necessary consequence; his adversaries may oppose him, and he can show no certainty; If he fly unto the inward testification of the spirit then I infer that the things to be believed are not to be resolved into the scriptures alone. So Mr H. A. eats his own word though without one grain of salt or pretence of reason. Yet to show this a little more plain I reason thus. Is the scripture the word of God? you answer it is, and that without all question; But I demand 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 
No parcel of scripture affirms the whole scripture to be scripture.  appears by itself, this is not so plain since most parts and parcels of scripture have been doubted of and that by scholars. Yet admit scripture were so clear a light by itself, yet you cannot avoid as great a difficulty. For I ask whether you will prove the whole scripture by the whole, and then every one will see you ●●ie for refuge thither which you ought to defend. If you say that the whole scripture is proved by some particular parcel of scripture, you are bound to show me that which you can never perform, viz. that any part of scripture doth affirm the whole scripture and every part and parcel thereof to be scripture.  
106. And if I should grant you this, yet another absurdity at the suit of reason hath arrested you. For by what will you try that 
What should authorize that scripture that should give authenticness to all the rest.  particular parcel of scripture that so authorizeth all the rest to be scripture? Thus you see in defending your private spirit you have undergone the labours of Hercules, the difficulties arising as Hydra's heads two for one as one is dissolved.  
107. Besides this opinion of theirs doth not only lead a man into these endless windings, but it makes against common sense, that God should leave his holt scriptures so careless, at six and seven unsettled that every hereticli might challenge to himself to be taught from God, so that he might reject the authority of all the Fathers▪ 
By his opinion God's provid●ce is weakened  which could not choose but puff up men with pride.  
108. Against which men I reason thus, Either the holy Fathers had this spirit of God or else they had not. If they had (as surely they should have if Mr H. A. did not feignedly prefer them before him) than they infallibly were instructed by his spirit in matters 
Whether the holy fathers had this spirit or not, makes against him.  of faith, why are their authorities rejected by Mr Henry Aynsworth as earth and ashes? If they had not, than this spirit is a new and so not a true spirit, since it differrs from that spirit that ruled the ancient fathers many whereof were the Apostles scholars.  
109. But that the holy Fathers had this spirit I prove, since you cannot deny, but that they were of the elect & the sons of God, but they can not be of the elect and of the sons of God without his spirit John 10, 27. My sheep hear my voice 6. Joh. 45. erunt omnes 
That the ancient fathers had this spirit.  docibiles Dei. 1. Joh. 2, 27. You have no need that any teach you of aught. And here by better reason the places that you cited before for the proving of your private spirit, return on your own head Joh. 14. 17. vers. 26. Joh. 15, 26. John 16, 14. Rom. 8, 9 1. Joh. 
Mr H. A. places of scripture retorted on himself.  ●, 27. Joh. 3, 9 v. 11. ● 8 Joh. 1, 5. 1. John 4, 1. there is no trial of the spirits, then to try whether it be of God, but these men●s spirit were of God since they were of the elect: And if you prescribe the tree of the spirit by the fruit Gal. ●, 22, 25, these men's virtues, learning, piety (as you confess) are to be preferred before yourself.  
109. Again I will not only prove your spirit to be dissonant fr● the holy fathers, but that it is not Apostolical; For if the Apostles had been inspired with this spirit every one had ●●ayed it, so that by himself without the help of another he could have distinguished of 
His spirit not Apostolical.  truth from falsehood, what needed then a Conne●l to be held at Jerusalem, since every one could sufficiently distinguish of this truth.  
110. And to show further how your spirit is encompassed with difficults I argue thus: This spirits testification is ever infallible or not. If it do deceive them it is not of God; If it be still infallible how can there come such various controversies in the Church of God.  
111. If you answer this is ever infallible when it agrees with the word of God to which it is to be compared. But then I argue if this spirit doth never testify but when it is read, what will they do then if they were to dispute with a Turk, if he should deny the 
His answ. pretended  whole Bible, or about a controversy of the whole Bible whether it be Canonical or no●  
But admit that the testification of the spirit were only to be tried by the written word of God, How comes it then that the Lutherans and Calvinists are at such an unreconcïlable diffentien in comparing the scriptures, This is my body, and this is my blood, by their private spirits interpretation; every one contends to have this spirit, to have the true sense of the word. How will you then be able to settle these variances by the bare word to the liking of both.  
112. And to answer the placrs that you do or may be produced for the maintaining of the private spirit, I will give general grounds 
General grounds reselling the private spirits proof  to answer all, answering some in particular. First then to that of John 10, 27. My sheep hear my voice. you must mark what sheep he means, viz. the sheep that he committed to S. Peter as Pastor, John 2●, 17. feed mysheep. And not content with this he shows how these sheep should hear his voice Luc. 10. 6. He that hears you hears me, and he that contemns you contemns me. The other place is of Esaie the Prophet 54. 13. I will give all my sons learned etc. Jer. 31. 34. Hereafter the man shall not teach his neighbour all shall know me from the least to the greatest Joh. 6. 45. out of which and such like places they falsely gather they have testification of the spirit.  
113. But these men abuse scripture drawing it to their own sense; For these places and the like doth not prove that which they seek, but only show a threefold difference between the old testament and 
A threefold difference between the old and new testament  the new. First in that the Prophets did teach in the old testament but Christ Jesus himself did teach in the new ●cv. 1. 1. Where our Saviour is said to have spoke to the Fathers in the Prophets but to us in his son: 2. Moses and the Prophets did propound to the people what they were to believe, but Christ Jesus by his inward prace given them did help them to believe, he not only teaching them by his voice, but also helping them by his grace. 3. that Moses and the Prophets did preach Christ only to the Jews, but Christ, and his Apostles to all nations ●ō. 10. 18. in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum, so that interpreting what places soever you have or shall produce 
The Catholic opinion defended from such a idle proof.  for the establishing of this private spirit shall easily be answered by referring them to these places.  
THE 5. PART  
114. That I am to prove is to defend our Catholiche opinion from such an idle proof or circular resolution of our faith. The which that I may better perform, some common grounds are to be handled before that being presupposed the difficults that oppose our opinion may be the better cleared.  
115. First then we must 〈◊〉 suppose that since every Heathen or Jew doth know by the light of nature that their is one God the author of all things, and that we are created to serve and honour him, and that God is the rewarder of virtue and punisher of vice. And 
A general doctrine first to be presupposed.  since by discourse he may naturally reach unto this, that although it was most free for God to create any thing or to will any thing ad extra, yet supposing that he hath created and so if not necessarily yet infaliblie by the excessive propension of his goodness, he doth propose to men the best and fittest means for his honour and divine service. And since the Monarchical government is best as appeareth by necessary subordination of creatures, elements, nations, causes, beasts unto one supreme Mr. spring of all: So since God having created man would be worshipped of him, It is most ready to any man's discourse that he hath ordained one uniform kind of church or service to all people. The which as it cannot choose but seem most probable to a man through the great conveniency and congruity. Yet if we shall suppose that the multiplicity of religious and ceremonious services should as contradictories or contraries thwart one another, & so their supreme end. It would necessarily be gathered out of the compass of any reasonable reaching brain, that all these religions were not instituted of God and that every man was bound to weigh & ponder the motives, and to see which religion had greater credibility.  
116. 2. This being presupposed I will prove that our Roman Catholic church compared with what religions soever of the Heathens, ceremontal of the Jews, heresies, and sects of Christians, is to be preferred in any reasonable man's judgement before any of them. Since I will prove that the motives of our religion are of evident credibility:  
117. 3. I am to prove that the motives of our Catholic religion are to be and are of most evident credibility, whether they be taken 
The motives of our religion of evident credibility.  by themselves, or whether they be parralleld with the doctrine of the Gentile, Jewe, or heretic, and the motives of our religion must be of evident credibility, appeareth out of the Psal. 9 2. Testimonia tua credibilia facta sunt nimis. Heb. 2. the preaching of the Apostles is said to be confirmed by signs, and miracles; 2. if there were not motives of evident credibility, no man prudently should be thought to assent unto faith.  
118. And that the motives of our religion are of evident credibility 
The author of our religion the first motive.  appeareth in the particular relation of them.  
119. The first motive of our religion is from the author of our religion who to have been is as certain as that Alexander or Aristotle was. And that our Savieur did not teach false things of ignorance, or malice appeareth by his doctrine preaching and his virtues and power prophesied by the Prophets, and by the Syb●liacs by the silence of oracles, of whom S John Baptist honoured so by the very Jews for sanctity of life doth give such testimony of; whom the Apostles also did testify, and not of ignorance since they preach those things they saw; nor of malice, or gain, since they preached without any hope of temporal commodity, or preferment, they being condemned and despised of all. And it appears out of Josephus lib. 18. Antiquitatum, and by Tertullian libro contra Celfum, and Porphyrius where it is said Deos 
This argument S. Chrysost: orat. 2, et 3. contra I●● a os▪ et D. Augustin lib. deca●●chisandis rudibus. The second motive.  gentium etc. The Gods of the Gentiles pronounced Christ to be wise and godly.  
120 The second Argument and motive of edident credibility is taken out of particular prophecies concerning our Saviour; which motive Justinus in his Qbus Orthodoxos q. 2. et 146. Tertull. in Apoll. c. 20. D. Chrysost: 18. in johannem. D. Aug: 1. De consensu Euangelico c. 28. usque ad finem. Also the prophecies of our Saviour, propagation of the Church, conversion of Gentiles, persecutions of Christians are daily seen to be fulfilled.  
121. Hitherto all Christians may usurp these motives as then own: But when those that they shall seek to persuade shall ask of them what the essential points of their religion are without which it cannot stand: If they be demanded which of the Apostles scholars did teach these points of doctrine that they boast they teach, and say they have received different from the Roman catholics grounds. Where their church hath lurcht this thousand five hundred years. Why none of the ancient Father's writings are for them; no histories the records of time; whether their nation was first converted to their religion, here they are gravelld and can use no other or further motive, which hath been the reason why yet never any nation to this day hath been converted to their religion. To these and other questions of the self same nature Mr H. A d●st not and yet dares not answer I or no, though there be 13 in number and of great moment set down in my last letter.  
122. But here our Church can go forward with her third motive 
The third motive antiquity.  of most evident credibility, which is ●ercht from the antiquity of our religion, and doctrine; Which Argument S. August: contra epistolam ●auda: Manich. useth. Justinus also in adhortatio ad Gentes, Lact. lib. 2. Divinarum institut: c. 14. Cyrillus Alexand▪ contra Iul: Aug. 18. de civet. Deic 18. josephus the record of our antiquity libio 1. contra Ap●onem shows that it exceeds all profane mom●ments. justin: Apolog: 2 Tertull. Apolog. c. 19 e●alij. And if we understand of Christ Jesus and the Apostles doctrine, it appears by the perpetual succession of Bishops from S Peter's chair, which Argument Irenaeus lib. 3, c. 3. Tertull. De prescript. c 6. et Hieron: contra 
Our Antiquity in eluded in the name Catholic.  Lucifer: versus finem useth to prove our church to be the most aunent, true, and Apostolical church.  
123. Which antiquity also doth appear out of the name Catholic which we have still retained though our adversaries have laboured what in them lieth to deface that name, so the Montanists called Catholics Psychias that is animales 
Beza in praefatione novi testa. printed 1565. calls the name catholic a vain word: Humfrei in vita juelli a vain term pag 113. Sutlcif in his challenge pag 1. fruictless name: the like did Gaudentius as appeareth out of S. Aug. lib. 2, contra Gaud. c. 25.  in that they refused to observe their three fasts; and the Calvinists terms us Papists; But all in vain. For no sooner can a man ask where a catholic dwells, but presently they will direct them to some of us, which argument S. Aug. useth.  
124 Our 4. Argument may be the sanctity of our doctrine, teaching most congruous to reason, and so behooful in respect of God, our 
Muscul: in his preface locorum commu: for catholic church in the creed read christian church.  neighbour and ourselves, as appeareth by our fasts, religious vows of Priests, so that all is conformable to that of the Psal. 18. his law is an immaculate law converting souls.  
125 The fif● motive is out of the admirable and divine manner of promulgating our faith both in the Apostles times and in their 
● Motive  Apostolical followers, that our faith should be first established by poor fishermen; 2 in that the things they preached went against men's will and against the hair of humane inclination. 3. In that they did persuade men to this religion not with hope of private lucre or styles of honour, but by counseling of a pecfect resignation of our wills to God in all things. 4. In that by the efficacy of this their doctrine most potent eloquent and learned men have been converted, according to that the 1 Cor. 2. Se brethren our vocation qua non multi sapientes, which Argument Justinus Apolog: 2. Christ. homil. 34. in Math. Aug. 22. de civet: det. c. 5. Dainast. 4. de fide c. 4 useth.  
126. The 6 Motive is that since God and his servants have 
6 Motive  been ever mamfested from deluders, and imposcers by true miracles done to the profit of many, and not for ostentation as appeareth 
the power of miracles  in the conflict of Moses and Aaron with Pharaoh's Magis Exo. ●. Elias with Baal's Prophets: B. S. Peter with Simon Magus as Egisippus relates. Of Eugenius the Catholic Bishop with Cittola the Arian Bishop as Greg. Turonensis witnesseth lib. 3. ●ist. c. 3. The which success hath animated our Catholics to urge the Gentlies' to the trial of their religion by true miracles as Arnobins lib. 1. et Tertull. apolog. lib. 23. And S. Joh. 5. our Saviour affirms that the works he did, gave a greater testimony of him, than the testimony of S. John Baptist; and Joh 8. We know that that comes from God. And Erodi 4. Whereas Moses objected that the people would not hear him, he gave him the power of miracles. And as our Saviour useth this Argument Joh. 10. If you will not believe me etc. S●S. Chrysost. homil. 3 in 2 Cor. Tertul. in apologet. c. 2●. Arnobius lib. 1. useth the like. 
● Motive   
127▪ The seventh motive which S. Chrysost. useth homel 26 in Mat. D. Hier. c. ●. in Mat. Lact. lib. 3. inst. tut. divinarum c. 23: is taken from the efficacy of our doctrine that did stop the mouths of the idols, and hath resisted heresies of all ages: see Ruff lib. 10. c. 10 et. Victorem lib. 1. de persecut. Vand●l; And those that were sent of the jews did acknowledge this motive Joh. 7. Never any man spoke like this man.  
128▪ The 8. motive is the great constancy of our religion that 
8. Motive.  hath flourished by the persecution of the Gentiles, & of heretics whereas so many great opposers heretics have buried themselves & their names in oblivion: This Arg: used Gamaliel Act. 5 If this work be not of God it will be dissolved. This argum: Tertullian useth against Scapulan et apolog. c. ultimo et justin. in dialog cum Tryphone. S. Aug. lib. 22. de civitate dei c. 6.  
129. The 9 Motive is of the great and constant martyrdom 
9 Motive  of infinite 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. just. c. 13. et 14. which motive must have as all the rest relation to one another. For it is the cause and not the pain that makes a Martyr: and so Sanguis Martyrum est semen Christianorum Tertull. apol. c. ultimo.  
130. The 10. motive is by the prodigious, untimely and most 
10. Motive  infortunate death of most of the opposers of our religion: see Medinan lib. de certa fide in deum; this Argument Tertullian useth against Scapulan et D. Chrysost. oratione contra judaeos; It were well Mr. H. Apnsworth you would teach your children the truth of these traditions.  
131. The 11 Motive is the testimony given by our adversaries themselves of us. josephus lib. 18. antiq: gives testimony of Christ, 
11. Motive  the Sybillaes', Lactantius lib. 1. c. 5. 6. et 7. just. in 2. Apolog: brings the commendations of ● several 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 Catholics dying so may be saved, that the Fathers confessed Papists were virtuous holy men, this motive S. Aug. his book de civitate dei saice is of great force to confirm any doctrine. Socrates, lib. 4. c. 27. et Theod. lib. 4. c. ultimo affirms that barbarous nations elected Christians for governors.  
132. The 12. Motive is the inward motions inspirations illustrations, 
12. Motive  and internal consolations that Catholics find in their religion, and spiritual exercises which S. Thomas Aquinas that well had drunk of that spiritual fountaigne, acknowledgeth to be a chief motive in- 2. 29. 2. ar. 6.  
134. Out of all these I frame my first demonstration of the truth 
The first Demostration of the Catholic truth.  of our Catholic religion against Gentiles, jews, & Heretics. That doctrine is most evident eredible, whose author is o● an meffable writie, and singular sanctity; who also was prophected before by many holy men, and contains nothing contradictory to the light of nature or repugnant to manners, but chose is a doctrine of great wisdom, sanctity integrity and efficacy, which by the infinite propagation thereof, & by many miracles hath been divinely confirmed, which hath remained firm and stable against all persecutions of Gentiles Jew's and heretics; For the profession and defence of which doctrine, infinite men of all sects, ages & conditions, have most willingly suffered exquisite torments; Whose professors have been most holy illuminated men: But our Remane religion is this, as appear by a particular induction, go. our religson is most evident credible.  
134 The second Demonstration that I make for the confirming 
The second Demostration  of this former is thus taken out of God's divine providence he hath of all our human actions especially touching those actions as touch the eternal felicity or honesty of manners, and about the true worship of himself: go it is against his providence that a man directed by so many prudential motives, especially since his faith is suffici●tly proposed to all to be believed. But God hath permitted our Catholic 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 unto many motives of credibility, especially having received a precept of faith and in general having well pondered them, he is bound to dispose himself unto a pious affection that he may give a firm consent by the working of the Holy Ghost in particular to that doctrine and faith warranted by so many evident motives of credibility.  
136. These motives of evident credibility being hic et nunc assented unto, here we come to resolve our principal intended doubt of the resolution of our faith; presupposing still that the formal motive of our faith is the first verity, or authority of God obscurely revealing. 
To faith two judgements required Into what one evident judgement of credibility is to be resolvedi●▪ to.   
137. Now since to faith there concur two judgements, the one evident of the credibility of the thing to be believed, the other an obscure but a certain belief of the verity of the thing to be believed, so we see there is a twofold resolution. viz. of the resolution of the evident, and certain judgement of credibility; and of the second of our judgement ceretaine but obscure.  
138. First then I say our evident judgement of the credibility of the thing being rather presupposed, then presupposing an act of faith is resolved only into these related motives of credibility, & into the foresaid humane inducements as into the formal reason of our believing. 
That this evident judgement is to be had before an act of faith.   
139. Secondly I say that every one according to his capacity is to have the for said certain, and evident judgement of credibility before he elicit an act of faith, that prudently he may be judged to give his assent. So the Samaritans are said to believe for the word of the Samaritan woman, so the Regulus is said to believe for the recovered health of his son. So the Centurion is said to believe for the signs 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 etc. They preached our Lord cooperating etc. And S. Aug. lib. 1. add Simplic. q. 2. demands this quis potest credere nisi aliqua vocatione: et de spiritu et littera c. 34. He affirms it thus Neque e. anima rationals etc. For neither a reasonable soul can believe with a free will, if there be no vocation or persuasion, for which he should believe.  
140 Thirdly I affirm our certain yet inevident judgement of the truth of the points of our faith to be believed, & so the assent of our faith if it be as it ought; that is if it be accommodated & proportioned unto the object, & end of our faith as it is necessary unto salvation, death either 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 canon &. Where it is affirmed, that without Gods preventing grace, and the illumination of the holy Ghost, no man can believe things reveled as he ought, that is that Gods justifying grace be given him.  
141. Fourthly I affirm that this certain and inevident judgement 
In to what our certain mevident judgement is to be resolved into  of the truth of our faith into these human reasons and motives as into the moving, applying, and impulsive cause, but not as into the formal motive of believing. And the self same judgement is resolved into the supernatural light as into the true efficient cause of that certitude and proportion which it hath with his adequate object and end both being supernatural.  
142 If I be demanded therefore why I believe ●. people and one God, or any other thing. I answer if you ask of me the formal reason why I assent, I answer, I believe because God hath revealed it. If I be thenas●ed how I know God hath revealed it. I 
Why I believe any article of our belrose. Why I certainly and evidently do believe. That the● is committed no circle herein. Two divers objects.  answer I do not evidently know this though certainly I know it for the same revelation, and infallible authority, which the church of God as an intrinsical condition or application, applies to me to be believed.  
143. But if I be further questioned, since the revelation of God, and the proposing are both obscure and inevident, how cames it then that I certainly and evidently do believe.  
144. I answer then I return unto the motives of evident credibility that may induce any prudent man to believe that saith, and that church warranted by so many motives.  
145. Neither is here committed any vicious circle between the authority of God & the church; as I have before convinced you in your grounds to commit. For first the authority of God revealing in virtue of which the infailibilitie of the proposition is believed, and the self same infallible proposition in virtue of which we believe that God ●●ies and reveals, hath two divers objects. For the object of the infailible proposition is that God reveals; And the object that God reveals, or of the revelation of God is the verity believes.  
146. ●. I say in that when out of the authority of God revealing 
Whi●in our opinion there is no circle.  is given the formal reason of our believing; the motive is given by the formal cause. But when out of the infallible proposing of the church, a reason to given why we believe the divine revelation. If it be understood aright it is not to be given by a formal cause or motive; but by an intrinsical and requisite application of the motives why we believe, which is done by the proposing of it by the church, so that there is no circle ab eodem in idem, secundum idem, which Aristotle only condemns 1. Post. text. 5. as I have showed before.  
147. Yet to go one degree further in showing how we are free 
We are free from a circle.  in another regard from this mere circular, and fruictless resolution of theirs, I presuppose that then is committed a circle when the self same is proved by the self same to him that granteth neither or doth equally deny both, or doubteth of both. For proof of which we learn out of Aristotle that we ought to proceed from that which to known to that which is not known: or at least from that which is granted to that which is not granted, for so we shall proceed from that which is known after a manner, to that which is not known.  
148. Whence I infer that he should commit this circular discourse that to an Ethnic that equally should deny both scripture and the infallibility of the church, should prove that the scripture were of divine authority in that the church teacheth us it; and the church of infallible authority in that the scripture teacheth us it. But to a protestant that admits of most of the scripture, it is no circle to prove the infallibility of the church which he denies from the scripture which he admits of: but first you do not give a resolution of your faith (as I do) that is powerful against Ethnic or heretic: 2. though we admit of scripture yet we cannot be urged thereunto by you; that receiving from the church the scripture, will not believe all 
See 1 ●●.  that she proposeth alike to be believed.  
149. The foresaid manner of proof is usual both in the scriptured and in ancient Fathers. The Pharisees did admit of Moses, and deny Christ. Therefore our Saviour convinced them with these words Joh. 5. 46. If you did believe Moses you would believe me for he gave testimony of me. Again chose the Manicheys did admit of Christ and the gospel, & did deny Moses and the Prophets, & therefore S. Aug. contra Faustum Manichaeun & in his book lib. 1. de moribus Ecclesiae Catholicaec. 1. et seq. did convince the Manichees. The like manner of proceeding we take to instruct a Catholic that should deny any parcel of scripture, we convince him by the judgement of the church to whom he submits himself. And Heretics that deny tradition, the church and the Pope's author●tie we convince them out of scripture & out of the writings & uniform consent of the holy Fathers thousands of whom M. ●. A. says he prefers for wisdom truth, and holiness before himself, whose universal consent of them living in all times, being most expert in tongues, near our Saviour's times; many of them being the Apostles scholars not partial to either of our causes, writing so long before many delivering matters of facts that doth prove or confirm many poi●●● of our doctrine, I cannot see how you can deny them: especially since you say you admit so far 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 fundamental points of doctrine of our religion. But I showed how the holy Fathers agreed with scripture to which you are silent.  
150. But that you do not proceed after the self same manner is plain. For though you abound with wrested places of scripture which we admit of all in their true sense: Yet you deny the interpretation of the Father's interpreting the scripture; that by common consent and your own grant should better understand them then 
That M H. A doth not urge any granted ground against 〈◊〉 see 143.  you: And we do not admit of scriptures as a sufficient proof by themselves, but together with the interpretation of the holy Fathers; of whom by your own words you should admit of since you prefer their wisdom, truth, and holiness before yourself.  
151. Wherefore, then M. H. A. would you have me believe you alleging only scripture for yourself, & i● sense depraved, before the holy Fathers that cite scriptures both for them and us; and whose judgement you say you prefer before yourself. For first you entangle 
That I should not believe him himself, persuades me  yourself in an endless circle. For you prove the private spirit to be true in that the written word says as interpreted by you that it is true; and you prove the written word to be true by the private spirit, both which we deny; since we will have neither the written word alone, or private spirit to be the rule of our faith. And you do not only commit a circle but persuade against your own persuasion; since you would have me to believe you only citing scriptures, before thousand 
M. H. A. woven up in an endless bo●●ō.  Fathers citing scriptures also, whose worth by so many titles you prefer before yourself; surely, surely you have no gift in persuasion.  
152. And not only thus unreasonably do you proceed, but as the manichees to S. August. you object many places of scripture, whose inferences still ●re Nol● Catholicis credere, do not believe the Catholics; I can then return you this answer with St. Aug. 
Catholicis praedic●tibus.  non rectè facies per evangelium me cogere ad Manichaei fidem q. ipsi Evangelio Catholicis praedicantibus credidi You do not well by scriptures cited from the gospel to urge me to believe your Brownisme against the Catholic faith. For this Gospel out of which you cite these words and wrested places, I received from the Catholic church, from whence you would dissuade me.  
153. The ●. thing that I am to show is that the Pope's defini●tive 
The 6. Pa●●.  sentence at least with a general counsel is sufficient to determine 
The main question might for 2● Mr. H. A. argument have been transferred How the judgement of the church & in what sense is infallible. The Catholic church is the rule of faith in manifold senses. Hervaeus interpreted vide n. 165. Mat 10. 2. Mat 17. 1. Marci 9 2. Marci 4. 33 Luc. 8. 51. et 18. joh. 21. 2. 18. 11. joh. 3. 1. joh. 8 1. 10 Mat. 2. Marc. 3. Lucae. 6. To be named still first, rather argues primacy of authority then of order.  all controversies, and is a sufficient groundwork of faith. This you say I propound faintly in that I did allege I did not of purpose dispute it; though as you object it was the main question.  
154. I answer most true it is according to my answer wherein I did voluntarily, yield to this to which by force of argument I was never urged, so it is the main drift of the question. But in regard of the satisfaction of you or your arguments it is not the main question. For when I say there is something else required besides the written word to make it a complete rule of faith. I did not answer faintly when I granted more than that to which I was urged For your Argument required to know how the judgement of the church and in what sense might be infallible; might have a manifold sense. 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 Council confirmed by the Pope so it is also of infallible authority: If you take it for the definition of the Pope with the council of Cardinals defining ex cathedra, so it is of infallible authority. And since in all these senses the Catholic 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 when he says the Pope is virtualy the whole church, means 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 groundless opinion. As for my reasons in the armadoe of mine as you term them, that you say will never enter the field. It may be well they scorn to oppose one that lies at their fellows mercy already.  
157. Now you come to examine the prerogatives of S. Peter: Out of the whole series of which, & the circumstances thereof & not only out of each particular I draw an infallible Argument, but you in an swearing them rather seek to shun or avoid a blow then to give any.  
158. First you grant 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 multiplicity of cited places to no purpose. Hence you grant that primacy of order and not of authority may be gathered: You say this gratis: But since the holy Ghost both not repeat this prunacie to no purpose; surely there his authority above his other brethren is argued thence. And since to be named still first through the whole scripture rather argues primacy of authority then of order. Why should not we rather i●fer● the usual than the unusual signification, especially since in all records we see the priority of the place is given to the pre-eminency of the person.  
159. But let us examine one place the 10. of Mat 2. And the names 
The 10 of S Mat. 2. examined  of the 12. Apostles be th●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 be understood of priority of your order you understanding thereby priority of years or vocation. Since S. Andrew that is named next excelled S. Peter in years, & was first called. As S. 
S. Andr. ●. der & called before S. Peter.  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 confessed all copies agreed herein; yet he would have this word first to be ●oisted in: see Beza in the annotations of the new testament 556.  
As for that of the Galatians where S. Paul not numbering or 
Why S. Paul mentioneth S. james 〈◊〉  reckoning the Apostles of set purpose (as the 3. Evangelists do) mentioneth first S. James Bishop of Jerusalem, whom first he met: and who led him unto the other Apostles as it appeareth Act 21. I. Calvin seeing 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 city is described to be adorned with precious stones. And then you infer in that in the Priests 
21. of the Apoc. 19 makes against himself if it prove aught in reference to that of Exo. 28. 1. 18. 19  habit or ornament the Jasper which is as you say the stone of Benjamin: by his place makes against you, if I would play the part of a Cabbalist or naturalist: But the scripture itself 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 Carbuncle, 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 congruity alleged for S. Peter's primacy Math. 14. 29. where S. Peter walks upon the water. Out of which place S. Chrysostom homil. 57 and S. Bernard lib. 2. de consider: ad Eugenium doth infer S. Peter's prerogative above the other Apostles, you say rather argues his weakness of faith. 
2. S. Peter walks on the water  Whereas indeed S. Peter's words if thou be the son of God are an argument of confidence, and believing manifested by the word following command me to come upon the waters; And that our Saviour argued S. Peter of little faith, was when he feared the strong wind, and began to sink, not for his walking upon the waters before others, no other having with that firmness of faith asked or attempted to come to our Sa●: though they saw him. Those places cited 2 King. 2. Dan. 3. 25. Heb. 11. 34. proves that ever such miracles do not prove superiority, or of dignity before others; which we intent not to prove; but only that this together with many other circumstances do prove superiority of S. Peter.  
162. 3. Our Saviour calls S. Peter the rock and says on this rock I will build my church, and that hell gates shall not prevail 
● He is called by our Saviour the rock  against him. First you say John the 10. 27. 28. 29. that hell gates shall not prevail against the just▪ which if you understand in the Calvinistical sense that one once justified can not be again the child of wrath, which is a most horrible falsehood and against the holy scriptures▪ Roma. 11. 20. but thou by faith doth stand, be not highly wise but fear; 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 truly baptized and so regenerated in grace, could not sin to death and so all should be saved.  
164. You take it for a great matter that I grant the Pope may sin in matter of fact, & be reprovated if he die in mortal sin. It is our Catholic doctrine, and the Pope goes to confession commonly oftener than any ordinary Priest; yet this proves nothing that the Devil prevails against him as he is head of the church, as he defines ex cathedra▪ As for your blasphemous speeches torn out of the Apocalyps, in his place I shall return them on your own head, and of the heretical sons your father.  
165. 4. You object against that which I cite out of S. Luk. 22 31. And our Lord said Simon Simon; Behold Satan hath required to have you to sift as wheat, But I have prayed for thee that thy faith may not fail thee, and thou once converted confirm thy brethren, you answer that the other Apostles were to confirm their brethren, I answer as particular pastors Act. 14. 22. et 15. 41. & 32. 1 Thes. 3. 2. Apoc. 3. 2. but not as the supreme pastor by special assistance of God's grace, dissigned here to confirm his brethren. S. Aug. lib. q. novi testamenti q. 75. to: 4. teacheth that Christ praying for Peter prayed for the rest because in the pastor and prelate the people are corrected or amended. And S. Cyprian Epist 55. n: 6. says that hence infidelity 
So Hervaeus is to be interpreted ●. 155.  or a false faith cannot fasten on S. Peter; and in the self same chap. he affirms though there were 12. Apostles, yet for keeping unity he would have one head of all. You say you will consent with the holy Fathers so far forth as they agree with scripture; 〈◊〉 buy will not you consent then unto them when they allege thus scripture for the Pope's primacy? But I proved that you admitted them so far as they agree to scripture that is to your own fancy, to which as guilty, you are altogether silent. As for the places cited by you Act. 14. v. 22. I find therein nothing to your purpose but a gross corruption of the holy text in your opinion translating presbyter, Elder, which sounds as well as if you would translate the Major of London the Elder, against the common understanding and use 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 confirm 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 be kept, & not only things expressed in the written word. That the 32. ver. affirms that particular may particularly comfort others; the 1 of the Thess. 3. 2. proves only, that Timothy was sent particularly only to confirm them; and the like can only be inferred out of the third of the Apoc. 2. which is so far from proving the special confirmation promised to S. Peter that the confirmation is by the vigilencie of one that had the name, only to live etc. Thus we though you object my objections bleed; I am assured your wrested places as poor same soldiers are to retreat on crutchess.  
167. 5. I gathered by a congruency 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 says. He cometh therefore to Peter, by therefore hath reference to washing, and to S. Peter's first washing: you stand not much hereupon, but according to the opinion of most of the ancient fathers you admit S. Peter was first washed. Only you except that he showed greater weakness than his brethren. I answer, that his refusing to wash was out of a respective love that he had to our Saviour, but understanding 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 pe●ldes, Lord not only my feet, but also my hands and head.  
168. 6. I infer that S. Peter only received a revealed promise of his Martyrdom but here you that slights any thing objects that performance is more than promise. And S. Stephē● James Act. 12. 2. 7. 59 suffered Martyrdom before; I answer, that an assured promise absolutely to come is not worse but rather better than an accelerated performance, if the performance of the other be differred for greater good as S. Peter's was: And the thief on the cross for dying repentant, may challenge a crown of glory as Christ Jesus promised him, and not to be the head of the church as it was promised to S. Peter.  
169. 7. I gathered S Peter's pre-eminence above others in that Act. 2. v. 14. S. Peter as the head of the rest made the first sermon when the Jews objected they were full of win●. But Peter standing with the eleven lifted up his voice and spoke to them, ye men Jews, and all that dwell at Jerusalem etc. v. 15. he answers for the rest. For these are not drunk as you suppose: and that he was not only superior in age, or order only I have shown Therefore Mr. H. A. doth as it were grant this and with that the Pope were as forward as S. Peter in these, and such good offices. I wi●● also that we had also that abundance of God's especial grace that was given to the Apostles. But you cannot deny but that S. 〈◊〉 divers other Popes that you condemn have been forward in preaching.  
170. I infer 8. the pre-eminence of S. Peter in that the first miracle was done by him. You here more merrily then seriously answer 
●● 5. Ambrose serm. 6●. gather out of S. Peter's working of the first miracle, that he was head of the church.  that I shall work a second miracle in converting you, if from this though granted by you I could prove him head as we expound it. I answer from most of these congruancies solely by themselves I do not bring any convince●ng argument, but from the whole series of them together I do convince you, since you cannot deny but the Apostle whom our Saviour first names, promiseth special assistance, calls him the rock, first washeth his feet; that sits ever first; first in all assemblies speaks, doth the first miracles, must needs be head of all the rest, or else all these primary offices should not casually or commonly happen: Since than if you were not through obstinacy hindered you would be converted, I admit that the first miracle was speaking of tongues Act. 2. 7. 11. but I speak of destance miracles and beneficial to others, and in his first preaching I showed he had pre-eminence above others.  
171. 9 I enferred that S. Peter was head in that as supreme judge he condemned the hypocrisy of Ananias and Saphyras 5 of Act. 5. which was the sentence of excommunication by S. Aug. judgement lib. 3. contra epist. Parmeni. c. 2●. to 7. And that S. Peter did give the first judicial excommunication, doth it not infer that he was the head?  
172. That which you object out of the 1 of Tim. 2. & Act. 13. 11. proves that S. Paul excommunicated some, but it doth not prove that he exercised that judicial authority first, therfeor it proves nothing.  
173. 10. I infer S. Peter's prerogative in that he first discovered Simon Magus & condemned him; to which place you make an outroade in objected simonies committed by the Pope; when you might ferth your instances nearer home.  
174. After all these proofs briefly touched, and congruencies I inferred thus. All these, and other circumstances concerning S. Peter shows manifestly that S. Peter had pre-eminency above the other of the Apostles; that he is rock and head of the church: How they have urged I desire not to be my own judge, but refer myself to the indifferent judgement of the reader.  
175. And that this pre-eminence of S. Peter was only in order I have proved and will hereafter prove. The place that you bring 28. of Math. 16. 20 but that particular men are to be joined as witnesses; and that God hears the congregation of the church praying. But that which you bring S. John. 20. 21. 22. 23. I could prove that the church of God by the mission of the Apostles remains for ever. That the church is to be heard as Christ himself by the re●● parative mission: As my Father sends me so I send you. I 〈◊〉 infer priesthood; and might from the verse 25 infer with the holy 〈◊〉 power to forgive sins; but it is sufficient that your place 〈◊〉 proves nothing, and if it be proved ought it were equality of 〈◊〉 not of jurisdiction. 
Mat. 〈◊〉. 〈◊〉▪ 1. Ioh 4▪ ●▪ joh. 2●. 〈◊〉.   
176. And whereas I infer a reason in brief that the legacy of S. Peter's primacy was so particularly distinguished that no man can doubt thereof, Since his own old name is specified there Simon; his father's name the son of Jonas, and his own imposed name: Peter et Cephas, you say you do not impugn the privilege of Peter, but that I do impugn the testament of the Apostles, which I have showed and shall still show is a great untruth.  
177. And that I do not impugn our Saviour the head of the church, when I make our Saviour the head of the church, when I make Saint Peter the ministerial and subordinate head to him: I proved that as God is said to be our only Father; Mat. 23. 9 And yet it is said that we have many fathers. Christ Jesus is said to be the foundation, 1 Cor. 3. 11. And yet the Apostles are said to be foundations Ephes. 2. 20. So Christ Jesus 2 Sam. 22. 
S. Mat. 23● c. v. 9  32. ● Cor. 10. 4 Ephes. 5. 23▪ he is said to be the rock and head. And S. Basil 1. de paenitentia says, Though Peter be a rock, yet he is not a rock as Christ, For Christ is immovable by himself; He is the light; And the Apostles also are said to be lights, 2 Mat. 5. 14. He is Priest, and yet he made Priests.  
178. When I say Petros either signifies a rock or a stone, you bid me produce any learned authority for it. I answer I could produce many. But I appeal for this time to your own conscience since Christ spoke, Mat. 16. in the Syrick language in which there is no difference between a rock or a stone, Petrus or Petra. Yea though Petrus and Petra differr in termination in the Greek, yet they indifferently signify a rock or a stone as the protestants translate joh. 1. 42. And that S. Peter was still accounted the rock, and head of the church, appears by that place of S. August. lib. 1. retract. ●. 21. that you cited against me. But I see in conscience you are satisfied of S. Aug. opinion that you are silent. And Tertull: de prescript: Orig. homil. 5 in Exodum▪ Stus. Cypr. de unitate Ecclesiae: Stus. Ambrose sermone 47. et 68 et lib. 6. in c. 9 Luc. every one affirming 
Cephas signifieth a head and that which is the foundation to a house is in proportion a head to a body  that the church was builded on S. Peter.  
179. Where I say that it was Petros in the masculine gender, in that the masculine gender was most fittest for a man, But that our Saviour, the first of Peter 2, 8. was named a rock might well be since all that admitted of his doctrine would never deny, but that he was head of the church, & so there was no need to change the gender as there is here.  
You tax me that I on Optatus credit would have Cephas to signify a head. I answer that I do not remember it; and I grant that I have no ●●ul in the Spricke language. But surely I either spoke of the greek word Cephalos, or else intended to show that which is the foundation to a house, is in proportion of a head to abodie. So that if you grant that Cephas to signify a principal stone of a house or rock; it is sufficient to me that so it signifies an head or proportion.  
180. Whereas being urged you seem to grant th●● S. Peter was the mouth of the Apostles, I prove still to make against you. For either he must be the spokeman or Mr. spring by election still where he speaks first; which election of theirs you cannot prove out of scripture; that he should as the foreman of the jury or the speaker in the parliament: or else being chief ever in place and speech, he must have it by authority given him as I have proved it before.  
181. You seem to except against my brief confutation of your words when I reasoned thus. If S. Peter could not have prerogative of place in that he represented the church, no more could the sons of Abraham be two sons in that they represented two nations. Here you infer for me but they were two sons etc. go. S. Peter was S. Peter still etc. I thank you for your pains, but you do not mark that I do of purpose omit to infer the sequel, which every one may see to follow: but you have forgot to have compassion of pour self, that unarmed admits of the Argument in that you satisfy me nothing therein, but here like some railing minister out of his text, begins to talk of Antichrist whose forerunner himself is.  
182. To that where you say all the Apostles were equal, 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 worthy S. Peter the first That of S. John 21. 21. Ephes. 2. 20 proves that they were all equal in the execution of the power of order which was equal to all; not in power of jurisdiction: & that they were equal as they were Apostles, but not as they were ●ys. And if all the Apostles had the like power of jurisdiction with S Peter yet it doth not follow that all bishops should have like jurisdiction with the Pope. For bishops are said to succeed the Apostles as Priests are said to succeed the 72. disciples, who did not succeed properly as appeareth out of Anacletus epist: et ex Beda in c. 10. Luc. And the reason is given in that the 72. were not Priests, neither did they erercise any jurisdiction which appeareth in that Philip; & James & the 5. other Deacons were ordered A●t. 6 by the Apostles, & that they were of the 72. appeareth out of Epiphan: heresi 20.  
184. That admonition Rom. ●. 11. 20. 22. and that of the Apoc. 8. 10. is to be understood that if God should forsake her she should perish; that is in sensu divi●o 〈◊〉 in sensu composito as the Sea of Rome is guided by the holy Ghost, and is there fired is ●he cann●● finally fall, yet it is a far different question of the infallible decree of the Pope & of the infallible residence of the Pope at Rome; though both be truths in a divers degree, and both firm howsoever ●●pugned.  
185. We do not hold that the Pope is necessarily endued with God's holy grace. For in matter of fact we hold, that he may sin as well as any other, but we 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 year of sur Lord 454. accusing him that he said too much for the 
S. Leo. defended  Sea Apostolic; in saying that he the head infuseth grace to the whole church; And that God takes up S. Peter into the fellowship of the individual unity, he would have him named that which himself was; et sermone 3. and what he gives Princes he gives by S. Peter. Where here first you see our religion is no upstart religion, that so many years ago was maintained by so holy a Father, and whom Theodoretus in his epistle so much commends: 2. we se● this holy Pope Leo to do no otherwise but that which S. Peter did in his second epistle, 1. c. v. 4. where he says that by the precious promises ye may be made partakers of the divine nature: & so by the assistance of the holy Ghost S. Peter is by participation said to be so directed by the ●. Trinity, that his definitions shall be the definitions of the holy Ghost, according to that, He that heareth you heareth me.  
And not unlike is that of S Paul, I will fulfil that which is wanting of passions of Christ. And by the participation of God's grace we are said to be heirs of God, coheirs of Christ Rom. 8. 187. And for this participation ●. Greg. the 7. says incline thy ●ares oh S. Peter, prince of the Apostles: Not meaning thereby to ask any thing of our B. Lady or of S. Peter, but only that they would be intercessors for us. And since you conclude with this scoffing Epiphonema: Thus roars the Lion of Rome, contemning so the holy Father of the church, I will end this point thus with you. Thus 
That the Pope is not called the Lord God the Pope.  in a lower key braies our A. of Amsterdame against the victorious Lion of Juda, and against B. Leo his vicegerent on earth.  
187. But now your Artesmaster hath taught you a further ●etch. For having these words of s. Leo, he thinks he may prevail to deceive the ignorant reader, if to a point of truth he makes an addition of untruth; and so with a colour he goeth further on and affirms, that the Canonists calls him our Lord God the Pope, cum inter glossa extravag. joh. 22. Here the first untruth is that the Canonists say as though it were a general rule or suppositum or an ordinary style of the Canon law; when as yet there was never found any adversary of ours so bold faced that durst tax any author but one and that but in one place.  
188. 2. It is but Dominum nostrum Papa●, our Lord the Pope in many ancient copies, in which God is wanting, which sounds no otherwise then this, our Lord the King, & that it is an intrude● corruption of the text may manifestly appear by the manuscript of Zui●…s the author of that g●e●●e, yet extant in the Pa●i●●● library, and may be seen there.  
189. 3. Admitting it were so in the ram●on law, and in the Canonists which is false, yet it would not follow in this style though in sound to 〈◊〉 insolent that we should make him or account hi● our Lord God. For the scripture doth often honour men with the title of God, to signify thereby only the participation of his grace or authority, so Psa. 8● 6. I said you are Gods, and children of the highest all: where those to whom the word is reveled be called Gods as Christ himself doth declare Joh. 10 35. Exod. 21. 6. Judge's also are called Gods. The cause of both shall be brought before the Gods Exo. 2. ● and ●. thou shalt not detract from the Gods, Moses Exo. 7. ● who is called the God of Pharaoh.  
190. As for that of deposition you seem to be ignorant of our opinion, For we do not hold that the Pope hath at his free liberty this power to depose, but when all other means have been used, and for the universal good of the church, and when there is a hopeful 
What we hold of deposition.  success. And this doctrine that the Pope hath indirect authority over Princes as s. Greg. Nazianz. teacheth the foul may chasten the body when it is rebellious to her end, so may the spiritual power use the best means for the obtaining, & conserving her end to which the end of the temporal is subordinate. And this indirect authority of the spiritual power over the temporal is grounded on scripture Exod. 22. v. 18. Deut. 2●. 1. Deut. 17. 12 3. Reg. 18. 40 4. Reg. 10. 11. 1. Esdr. 6. 10 1. Esdr. 7 26. Psal. 105. 34. Dan. 3. ●6. Act. 5. et 13. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 6 Tit. 3. 10. 2. Joh. v. 10. Which places we do not interpret so rigorously that it is lawful for the commonalty as you do to depose him; or that it is lawful to kill an anointed King, which doctrine we abhor as bloody: A declaration of which we may give 
Proofs out of holy scripture to prove S. Peter's primacy.  that of so many Antipodes (though they are ever the greatest enemies to the Sea Apostollicke) that ever any one was privately or publicly made away; But how barbarous your proceedings have been in that time to which you have not answered.  
191. Though I have proved before that S. Peter had pre-eminence of authority above the other of the Apostles; yet I thought good to set down certain proofs out of the holy scriptures to prove S. Peter's primacy, & so also the Popes, & so then to confirm them by the authority of the holy fathers; so that their authority citing scripture cannot ●ee refuseh. Math. 10. v. 2. Simon is called first Mat. 15. 6. he changeth his name that it now signifies, a head or superior; and the channging of a name I proved commonly to be mysterious. Mark. 16. 7. The Angel directeth Peter to go before their as there captain. Luc. 22. ●1. He prayed particularly for S. Peter that his faith should not fail him; and viddes him confirm his brethren. Joh. 1. 42. He calls him Cephas that is a great stone, a foundation stone Joh. 1●. 5. Christ washed S. Peter's feet first John 20 4. S. Peter came first to the monument. Joh. 21. 15. he bids him 3. times feed his shee●. Act. 2. 14. Peter speaks for the rest Act. 5. 4. Peter exerciseth first the power of excommunitation. Act. ●5. 7. S. Peter in the council of Jerusalem first gives his definitive sentence Gal. 1. 8. S. Paul came to Jerusalem to see S. Peter.  
192 For the confirming of which primary of S. Peter so established by holy scriptures, the holy Doctors are stclaire that falsehood itself cannot deny it. For s. Clemens Romanus in the year of our Lord 80. says that S. Peter by the merit of his faith was assigned 
Epistola 1. 2● lacob●  to be the foundation of the church, and he is the first of the Apostles etc. whe●e you see that to be the first is to be the foundation of the church: Dyonysius Areopagita in the year of our Lord 100 lib. de divinis nominibus c. 3● teacheth that St. Peter was 
The Greek fathers affirm the Pope's primacy.  supreme honour, & the ancientest head of divines: Hy●●olytus in the year 220. in his oratione de consummatione ●●ndi, calls S. Peter prince and rock of faith. And Origenes in the year 230. in his 5. homily on Ex●●●s, he calls S. Peter the rock and solid foundation of the church; et ad Psal. 1. as you may read in Eusebius lib 6. ●. ●●: he calls Peter the rock against whom hell gates shall not prevail; et 17. homil. in Lucam he calls him Prince of the Apostles; and on the 6▪ to the Roma: he expounds that of S. John 20. of the threefold charge of feeding his sheep to be made the foundation of the church.  
193. And Eusebius Alexandrinus in the 260. in his homily of the resurrection expounding those words, Say unto the Disciples & unto Peter, he there declares how only to Peter he gave the keys. Petrus Alex: in the year 280. in his sermon de Poenitentia calls Peter the Prince of the Apostles. And Constantyne the Emperor in the year 280. in his donation calls Peter the vicar of God on earth. And the first Council of Nice in the year 325. canon 39 Arabic● calls the Bishop of Rome the prince of all the Patriarches, S. A●ha. in the year 340. in his epistle ad Felicem calls S. Peter the pillar on whom of the foundation and Apostles of the church. And S. Basil the great in the year 370 in c. 2. Esaiae; et in prohaemio de judicio dei; 〈◊〉 in orat: 3. de peccatis, et lib. 2. contra Eunomium he calls Peter the prince of the Apostles and foundation of the church; Cyrillus. Hierosol. in the year 370 calls Peter the prince of the Apostles: ●●●echs: ●▪ & 11. he gives the reason in that Math 17. wh●● the ●●her Apostles were silent Peter confessed Thou a●t Christ the son of the living God. S. Chrys: inferreth from thence whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound in heaven, that he is the foundation of the church; and in his 83. homil, in Math. he infers the like ou● of these words I will build my church, and in the Psal. ●0. he infers as much out of these words Simon Simon S●●●a● hath sought.  
194. And for the same primacy of Peter; the ●●●in Fathers are as plain, Tertull: in the year 200. ●. 21. de pudici●ia on those words on thee I will build my church; and to thee I will give my keys: he 
The Greek Fanthers also affime it.  infers in that it is said whatsoever thou losest and not whatsoever ye lose that S. Peter was head. And s. Cyprian in the year 25● lib. 1. epist. 8. He says there is one God, one Christ, one church, one ehaire seated on S. Peter by our saviours voice; And s. Cyprian lib. de unitate Ecclesiae Cathol: out of the words of S. Math. 16. Upon this roche etc. and of S. John the 21. Feed my flock; and of S Joh. the 20. As my father sends me so I send you; He shows there that S. Peter is the only foundation; and though the Apostles were sent yet with a mission subordinate to S. Peter and to the virtue of his chair. s. Ambrose in the year 370. out of these words, Mat 16. Upon this rock I will build my church, he gathers that S. Peter is the rock. s. Hier. in the year 380 ad. Ps 13 calls. S. Peter the head of the church et in ●. 16. Mat. concording the rebuke of our Saviour & the authority of S. Peter given to him; he says that pre-eminence was only promised then, and after his infirmity it was performed, et in his epist. 89. ad. Aug. c 2. he says S. Peter was of such authority that S. Paul writes he came to ●ome to see S. Peter. And S. Aug. in the year 400. in his book quaestionum veteris et novi testam. q. 75. he infers that all the Apostles were contained in S. Peter's firmness, that before you brought as an inference of great absurdity against me; et in tract. 124. in Joh. he infers out of these words. Unto thee I give the keys etc. et in sermone 5. in festo Petri et Pauli he infers from those words, Unto thee I give the keys of the kingdom of heaven etc. That S. Peter in the house of God is a stone to found, a pillar to sustain, and a ●●i to govern and dispose.  
195. And that the authority given S. Peter must be derived unto S. Peter's surressors lawfully, elected, and governing at Rome I could prove by the express authorities of all these Fathers cited, but 
That S. Petes authority must be derived to his successors.  let reason itself suffice, for since our Saviour did give the power of ●reaching, administering of sacraments, for the good of others to the ●ude of the world. So Christ Jesus in instituting S. Peter the head would have that pre-eminence derived to his lawful successors. Besides it was impossible that Peter should govern all unto the end of the world, since the church was to continue so long after, go. that authority was given to him, and to his successors.  
196. Here you dare me to bring in the arrows of the fathers, halberds of the councils, bullets of schoolmen, and canons of canonists in particular you say you will answer them. Thrasonlike spoke. But I know for your refuge with Theasoe you will take up your scanned after the manipulum of dis●washers expositions of these times for your safety, but all in vain. For no doubt so many weapons will beat into Mammoks one already disagreeing from himself, and whose chief points and arguments ar● of themselves like 〈…〉 unsocketed.  
197. To these places of S. joh. 20, 21. S. Math. 28. 19 I answer the holy Fathers have expounded in what sent these places are to be understood; & except Mr. H. A. wili eat his word I must needs prefer their uniform consent of so many worthy 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 granting that S. Peter must feed his sheep only with the word of Christ Jesus the chief; but here I say the word of God is either written, or unwritten what have you then inferred.  
199. But now to speak something of that false, malicious, and odious blasphemy you have sprinkled through your treatise; All which applications if tediousness, and respect of civility did not hinder me, I could nail those marks and notes of the forcrunker of Antichrist to your forehead.  
200 But it shall suffice to show in a word or two that the Pope 
The Pope is not antichrist.  is not Antichrist.  
201. First then if the Pope should be Antichrist it should follow for so many hundred years that hell gates have prevailed against the church of God more than against the Synagogne of the Jews contrary to the promised assistance of the holy Ghost: And that most glorious Martyrs, learned Doctors of the church as S. Cyprian 
2 Thes. ●. 2. vide Iren●um lib. 5. c. ● Hyppolit: in the year 2●●. in oratione de consummatione mundi. D. Athams. in the year 340. quest. 29. Cyrillus Hierosol: 300. cateches. 15. Greg. Kaz● orat. 14. et 4●. D. Chrysost. orat 4. in 2. Thes 2 Cyrillus l. 3 in joh. c. 6. Divus Hier: q. 11. ad Algasi●.  S. Ambrose, S. Hier: S. Aug: S. Leo and all our forefathers should broil eternally in hell fire in offering up homage to the beast.  
202. 2. That the Pope is not Antichrist is proved; in that he shall be one particular man, I came in my name and ye did not receive me; but another comes in his name, and ye will receive him; where Christ Jesus opposeth person to person, place to place, kingdom to kingdom, sect to sect; but the Popes are many successively; 2 Thes. 2. he is called the man of sin the son of perdition.  
203. 3. Antichrist shall be descended of the tribe of Dan Genes. Fuit Dan coluber etc. 49. v. 17. Hier. 8. EDan audivimus vocem acutissimam equorum etc.  
204. 4 Antichrist shall oppugn the mysceries of our Saviour, Joh. 2. Who is a liar but he that denies Jesus Christ. 2 Thes. 2. 2. He shall extol himself above all that is said God.  
205. 5. Those 7. mountaignes in the Apoca. are plainly said to be seven kingdoms. None of which do agree with the Pope.  
A●● the ten horns are ten Kings: Cyrillus Alexand: oratione 7. in Danielem.  
206. To answer every thing again that you repeat would but make me more weary, and tire the reader. It is much that you grant the Pope's primacy to have been from the Council of nice, thereby to grant Antichrisme to have reigned so long in Christendom. For the Pope's loving of pre-eminence. As for that of Diotrephes that you object is nothing to the purpose. And 1 Petri 5. 3. Pre-eminence absolutely is not forbidden, but one secular pre-eminence with example of life and humility. For Tit. 15. 16 It is said Haec doce, exhortare et argue cum omni imperio.  
207. My general reason you repeat thus. The Ecclesiastical Hierachie is no worse governed they any temporal regiment For it is compared to a kingdom governed by one King. Mat. 25. to a 
My general reason for the Pope's primacy.  family well governed; Hebr: 3: to a camp well ordered. Cant: 6. But in all well ordered common weals there is ever required some visible head or judge besides the written law, since there must be a supreme to take notice of controversies when they arise etc. there must be one to explicate the sense of the lawe● to pronounce sentence etc. & there must be one to compel those to the due observation thereof.  
208. Now since in the church there ariseth like difficults in the laws explication etc. Therefore Peter's successor endued by the holy Ghost, with gifts of grace in all difficults of moment is to be sought to for council, is to be heard with obedience when he counseleth, is to be obeyed when he proceeds with his powerful jurisdiction.  
209. Your answer is that this reason is faulty from the head to the foot. Wherein you give the holy Ghost the lie that compare his church to the visible government, and nothing so frequent in scriptures there is then by comparison of terrestrial things to be instructed 
His answer refuted.  in celestial. But you must note that a similitude must not run on 4. feet or agree in all, but in the primo analogato which you cannot infringe, 2. You bring one falsehood to confirm another. For though we say the Pope is to explicate the law; yet he is not above the law in your sense; and all that you cite proves only; that the scriptures are the partial explicators of themselves Ezech. 44. 24 Deut. 17. 18. 20. ● Cor. 2. 10. For as for outward order in difficulties you grant that Priests lips must preserve wisdom or knowledge.  
211. You sat I miss proportion in making many common weals, and but one church: I understand one universal church which you grant one invisible. I have proved one invisible, your proof is to small purpose. For in London then we might infer there were as many churches as there he parishes, which would be a fond or fruitless inference, except you understand material churches.  
212. The third thing that you sat I am to prove: and the 7. 
They part.  and last that I am to prove here, is that the indeficient rule of our faith is only to be found in the Catholic church; & not in private menssences and illuminations, or motions of an unseen spirit; which 
See before a●n: 117. usae ad n. 135.  is against S. Joh. the 17. 11. Vt sint v●um St. et nos.  
213. I prove this in that the Roman church is the only true and Catholic church: this you sat if you should admit of, yet it proves nothing in that the voice of the bridegroom and not of the bride is that you say we must believe, Joh. 3. 29. 36. Ephes. 2. 24. 4. 5 
See before ● 123.  16. As though that were false▪ of Christ, he that heard you hears 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 be the pillar and sir ●am●t 
See n. 123. By this h● would with Beza avoid the name Catholic which he cannot does if he graune the article of belief I believe, the Catholic church.  of truth  
214. I am glad to hear you dente yourself as in truth you are known to be no Catholic. That you will not challenge your Mother's name shows your degenerating spirit. For well might you be a Catholic member of a Catholic church; but as others have been ashamed of that name, so also you; but the truth is your church is not Catholic in that it hath neither universallitie 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 infer the Pope to be Antichrist; and you grant that the synagogue of the Jews in her flourishing ● visibility hath excelled Christ's church, which is contrary to the predictions of the Prophets and Apostles.  
216. To the motives of evident credibility that may induce any man to believe as the Roman church teacheth, I proposed many motives, as her antiquity, unity, universallitie, visibility: that 
See before n: 117. ad● n. 135. Mr. H; A. snatches but doth not fasten on my motives. The Catholic religion grounded neither on the spiritual or temporal profit or pleasure; Not by the the policy of the clergy established No● by the policy of the temporal.  her doctrine was confirmed by the doctors; by the institution and institutors of most holy orders, by the conversion of nations, by the power of miracles, infinite 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 grant we have; Only with your wrested places paralleled hereunto you se●k to confute them, but so lamely, that any man may see your answers are sudden snatches, then true bitings, or wounds according to the nature of a mad dog, that run headlong 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 carnal that we may bring to prove the Catholic church the true church.  
219. If our faith be so ancient as you confess, and allowed so long of all sorts and conditions, if it be not from God it must be grounded on carnal motives, viz. the profit of the spiritual or temporal. But it smooths neither. And that it is not grounded on the invention of the clergy for there profit, or pleasure is plain since they so strictly bind themselves to chastity; vows, fasting, praying so long every day; and all these under mortal sin, with all which burdens they would not have loaden themselves if only policy had been their loadstone. Neither is it governed by the policy of temporal Princes. For it cannot be imagined how ●o many Empeperors, Kings, Queens; Princes would have teddered themselves under mortal sin, as to confess their sins, to fast to restore etc. go. the religion warranted by all the foresaid notes and so against the hair of human affection must needs be true that hath 〈…〉 inviolable so long against so many assaults of enemies, and heresies▪ For according to that before cited of Gamaliel, if it be not of God it will be dissolved.  
220. Thus having proved, and confirmed my doctrine, and refuted your grounds and sacked the castle builded and raised by your own fancy and having destroyed the golden caife of yourself liking conceit to which you sacrifice; I am to conclude admiring any 
The fearful resolution of their religion.  one can be so fond as to follow you against the course of all times, the records of History, consent of Fathers etc. And I bewail the fearful resolution you shall make to Christ Jesus when he shall ask you why you believe against the holy scriptures, explicated and warranted by all the motives, and only because you persuade yourself so.  
221 Whereas our resolution at the eternal tribunal shall be full of comfort; since we believe God's word allowed by all those notes and warrants: ● by the interpretation of the holy Fathers. Your plea shall not be like the plea of that son that pretends to be heir of all, saving of one penny▪ In that his father made his 
His plea examplfied to be most ridiculus  brother haeredem ex ass, heir of one penny (as he interpretts.) When as the grave tribunal, judge, learned Doctors, laws shows against him that to be made haeredem ex ass is to be possessed, and invested in all; and not to have one penny and no more.  
222. So you say the sense of this or that parcel 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 time showing the practice of the church. As that Client's cause shall be full of fear; his plea ridiculous, the sentence sure to pass against him with a hiss, and contempt of the whole bench. So shall that irrevocable sentence of God pass against you in following your own fancy against his word & the holy Catholic church the expounder thereof: I pray God to avert his judgement and to wipe of the scailes of your eyes that you may see and embrace the true church that with the blasphemous breath of your nostrils 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. 
john Aynsworth.  
Ad post script:  
What I have said before, or hear 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 only to be scriptures that in sense fits the last of your own fancy. To conunence new disputes you know would be endless; If you have nothing more to object, against this main truth; begin what you will and I shall answer: but only be advertised here that I make a great impression of those words 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, communicate operibus ejus 
His style of salutation in the fot● front of his Pamphlets  malignis: ercuse me then if in salutation or friendly complement of grace & mercy 〈◊〉. I do not comply with you: it proceeds not from the hatred of your person whose conversion and salvation I desire, but of your heresies and error, but to answer your grounds and Arguments I shall ever be ready.  
The answer to I. A. his third large writing.  
To Mr john Aynsworth prisoner in justice hall in Newgate: grace & mercy from God, to find repentance unto salvation.  
TWo things (Mr. I. A.) I proposed to myself, when first I began to answer you in these questions of religion: the defence of the truth, which God hath vouchsafed me mercy to witness; and 2. the saving of your soul from death by turning you from your evil way unto Christ, if such were his pleasure. Now although for this latter I have small hope left, seeing you so stiffly bend to keep the religion ● received by tradition of your fathers: yet for the first respect I cannot be 
1. Pet. 1. 〈◊〉.  silent, for I have still what to answer in the behalf of God and of his written word, against the reasons which you bring for the Pope and his Traditions. The Lord guide my heart and hand, unto the maintaining of his truth: & if it may be, unto the gaining of your soul. You first profess 
S. 3. ●. 〈◊〉.  to have a reverend esteem of the scriptures, which you set down; & I like well of. But somewhat you want: as That by the scriptures we come to believe in Christ, & in believing may have life through his name. joh. 20. 31 That by them, the man of God may be made wise unto salvation, may be perfect, and perfectly furnished unto every good work: 2 Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17. and therefore that no man presume, above that which is written: 1 Cor. 4. 6. This if you grant, (as you cannot with reason deny:) there will be no necessary or profitable use of your unwritten traditions either for faith in Christ unto life, for wisdom unto salvation, or for any good work. Whiles we therefore keep us to this heavenly light of Gods written word so commended by yourselves, (though again you disclaym it as not sufficient without your Pope's traditions:) I may say with Moses. † 
Deut▪ 〈◊〉▪ 31.  Their Rock is not as our Rock, even our enemies being judges.  
You divide your treatise unto 7. parts.  
The first thing which you promise, is to show that my reasons 
The 1. part of your treatise.  (taken from the word of God,) do vanish of themselves. This you attempted before, but were defeted: let us see now what your latter thoughts do bring forth. For answer unto Deut. 5. 32. you ask, ‡ what 
S. 7. p. 99  I can infer hence but that the law ought strictly to be kept, & that we ought neither to add nor to take from the 10. commandments etc. I answer, you straighten the words too much, in restraining them to the 10. commandments: for you may see before, (in Deut. 5. 4. 22.) that the people themselves did hear the 10. commandments promulgated: and ●durst here no more, but prayed Moses to go near and hear 
v. 25. 27.  the rest what God would say; and to declare all unto them. This he did, and God told him 
* v. 8. 31.  all the commandments ordinances and laws which they should do in Canaan: whereupon he inferreth that general admonition, (v. 3●. 33.) touching all the ways of God: and not the 10 commandments only. So your limitation being weighed in the Lord's balance, is found too light.  
You proceed and ask, what this is to my purpose to prove that the written word alone is sufficient to decide all controversies? I answer, I did express my purpose was to prove this, That God only is to be the umpire and arbiter of all controversies about religion: & whither it were by his word written or unwritten, I stood not upon that in this first point. This I told you plainly before: & if your purpose were not wilfully to mistake and make needless controversy; you would not (after warning) have done thus the second time.  
Like fruitless labour you bestow to prove that the law of God should be explicated by the Priests etc. A thing which I never doubted of: yea I hold that the B. of Rome if he were as he ought to be, should spend all his days in 
† ●. Tim. ●. 2.  explicating Gods laws to the people; & so should all Bishops in the world. But Pope's laws devises & traditions, should neither be explicated nor once mentioned in the church without detestation.  
You say, 
‡ S. 8. p. 9●.  such addition is prohibited as is contrary to God's law as appeareth Deut 4. 2. 3. where the idolatry with Beelphegor was punished for adding or diminishing as the text implies. I answer, though you costreyn the text to seem to help you, while you set that before which Moses sets after; yet to let that pass, I grant that you say: if you understand it well. For seeing all additions to God's law is forbidden, whatsoever is added by others, is contrary to God's law. Now all addition is plainly forbidden Deut. 4. 2. and 12 32. Prov. 30. 5. Therefore nothing can be added by your Pope or any, which is not contrary to the law of God. Your Doctors whom you rely upon tell you the same: nothing is to be added (saith 
L. de p●radis. c. 12.  Ambrose) no though it seems to be good. That which hath not authority from the scriptures (saith 
* Comment. in Mat. 23. S. 9  Hieron) is as easily contained, as allowed. The answer you ● give to Deut. 12. 32. is; what is here forbidden but an heathen imitation, and immolation of their children etc. Is here any pro hibition, of explicating the true sense of the law? etc. I answer, you run into your former fault, abridging the scope of the text. To imitate the heathens, was unlawful: but to divise things of their own heads, yea and to imitate God otherwise then he commanded them, was wicked also. Proof in jeroboam, who made a feast not like the heathens, but like the feast in judah, 1 King. 12. 32. yet was it sinful, and the holy Ghost brandeth him with forging the month out of his own heart, v. 33. Many of your Pope's idolatrous feasts, have nothing so good a colour. And your devised worship of Lord, Lady, Angels, Saints, Popes, Confessors etc. is not only an imitation of the heathens; but an idolatry worse than many of theirs; as when we have ended these questions in hand, I will undertake to prove unto you. As for explicating the law; I before approved it.  
Your former reason from the 4. commandment, you seek 
* S. 10. p. 100  to uphold with a staff of reed. For when God gives many commandments, why will you make the keeping of one to be the keeping of all? In deed, if he had given but one precept, and men had given the rest: it were somewhat that you say. But they are all given by the same God, to be our 
† Deut ●, 24. 25.  life and righteousness if we keep them. For man to add any thing to the 4 or to any, or to all the commandments, is an odious sin. Mat. 15. 9  
Whereas against all additions to God's word, I 
‡ See pag. 55. 56.  alleged Prov. 30. 6. and Gal. 3. 15. to overthrow your fraudulent distinction: you frame a reply 
‖ S. 11. pag. 100  to Gal. 1. 8. which place I produced not. In Gal. 3, 15. the Apostle showeth from the similitude of a man's Testament, that much more unto Gods, nothing may be added. Against this, you having nothing justly to except: do choose to yourself an other place, more easy to pervert. What else doth this bewray, but the helplessnes of your cause? Now to follow your wandringes: What doth Gall 1. 8. say against that I set down? The word beside, meaneth as you think, contrary to, and not more than they had received: because he forbids not any explication or true gloss etc. I answer, you weary yourself and others, to prove that which none denieth. Explications of God's law by the mouth of his ministers, are allowed of God, Nehem. 8. 8. these are not additions, such as God forbids, Galat. 3. 15. Our question is of other or more laws or doctrines than God hath taught. And unto those which the Prophets had written, and Paul with the other Apostles taught, none might be added. For he kept back nothing that was profitable, but taught the whole counsel of God, Act. 20. 20. 27. so then whatsoever men could add more or beside, was not profitable, neither any of God's counsel: therefore it was contrary, and so may be put among Pope's traditions. For their doctrines and traditions are as evidently contrary to God's word, as darkness is to light. Such be your image worship, contrary to Exo. 20. 4. your praying to creatures, contrary to Mat 4. 10. Rom. 1. 25. service in a barbarous unknown tongue, contrary to 1 Cor. 14. 11, 16. 28. robbing the people of the chalice in the sacrament, contrary to Mat. 26. 27. justification by men's works, contrary to Rom. 3. 20. 22. 24. and 4. 2, 3, etc. and many other idolatrous observations, as plainly contrary to God's law, ever were the abominations of the heathen. Finally Chrysostome, a Doctor whom you rely upon, 
* Chrysost Gal. 1.  saith that Paul preferreth the scriptures, before Angels from heaven. Here then (if you will believe him,) is no place at all for unwritten traditions. Whereas you 
† S. ●●●.  bring Rom. 16. 17. to show that para meaneth contrary; no man denieth it: but that it signifieth no more than contrary, in your sense, you prove not. In Rom. 1. 25. you may see par● ton ktisant●, meaneth any thing ●●sides the creator only. But our strife was not about para, or Gal. ●.  
You 
S. 15.  〈◊〉, as the Prophet's additions to Moses law, were Gods, so the church's definitions are Gods, not man's. I deny your 〈◊〉: the church's additions, which you call definitions are not Gods, as the Prophet's writings, 〈◊〉 were added to Moses books: you are not far from blasphemy in making such a comparison. If that were true, you might read and expound as authentic scriptures, your church's additions and Pope's traditions, as Christ read Esaias the Prophet; and expounded hi● in the synagogue, Luk. 4. 1●.— 21.  
The proofs you would bring are, Luk. 10. 16. he that heareth you, heareth me etc. Mat. 18. 1●. 18. tell the church etc. Deut. ●9. 15. (or 〈◊〉.) they shall stand before the Lord, before the Priests etc. I answer, these scriptures show not that they might add any thing to the word of God: but they prove the contrary: For they were sent to preach the Gospel, Mark. 16. 15. & that was God's word, not any creatures: Thes 2, 2. 4. 13. So they were not additions not definitions of their own: such as your church makes. Also the Priests were bound to teach God's laws, not their own, Ezek. 44. 24. And so the hearing of them that teach God's word, is the hearing of God himself in his ministers. But the contrary: to hear the church's traditions is not to hear God: for they were many against God, as you may see, Mark. ● 3. 4. 9 10. etc. For else behold what strange doctrine you will bring in, viz. that every church, yea every priest and minister, may make additions to God's law; and the people must be bound so to receive them as God's word. Here to help yourself, you retire to your old sconce, saying 
* S. 15.  it is true of particular churches, but so far as their doctrine acordeth with the Somane catholic church. A mere fiction of your own head, what one title of God's word do you or can you bring for this stuffed? did Christin Luk. 10. 16. speak to the church of Rome, more than to the Church of Corinch Ephesus or any other? you make your Roman Church an idol, by putting her in God's place, 
† Isa. 33. 22. jam. 4. ●2.  to give laws, you make her a monster, whiles being a particular Church, you proclaim her for the catholic, that is universal Church. And her doctrine, if it accord not with Christ's, as it doth not: is with her to be abhorred and accursed. Gal. 1. 8. By this which hath been said; let the prudent judge, how sound you have proved that any other word or doctrine, than Gods, may be brought into the Church for a ground of our faith: which was the first thing in controversy.  
The 2. part that you are to prove (as you 
‡ S. 18. p. 102.  say) is that the rule of our faith is not only the written word, but jointly the unwritten 
2. Part.  word of God, tradition, and the authority of the Church, councils, fathers is the ultimate decider of all matters of controversy.  
In this assertion you confasedly shuffle together for your advantage, the church, counsels, & fathers. By the Church you mean your Romish Church, which is none of Christ's: and therefore can judge no Christian controversy. Councils and fathers are named but for a show. For ●o● regard nothing that Councils or Fathers say, unless your Pope approve it. On the contrary I hold that Gods written word is to be the rule of our faith, and by it all churches, Councils, Fathers are to be tried, whether they be of God or no. But let us hea● your proof.  
That which was say 
S. 〈◊〉. p. 1ST.  you● the total rule of our faith before the written word of God▪ man be well the partial rule of our faith after, where the written word of God doth not sufficiently cru●●ss divers mysteries of us to ve believed But tradition was a sufficient and total rule of our faith till Moses' time the first 〈◊〉 of the holy Ghost. Therefore tradition now together with the written word, is a sufficient rule of our faith. The fir● prop. you say 〈◊〉 proved: the second you ●a● is granted by me▪ I answer, If the writings of God were as dark and deceitful as is this your writing, it were woe with us all. In the first proposition you say it may well be the partial rule of our faith: in the conclusion you say, it to so. If I should say. It may w●ll be your argument is deceitful: and conclude therefore it is deceitful: would you grant the conclusion? yet is it truer than yours, For that which was a rule before, may be a rule still, if it please God so to continue it: this you need not labour to prove. But that which was a r●●● before, neither may nor can be a rule still, when God hath taken it away & put another in the stead. And this is the very truth, if you would receive it. For before God's law was written, it was spoken, and by speech from the mouth of holy persons it was to be learned. But now it is written, o● God's commandment, Exod. 34. 27. & so sufficiently written, as Pa●…th it is able to make us wise unto salvation, even perfect and perfectly furnished unto every good work, 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. away therefore with your partial rule o● unwritten traditions; they may not be, neither are they any rule for our faith: for no●e must prefume above that which is written 1 Cor. 4. 6. But you add a clawse to your proposition th●s; where the written word doth not sufficiently erpress diverse mysteries of us to be believed And where is that trow we? I your assumption this clawse dares not show his face, for there it would con●●nce you of falseshood. If you affirm it not, how frivolous & deceitful is your argumet? If you intent to assume it, though you express it not, (for so elsewhere you blame me for not understanding your reasoning:) then say ● by your assumption you intent a lie against the truth, and a slander against me. It is a lie against the truth to say, that the holy bible which we have written, doth not sufficiently express divers mysteries of ●s to be beleeve●: If have before disproved this by evident testimonies from heaven, which you cannot withstand. joh. 20. 31 2 Tim. 3. 1●. 17. Rom. 1●. 25. 26. 1 Cor. 15 3. 4. A●● 26. 22 joh. 5. 39 It is aslander against me, when you say I grant your Minor: for if this clause be there intended, I did and do dis●●aym it.  
Your conclusion can be no better than your premises: even false and fraudulent. Which that you (or others at least) may the better espy, I will show how you wrap up things in confusion and darkness. First Tradition, which title you claim for your unwritten mysteries, is as well the word of God written as unwritten, 2. Thes. 2. 15. but you do oppose it to the written word. Secondly, holy Tradition or Doctrine by word of mouth, was delivered always by holy persons: even as holy Tradition or doctrine by writing, was delivered always by holy scriptures. The holy persons that spoke, were either God himself, (as to Moses in the Mount; to job 
† job. 38, 1. etc.  in the whirlwind:) or some Angel, (as to 
‡ Gé. 22, 11. etc.  Abraham, jaakob, etc.) or, some holy man of God, (as Peter 
2 Pet. 1. 21  saith,) 
* Exo. 20. 21. ●2.  spoke being moved by the holy Ghost. So Abraham is 
* Gé. 20. 7.  called a Prophet: and so was 
† Gen. 49.  jaakob and all the holy patriarchs from Adam to Moses. The manner of speaking the word was also divers, as 
‡ Num. 12. 6. 8. job. 4. 16 & 33, 14 15, 16. 2. San. 23, 2.  by visions, or by dreams, or by plain speech mouth to mouth, or by secret motion of the holy Ghost. Now you show not which of these ways your traditions come: only you give us a general paralogism, which will serve as well to maintain H. N. or Mahomet, with their new Gospel and Alkoran, as the Pope with his new Canon law. For thus may Mahomet, or the Familist reason: that which was a rule heretofore, may be a rule still: but the word of God given by visions, revelations and instinct of the spirit, was a rule heretofore: therefore it is so still; at least in part. Here is as good and true an argument as yours: that your Logik will persuade as soon to Mahometisme, or Familisine; as unto Popery. Now as for the persons, there will be no disparagement. For Mahomet himself, or H. N. will as easily be proved to be holy men of God, as Pope john the 23. who was judged by the Council 
‡ Sess. 11, & 12.  of Constance to be a devil incarnate; and as other your reprobate Popes that were monsters among men, for their beastly life till their dying day, as your own writers do record, and yourself in this your writing deny it not, nor defend them herein. And now I pray you tell me, why men may not be induced by your manner of reasoning, as well to receive the Turks Alkoran, and H. N. his Evangelium regni, as your Popish decretals. I find no more mention in God's book, that the Pope of Rome in the west churches, should be a divine person to give heavenly traditions, then that Mahomet in the East, should be the man of God. You find not so much as the Pope's name, much less his proud office spoken of (for good) in the Bible. You tell us of the promise to Peter, Mat. 16. and Mahomet telleth us of the promise of the comforter, joh. 16 7. That the Pope is head of the church, is as unpossible for you to prove by Gods law; as it is for the Turks to prove that Mahomet is that Comforter. You would have us take the Popes own word for a warrant: the Turks would have us take Mahomet's word for a warrant. The truth is, these both with their new doctrines and traditions, are the curse and scourge of God upon the world; because they received not the love of the truth, therefore God hath sent them strong delusion to believe lies, as th' Apostle prophesied: 2 Thes. 2. 10. 11.  
You 
† S. 10, p. ●02.  proceed, & for unwritten tradition cite some scriptures, Deu. 32 ●. Ps. 43. 1. & Ps. 77. Pro. 1. 8. Esa. 38. 19 jer. 6. 16. Ecclus. 8. 11. 4. Esd. 14. ●. 2. Thes. 2. 15. 1. Tim. 6. 20 2. Tim. 2. 1 from all which you 
* p. 100L.  infer, that Israelites and Christians were to be directed by the help of traditios. I answer, your reasons from most of these and the like places, I have taken away in my 
† See pag. 25. 26. 72.  former writings. Here you repeat the same scriptures again but answer not what I said: you may thus do a 100 times, and weary men with your tautologies Unto the things which heretofore I written (and whereto I refer you) I now add. All parents were bound to teach Gods law to their children; and children to hear & obey their parents in the Lord. Deut. 6. 7. Eph. 6. 1. 4. If this serves for traditions, then unwritten verities from all parents mouths, were to be received as oracles of God. If you hold thus, I pray you tell it plainly: If not; then show which parents had the faculty to teach traditions, and which had not.  
2. The traditions which those scriptures speak of, being now written 
‡ as in Ps. 44. & 78. etc.  are a part of the canonical bible to be read and expounded in the church, as being 
2 Tim. 3. 1●  inspired of God, profitable to teach etc. if such be the traditions of your fathers, Councils, Popes, which the world seeth now written; then are they to be acknowledged also scripture inspired of God, (as Paul speaketh) and so to be read and expounded in churches, as other books of the Prophets and Apostles. For all Gods divine oracles and traditions, are of equal authority. If you esteem your decretals of this worth, I pray you tell me in your next. If not, than the scriptures by you cited, will justify your Pope's traditions, no more than the Pharisees, Mar. 7, 3 6. 7. 8 9- 13.  
That the Doctrines taught by the fathers in Psal. 
* (or as you reckon 43. & 77.)  44. and 78. were written traditions, the particulars in the Psalms do evince, against your too bold asseverations. For the casting out of the heathens, & planting Israel, spoken of in Ps. 44. was largely written in the book of josua. The things rehearsed throughout Psa. 78. are written in Exo. Num. jos. Sam. etc. So the evident scriptures do convince you. The old & good way, jer. 6. 16 was the law taught by Moses and the Prophets, Psa. 103, 7. Deut. 8. 6. & 9 12. and 11. 22. 28 and 31. 29. judg. 2. 17. this law was written, and to this did the Prophets call the people Isa. 8. 20. Mal. 4. 4. and from the other ordinances of their fathers, Ezek. 20. 18. And this, with the accomplishment of the promises upon them that walked therein, was the truth which the fathers should tell their children, Isa. 38. 19 as appeareth Deu. 6, 6, 7. joh. 17, 17. And the things which Solomon teacheth as a father Prov. 1. 8. etc. are written in that & other his books, Prov. 22. 20. Eccl. 12. 10. and of other things he willeth us to take heed, Eccle. 12. 12. That strange it is, any man reading the scriptures, should plead against them as insufficient to teach us all doctrines needful for salvation.  
Unto Ecclus. 8. 11. (I think you mean v. 8. 9) I answer the book is not authentik, and so proves nothing, yet if the author mean the Elders doctrine agreeable to the law: his counsel is 
† Mal. 4. 4. Isa. 8, 20.  good. If he mean other human traditions of the jews; then I answer, the wisdom of jesus the soon of Sirach herein is proved to be foolishness, by the doctrine of jesus the son of God, Mark. 7. 7. 8.- 13.  
Unto 4. Esdr. 14. 5. 6. I answer; the author is a fit man to bolster up popish traditions, by 
* 2 Thes. 2, 9  signs and lying wonders. He telleth (as you 
† S. 23. p. 104.  allege) of doctrines that Moses was not to teach but to hide. These than appertained neither to law nor gospel, Deu. 32. 4. Rome 10, 5. 6. 8. I am content therefore, that they go among the Pope's decrees. He telleth that God's law was 
‡ 2 Esdr. 14. 21. 22. & chap. 4. 23.  burnt, and that he would write again all that had been done in the world since the beginning. This lie is worthy to be put into your Legendaurie: But what forgeries will not you bring to help your Pope withal. To this also you may add if you please, your tale fathered upon Dyonysius Areop. with the writer thereof: as unlike that Dionyse in Act. 17. as Es●ras the 2. was to Ezra the first.  
Unto 2. Thes. 2 15. I answer, all Paul's traditions I will gladly admit of: but not of the Popes therefore, any more than of Mahomet's. Besides Paul taught nothing but from the written law, Act. 26. 22. yea that which he taught by word to these Thessalonians, was from the scriptures, as you may see, Act. 17. 1. 2. 3.  
Unto: 1 Tim. 6. 20 and 2. Tim. 2. 1. I answer as to the former: whatsoever doctrine is Apostolic, is also authentical: and I embrace it. The thing committed first from God to Paul, from Paul to Timothy, from Timothy to others, was the sound doctrine of the Gospel, 1. Tim. 1. 11. ●. Tim. 1. 10. 11. All which is written in the bible, sufficient for faith, for all good works, and for wisdom unto salvation, 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. So that unwritten traditions are needless for the gospel of life; though necessary I grant for the establishment of Popery. Besides you mark not, that this committing of the word to Timothy, and by him to others: will carry the crown away from Peter's feighned successor the Pope. That Timothy's successors at Ephesus, have more ●o show for themselves, than the Bishops of Rome, for authority of unwritten traditions, if any there be.  
Whereas you say 
S. 23.  S. Paul spoke the hidden mysteries in secret: I know not where you learned this, unless by some secret tradition at Rome. For if they were the hidden mysteries of the Gospel; Christ willed 
* Mat. 10, 27  them to be preached openly; and Paul himself testifieth that they were 
† Rom. 16. 25 26.  published among all nations, even to 
‡ Colos. 1, 23.  every creature under heaven. and he written his Epistles (which contain the hidden 
Ephes. 3, 4  mysteries of the wisdom of God) to whole churches to be read to 
* 1 Thes. 5. ●7.  all the brethren▪ True it is he taught them orderly, first the rudiments of religion or doctrines of the beginning of Christ, which he calleth 
“ 1 Cor 3, 2. Heb▪ 5, ●.  milli: then, the higher mysteries which he caleth strong meat. Which order of his, all good Bishops and ministers of Christ should follow still, in feeding their flocks. But that the mysteries of Christ should be spoken by him in secret, so as the younger Christians might not freely hear or read them, as you gather: is a tradition of your own. There is none of his Epistles, wherein you may not find both milk and strong meat: and as he written, so he spoke in his sermons. It may be you have reference to 1 Cor. 2. 7. we speak the wisdom of God in a mystery, even the hidden wisdom etc. If so, than you corrupt both Paul's words & meaning. The mysteries were not hidden or concealed from any Christian: but from the princes of the world, and natural man▪ as the words following manifest 1 Cor. 3. 8. 14. and hidden, not as unlawful for them to hear, but as unpossible for them to understand 
* Act. 28, 26 2●.  though they heard: because in their worldly wisdom, they despised God. 1 Cor. 1, 18, 20, 21. etc. Thus men may see into what strayts you are driven to find out your traditions, which cannot be maintained but by wresting the texts. 
The 3. Part.   
The 3. thing which you undertake to show, is, that your reasons for all my answers remain in full force. you repeat 
† ●. 26, pag. 105.  your ● reason thus.  
That which is not known for God's word, cannot be the rule of faith. But scriptures by themselves are not known for God's word: go. Scriptures by themselves are not the rule of faith.  

I answer, first by imitating your argument thus.  
That which is not known for God's word, cannot be the rule of faith.  
But Pope's traditions are not known for God's word.  
Therefore Pope's traditions are not the rule of faith.  
On the contrary I reason thus.  
That which is known for God's word, is to be the rule of faith.  
The holy scripture is known for God's word.  
Therefore it is to be the rule of faith.  
The first proposition is by yourself here proved.  
The second, was also by yourself graunced S. 3. where you said of the scriptures thus, we reverence them as God's holy word, derived from the fullness of truth etc.   
The conclusion must follow of the premises: so the truth hath won for the book of God: & your error for unwritten traditions must give place: or else your own mouth shall condemn you.  
Secondly I answer, your argument is deceitful as your former was. For (to omit, that it is all of negatives, which in strict reasoning should not be,) you add a term in the 2. proposition which was not in the first, viz, by themselves, which also you put in the conclusion. This is no right nor faithful way of reasoning. If (as your manner is) you would have me to understand it in the first: I will so. Then it is thus: That which is not by itself known for God's word, cannot be t●e rule of faith. This now I deny: and your proof is wanting. The proof which you make for it as you had set it down▪ I admit of concer●ing the word of God: only where you extend God's word, to the definitions of the church etc. I run not so far with you. But require you to prove your churches, councils, father's definitions, to be God's word: which you do not.  
Your 2. proposition I deny: for the scriptures by themselves (without your traditions) may as easily be known for God's word; as the Sun in the firmament may be known to give light, without a candle. This I will manifest hereafter. Yo● 
“ S. 2●.  seek to prove your assertion by authority of men. That I refuse as insufficient, by authority of Christ who theweth their religion to be vain, which teach for doctrines the precepts of men Mat. 15. 9 Secondly you allege a reason. Since we do not see or hear God in his known Prophets to write or speak the word etc. there must (you say) be one certain rule or depositum fidei. As 1 Tim. 6. 20. 2. Tim. 1. 13. 14. have thou a form of sound of words etc. whence you gather that Christians must keep ascertain platform of words delivered to them over and above Paul's epistles: amongst which you name for one, Transubstantiation. I answer, first God his wisdom, power majesty, truth etc. are to be seen as evidently in the writings of the Prophets and Apostles; as his eternal power and Godhead are to be seen in the creatures of the world, Rom. 1. Ps. 19 although Atheists cannot see these in the one, nor Papists in the other. Secondly as men do not hear God vocally in his Prophets: so if they did hear him in them, or in Christ his son, yet could they not believe, unless God's spirit illuminated their hearts, john. 12. 37. 39 So your reason is against Christ himself, as well as against the ●…pture. Thirdly the church (whereto you would send us,) when 1. ●ayth this is God's word, how shall men know it so to be, any more than they knew the words that Christ spoke to be Gods? unless you lift up your church above Christ.  
Fourthly, what church mean you; Greek, or Latin, or AEthiopian? and how shall men know Christ's Church from Antichrists? And if the Latin church tell us the fables of Tobit and judith, are Gods canonical scripture; and the Greek church say they are nor, but apocryphal; which of these shall we believe? Thus you would draw us into a wilderness, wherein we may lose all stay of faith, and fall either into despair or atheism.  
To those words of Paul I have answered before: and (to let pass your mistaking as if he did enjoin a sound of words, as you write;) further I would have you manifest if you can, who are Timothees successors and with whom he left Paul's depositum, as you call it? And how a man may know your kenophonie and monstrous word of Transubstantiation, to be one of Paul's wholesome words, rather than the Lutherans Consubstantiation?  
Your contending 
* S. 29.  against the distinction which I gave of believing things necessary to salvation, and other things not necessary, as, whither Peter were ever at Rome or no, and the like: I leave to the judicious reader, seeing you cannot or will not understand and rest in the truth.  
Your marginal 
† S. 30. p. 106.  argument, that The written word is not proved by an other written word; therefore by tradition: I reject as false and inconsequent: so proved in my former▪ 
‡ See pag. ●7. 18. 59  writing. You in reciting the scriptures which I brought, do maim the texts, to ease your shoulders, In john 20. 30 31. you leave out these words, and that in believing you might have life through his name. So in 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. you 
●. 31.  neither mention nor answer this, that by the scriptures the man of God may be perfect and perfectly fitted unto every good work. Whereby ● proved that faith unto life, and every good work may be learned out of the scripture, as I inferred. When you cannot answer, you call me the perverter of the holy Ghost. Let the prudent judge.  
Unto your answers 
* S. 32. etc. p. 106.  made to my evident demonstrations by the book of God, that the scriptures and spirit of God are sufficient to prove and approve themselves to every conscience: I need not make any reply, but leave it unto judgement. But to help you (if it may be) I will briefly note your oversights. 1. You allege my words sundry 
† S. 3●. 3●. 34.  times as if I had said, God's spirit is in all people: which I never spoke nor thought, but proved the contrary by joh. 14. 17. I said God's spirit is in all his people: which if you doubt of, see Rome 8. 9 16. 1 joh. 2. 27. You barely say (and prove not) that in actu 2. the scriptures need testimony of others, besides God and his spirit, and themselves; meaning your Church and Pope: you seem to say the like of Christ himself; as others of your side h●ve plainly spoken. By which blasphemy, God must be beholding to men, Christ to the Pope, that by their witness men may believe in Christ and his word. The contrary is evident by Mat. 16. 17. flesh & blood (saith Christ) hath not reveled it unto thee, but my father which is in heaven. See also Gal. 1. 16. 17. and 2. 6. 9 3. You are often up again with your bastard phrase of the private spirit; whereas all God's children, have the public or catholic spirit (if you will so call it) as I plainly proved in my former writing; & you have nothing to say against it, but that the spirit 
‡ S. 8●.  worketh otherwise in the head then in the foot: which is a manifest tergiversation, whereof in due place.  
4. You carry yourself in this passage about the spirit of God, as a sish out of the element; as having no relish or feeling of this heavenly grace, whereat I much marvel not, though I am sorry for it. Enter into yourself and see by what spirit you do discern the Pope to be Christ's vicar (as you suppose) and his traditions to be Christ's oracles. Will you not say it is by the spirit of God? Now we are assured that Christ is more able to furnish us with the spirit of God, than the Pope is to furnish you. That you perceive not God's spirit to be in us, but 
S. ●5.  reproach us, it is not strange: for the world (as Christ 
“ joh. 14. 17.  saith) seeth him not neither knoweth him. Your fathers also could not perceive God's spirit to be in Christ himself, but said he had an 
* Mark. 3, 30  unclean spirit: and we his servants are not better than our Lord. 5. So for the majesty of the scriptures shining as the sun in his strength; & by their majesty, wisdom, harmony etc. proving & approving themselves & one an other to the faithful conscience; you turn & wound, because 
† S. 36.  we cannot persuade the Arians &c. by conference of scriptures to believe aright. It is not what we can persuade others, but ourselves. For there are many Arians and other heretik● which you with your fathers, councils, Popes, are not able to convert. Yet you think your Pope's decrees are God's word: and we know that the holy scriptures are so indeed. And the more to convince you, look to your Mr. (as you called him) Cardinal 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 itself. Bellar. de verb. dei I. 1. c. 2. argument 4.  
6. You ask 
* S. 37. p. 108.  a question thinking to entangle me, what the seal of the spirit is: and you suppose diverse answers. Because you are so partial a judge of my spirit, I pray ask your Pope, what the seal of his spirit is, and how he discerns scripture, & whither he build without ground, as you say I do Look what he can well 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, do refuse 
† S. 38.  it: saying it is most false that the scriptures are distinguished (from other books) by themselves, as light from darkness For then (say you) every one that had but natural 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 (which now is 
‡ 1 Cor. 2. 14.  blinded) recovereth natural perfection, that is to say, is 
Ephes. 1. 17. 18.  illuminated or renewed in knowledge 
“ Colos. 3. 10.  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 natural eye, seeth the light of the sun: and can assure himself hereof, though he go 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 believe him: & so on the contrary. For you 
* S. 3.  profess to believe each part of scripture to be Gods holy word, derived from the fullness of truth. Now this is because the Pope tells you so, and he tells you also that the books of Tobit, judith, Maccabees, etc. are scripture canonical, although in them there be apparent lies, as you may see Tobit 12. 15. compared with Tob. 15. 18. judith 9 2. compared with Gen. 49▪ 5. 6. 1 Mac. 6 16. compared with 2. Mac. 1, 16. 2 Mac. 1. 19 compared with 2 King. 25. 1. etc. so 2. Mac. 1. 20. 21. 22. 31. & many the like. Now though the Apostle saith, no lie is of the truth, 1 joh. 2. 21. yet you believe these lies are derived from the fullness of truth; because the Pope will have it so to be. Thus the blind lead the blind into the ditch.  
So you do not by your private spirit, (as you 
† S. 40.  say) distinguish heritiks from true believers, but by the definitions and declarations of the church; that is (I trow) of the Pope. I showed you a better way by the Apostle, 1 joh. 4. 1. 4. but you love darkness better than light. And by your grounds, if you had lived in Christ's days on earth, you would have distinguished Christ as an heretic from true believing jews, by the definitions of that 
joh. 9 22.  church and priesthood.  
Unto jews, you confess 
‡ S. 41.  you must show other grounds, than your Pope's authority: But if they retort upon you your private spirit, as you do to me, either your mouth is stopped, or your conscience in pleading against me as you do, is corrupted. Yea when you are driven about the high Priests that condemned Christ, to say 
“ S. 43.  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 priesthood is most vincible also. Your own traditions are of no more force against us, than the jews 
* Mar. 7. 5. etc.  were against Christ.  
You charge me with 
† S. 44. etc. to 54. p. 109.  racking many wrested places of scripture to prove the church of God invisible: and you oppose many scriptures against it: I answer, either your care was little, or your conscience was large, to write so untruly. The question was whither the church erred or no: that I proved by 
‡ See before, in p. 62. 63.  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 turn to another matter wherein you seem to say somewhat, and answer 
S. 45. 46. 47. etc. p. 110.  unto scriptures which I mentioned not. I mean to hold to the point, and not to follow your wanderings; which are in the movable paths of that strange woman, Pr● 5. 6▪  
That which you answer 
“ S. 54. etc. p▪ 111.  to my demonstration of the Lab●ri●th of your religion, leading to the Pope etc. I shall not bestow labour to reply upon, but leave it to judgement: & so for 
* S. 57 58.  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 
† S▪ 56. ) to your reason, let the reader 
‡ pag. ●4. 2. Argument  see.  
Your 2. Argument from the hardness of the scriptures you again 
●. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉. p. 112.  repeat and dilate. Seing you make no other proof than was before, I will not follow you to repeat my answers, but refer to my former 
“ pag. 〈◊〉.  writings.  
To prov. 8. 8. 9 you reply 
“ S. 66 p. 113.  it is to be understood either of general doctrine, or of precepts of manners and good life. I answer, you ought not so to restrain it. For wisdom there saith all her words are righteous, all are plain: will you say, nay? general doctrines are plain, but not particular: precepts of manners, but not of faith. Belike than the 
* Prov. 9 13  foolish woman, (that whore of Babylon, Apo. 17.) must explayn matters of faith, and particular doctrines. Well, I shall content me with Wisdoms plain words, and what she teacheth not, I regard not to learn: if you will needs go to the banquet of stolen 
† Pro. 9 17.  waters and hid bread, know that the 
‡ ●. 18.  dead are there, if you will take warning.  
Where I showed how your Pope's determinations make God's law more hard to simple men, instancing the second commandment, corrupted by your glosses and distinctions.  
You take upon you to 
‡ S. 67.  defend your image-worship by the brazen Serpent and Cherubims. And might not jeroboam so have defended his golden calves? God's law saith 
* Exod. 20.  Thou shalt not make to thyself any similitudes: thou shalt not bow down to them nor worship them: you make many similitudes of God, Christ, Angels, men, women, cross, etc. and ye bow down before them, whereas the similitudes which God commanded were not to be worshipped, as you do the 
Cru●●m ●●am ador●mus Domine.  cross: the brazen Serpent which you allege, shows it. Besides will your Pope take upon him God's place and power, and make what images he thinks good, because God made such as pleased him? Why then if he had lived in jeroboams days, he might have made a Temple at Bethel, because God made one in jerusalem: and set up Priests, altars, sacrifices of his own head, because God had appointed such in judah. And now, let your Pope make new Churches, new Sacraments, new ministries, yea & an other Testament, because Christ did so. But for your idolatries, they pertain to an other place then this▪ I leave it to the judgement of every godly heart, whither your Popish glosses, decrees, distinctions etc. be not more dark and intricate than the holy scriptures, which are 
* Psa. 119. 105.  a lamp to our feet and a light to our paths. And as for your Councils and Fathers, to whom so often you flee for help, when holy scriptures fail you: they are so cross and intricate in themselves and one to another: that the Pope with all his guard could never yet, neither ever will be able to reconcile them. Your Mr. Cardinal Bellarmine useth them as men do Counters, that sometime stand for pounds, sometime for half pence. So he sometime alloweth the Doctors, sometime dismisseth them as erring from the truth. Yet you to brave your cause muster their names, whose virtues you do not imitate.  
You much 
† S. 68, p. 114.  blame me as for wilful error in citing Card. Bellarmine's writings as the determinations of the Pope. Bear with me, I knew not that your Cardinal had a private spirit differing from your Pope: and bear part of the blame with me yourself, that referred me in your former writing to answer Bellarmine your master.  
Unto my proof from 1 Cor. 4. 1. that the other Apostles were dispensers of God's mysteries as well as Peter: & so other Bishops now, as well as the Bishop of Rome: you answer, 
‡ S. 69. 70. 71.  they be all alike in power of order, but not of jurisdiction. This your distinction I deny, and in my former 
See pag. 29. 30. 80. 81.  writings disproved it: and you bring not, neither can bring any word of God to confirm it: and therefore as your manner in such exigents is, you flee to human authority. Now I grant that your Pope's throne is from men; or from the Dragon 
“ Rev. 13. 2.  if you will. But God's word saith, A man can receive nothing, unless it be given him from heaven: John. 3. 27.  
From this you 
* S. 72. p. 115.  pass to Act. 15. (afterwards you 
† S. 80.  go back again to other things that in order were before.) I answered twice your reasons from that scripture, showing how you constreyn it beyond all reason: yet the 3. time you press it thus From v. 6. the Apostles and Ancients assibled: you note it against us, that would (you say) have all men to give their voice and be present in council. I answer, in v. 4. it is showed they were received of the Church, and of the Apostles and ancients. In v. 12. it is said, all the multitude kept silence. In v. 22. it is said, it seemed good to the Apostles & ancients with the whole church to send etc. In v. 23. the letters were thus written, The Apostles ancients and the brethren, unto the brethren etc. & v. 25. It seemed good to us when we were come together with one accord etc. All which do manifest that the people were present, and not the Apostles and ancients only; as you from an usual figurative 
‡ Synecdoche.  speech in v. 6. mistaken would collect.  
From v. 7. you 
* S. 73.  gather, that when there was made a great disputation, Peter rising up and speaking by his authority composed that great dispuration, that is settled the height of their difference, which argues superiority. And eftsoons you▪ press this word great disputation, for Peter's rising up was before proved to be but a staff of reed for the Pope▪ I answer, you dally with the holy scriptures unsufferably. The argument if it will help you should be this. Whosoever in a Council when there is great disputation riseth up & speaketh, he is head of that council; yea and of the universal church. But Peter in a council, when there was great disputation rose up and spoke: therefore he was head. I deny your first proposition: as strained against scripture and light of reason. And I would pray you in sooth to answer, whither in the many contentious Councils which have been since the Apostles days, there have not been sundry men that rose up and spoke when there was great disputation: and whither they were all heads of the church therefore. That which you add, of Peter's composing the great disputation by his authority; is not of the text, but a gloss of your private spirit.  
Your 
† S. 74. 7●  extenuating of the Apostle james his authority, who spoke last, and gave 
‡ Krino.  judgement or sentence v. 19 showeth how partial you are for S. Peter. But I will cease from answering words of wound. Let him that readeth that scripture judge, whither of the two had the chiefest place.  
Your exception 
S. 76. p. 116.  that it is not said Peter spoke those words risen but when he was rising; (as if you would put a cushion under him to sit down again:) is altogether unworthy to be answered. For, (besides that the very same speech is used of Gamaliel, as I told you, in Act. 5, 34.) you might even as well say, that Peter went not to joppa risen, but when he was rising, Act. 9 39 and that Peter was sent to go 
“ Act. 10. 20.  to Cornelius, and Paul to go 
* Act. 22. 10.  to Damascus, not when they were risen but when they were rising: seeing there is one and the same 
† Anastas.  word and phrase used in all these and sundry other like places. But such traditional expositions of holy scripture, is your church fain to use for want of better, to bolster up her pre-eminence.  
Gamaliel (you 
‡ S. 77. 78.  say) spoke rather as a friend then as a judge: as a Cardinal in the Pope's conclavi, rather than as a Pope. Be it so: yet he 
Act. 5. 34.  rose up I trow when he spoke: so then rising up to speak, is no proof of superiority: and you might have spared this strife about your frivolous reason.  
Yet from Act. 13. 16. you 
“ S. 79. p. 117.  would gather by Paul's rising up in the Synagogue, that he was chief preacher. Well, let your argument from rising to speak, be laid up in the Pope's conclavi: for to prove his pre-eminence if need be, to speak in a church, as Paul did in that synagogue.  
You bethink you, and turn 
* S. 80.  back to your other pervered place of 2. Pet. 1. 20. cited (as you pretend) by you thus, No prophecy is made by private interpretation, which you say I call and do not prove a bastard phrase. I answer you twice cited it, private spirit interpretation, and had written it so this third time, but blotted out the word spirit. Your own hand writing therefore convinceth you of untruth, not me of bad conscience as you charge me. I did and do call it a bastard phrase; as being of your own or of the Pope's begetting, for th'Apostle Peter neither spoke nor meant so. You add to his 
idias epiluseos.  words, and therefore are reproved of God, Prov. 30. 6. you swary from your authentik Latin 
† Propria interpretatione. Englished by Mr. I. A. private spirit interpretation.  translation, and therefore are reproved by your own canon law.  
I proved by the scriptures, Ephe. 4. 4. Rom. 12. 4. etc. 1 Cor. 12. 4. 8. 9 etc. that there is but one spirit which all God's people have; though in diverse measures; as man's body hath but one soul or spirit to quicken it. This you not being able to deny, do wound away, and except; 
‡ S. 80.  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 infer then, that so it belongs to the head of the church and not to every craftsman, to interpret scriptures. Why: are there no members in a man's 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, Priests, Doctors, jesuits etc. they are not the head of the church: yet you think them higher than 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 devil incarnate Pope john the 22. and in other your monstrous & wicked Popes; as your own friends do witness against them. Then had those beasts a private spirit; worse than any an honest craftsman: than it belonged not to them to interpret scriptures. No nor to your Priests and jesuits unless you will make them heads? A little after, 
S. 82.  touching Pope Stephen, who repealed the decrees of his predecessor Pope Formosus: you would have him to do this, not as the head of the church, but out of the violency of his private spirit. I like well of your answer, and think the very same of all the Pope's traditions: and therefore the private spirit, which so oft you entwite me with; I return into your own hands, to be kept as the Pope's Depositum.  
You pretend, 
“ S. 83.  that for all the wickedness of some Popes, God hath still preserved the unity of faith in your church. And that never any Pope by his definitive sentence did define heresy. I answer, if the Pope may be judge as with you he is, I warrant you he will never condemn himself of heresy. But if God's word be judge, many heresies are easy to be found in your late council of Trent and in many Pope's decrees. Which will come to be scanned in particular doctrines, after these general grounds are ended.  
Your digression 
* S 85.  to another writer, I omit: you may seek answer (if you please) of himself.  
And your author ●o whom you 
† S 88  send me for satisfaction about your Pope's power of dispensations, I shall read when I have leisure thereto.  
Your 3. Argument you 
S. 89. p. ●19.  set down now (upon your memory) otherwise 
3. Arg.  then ever before, thus. That which hath still been a rule to them that have erred, cannot be a certain 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 nought:) for the private spirit, we 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 fallacy putting that for the cause▪ which is not the cause. The scriptures never led any into error: but unlearned and unstable persons, pervert all scriptures (as the Apostle 
† 2. Pet. 3. 10.  saith) unto their own destruction: the cause hereof is not the scriptures but men's corruption. The Pharisees perverted the doctrines spoken by our Saviour Christ himself, yet I hope you will not deny but his heavenly words was a certain rule to direct all in faith. So the proof of your minor, faileth you.  
Against your first proposition, (which you say is most certain) I except as not plain, and so deceitful. That which is a rule to them that ere, (understanding, of it own nature and properly) cannot be a certain rule to direct all in faith. But now to assume, that the scripture is such; were blasphemy. Again, That which is a rule to them that ere, (to weet a rule by accident, through their ignorance or malice abusing it,) cannot be a certain rule to direct all (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 me, as you boast: let the lookers on, give verdict.  
Your 4. argument you omit, through oversight I suppose, only where I showed by 1. Cor. 11. 19 Act. 15. etc. that contentions were in the Apostles times, and composed by the scriptures, not by setting up a supremejudge or Pope: You 
‡ S. 91. pag 120.  answer barely, they prove rather the● must be one visible supreme judge to decide controversies. We are th●n at a point. Let him that readeth the 
see p. 70.  scriptures and reasons which I there alleged: judge whither of the two, they do rather prove.  
Your 5. (which you 
5. Arg. S. 92.  call your 4.) argument, is, that we believe many things, which are not reveled in holy scripture etc. I told you and tell you again, that I do not (howsoever you may) believe any thing needful for my salvation, which is not reveled in the Holy scriptures: 
† In those things that are plainly set do●n in the scriptures all such things are found as concern faith hope & charity: Augustine de doct. Christ. l. 2, c. 9  neither will I use other weapons against Arians, Anabaptists or any heretics that acknowledge the scriptures to be of God. This therefore is no argument to convince me at all. You insult for that I will not show my particular proofs against those heresies. I told you this were to digress from our present controversy. Propose you arguments and I will answer you for the cause in hand: else multiply not words in vain.  
You now plainly answer 
* S. 94.  that God's word as it is extrinsical the word of God, and to be known of us, depends of tradition and the authority of the church. This I reject as an heresy. For when we read or hear the books of Moses or the Prophets, we read that which is spoken to us of God, (Mark. 1●, 26. compared with Math. 22, 31.) that which the Spirit of God speaketh to the church's Rev. 2, ●, 11. now not to believe or rest upon this ground, but to rely upon man's record, is to make the testimony or man greater extrinsically to us, than the testimony of God; contrary to 1. joh. 5, 9 and maketh men liable to the curse, jer. 17. 5.  
You reply unto Act. 26, 22. that in tradition nothing is spoken beside, that is, contrary, to the Apostles speeches. First this is untrue, many of your church traditions are both beside & conntrary to the scriptures; as when we examine the particulars will appear: and you dare not subject your church and traditions, to the trial by the scriptures: but you will have men's faith extrinsically to depend upon your church. Secondly you wind away by terms of your own: beside, that is contrary; whereas the Apostle saith, nothing without (or except) that which the Prophets and Moses said: none other thing. Your allegation from 2. 2. Thes. 2. is answered in my former writings.  
You further allege for traditions, Act. 15. 41. & 16. 4. I answer all Apostolical decrees (such as are there mentioned) we do receive: but yours decreed by the Pope, are Apostatical. Secondly you may see that those which they delivered, were written before, Act. 15. 23. 25. 28. etc. 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 written: joh. 20. 30. 31. 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17.  
Here you interlace 2. other points comp●●ing the grounds that we 
The 4. & 5. parts after handled.  and that you do go upon: and you handle them largely in 55. sections. I will first follow on with your 6. part, (at S. 153.) both because that was the course of our former writings: and the examining of the things alleged for your Pope, will give light touching these other points, which also I will consider of after; in his place.  
The second of your assertions (which now you make the 6. part of your longsome pamphlet) was. That the Pope's 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 
S. 153. etc. pag. 134.  have added, the Pope's definitive sentence at least with a general council. And this you say, you are to show: and we (say I) are ready to behold your shows. Here I find no argument by you set down to conclude your assertion; as was in the former points: which is an other declaration of the weakness of your cause. Heretofore to help the Pope, you fled to S. Peter's prerogatives: which were 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 again flee to them; and labour to repair your shows of Peter's pre-eminence, which I by the scriptures had pulled down.  
And first you 
* S. 157.  say, that out of the whole series of them, and the circumstances; and not, only out of each particular, you draw an infallible argument. I answer, the particulars I have proved to be by you wrested: so the whole series and rank of them, can conclude not hang sound for you.  
Your 1 show was S. Peter's naming first. I told you this is usual, but not always; and to help you (because you complayn● cited not the 〈…〉 see joh. 1. 45. where Andrew is named before him; Gal. 2. 9 where james is named before him, Mar 16. ●. where mention is made o● the disciples and Peter: so 1 Cor. 9 5. the Apostles, brethren of the Lord, and Cephas. Though if he had been always first named, it proves him not to be the head of the church: more than the first foundation, Rev. 21. 19 will prove Paul; as I showed you. Here you 
* S. 160.  boast that Exod. 28. 18. 19 confutes me: where the jasper (you think) is the sirt stone, and so not the 12. for Benjamin. I answer, an ill translation hath deceived you. For Moses there showeth 
† V. 20  that the stone jaspeh (whereof the Greek jaspis, Arabik jasp, Latin jaspis, and English jasper are naturally derived) was the ●2▪ and last in the breastplate, and so for Benjamin, (who was the last born of the patriarches,) to be graved upon, Exod. 28. 9 10. 21. This your own learned Linguists as Arias Montanus and others do acknowledge, and so correct your translation. So the best of the jewish Rabbins, as Maimony, who saith, Benjamin was written on the jaspeh: (Misn. lib. 8. Treat. of the vessels of the Sanctuary, chapt. 9 S. ●.) And thus Paul of Benjamin, hath colour to be the head of the church, as well as Peter.  
You 
S. 159.  press Mat 10. 2. the first Simon called Peter: Andrew (as you think) was first in years & first in caling: for proof you cite Ambrose on 2. Cor. 12. I answer, first Ambroses' human authority is no proof for Peter pretended divine headship. Secondly Ambrose saith not that he was first in years, (put that therefore among your own traditions:) but 
Homil▪ 5●▪ in Math.  Chrysostom (if you will rely upon men) maketh Peter elder than Andrew. That which Ambrose saith is, Andrew followed our Sav: before Peter, this I hold true, by joh. 1. 40. 41. but it is one thing to follow 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. with Luk. 5. 8. 10. That Andrew therefore was an Apostle before Peter, I deny by warrant of scripture: & thus I wink not, (as you write:) but with Calvin I confess Peter to be first of the Apostles.  
You grant, 
‡ S. 〈…〉 pag. 135.  by that I alleged, from 2. King. 2. Dan. 3. that such miracles as Peter's walking on the water, prove no headship of the church: so than this also you brought but for a show.  
3: I corrected your error in translating him for it, in Mat. 16. 18. restraining that to Peter, which Christ promised to his whole church. You stand to it 
S 162▪ 16●  stil. But first against human learning, for autes the feminine gender, cannot accord with Petros the malculine: as it can and doth with Ecclesias the Church. You plead also against true religion: for I proved by Io●. ●0. 27. 28. 29. that all true Christians are invincible of h●l g●●●s, and not Peter only. Here you burst out and cry, that if I understand it in the calvinistical sense that one once justified can not be again the child of wrath, it is (you say) a most horrible falsehood, and against the holy scriptures. Rom. 11. 20. 21. Rev. 2. 5▪ I answer, I understand plainly as Christ saith that his sheep shall never p●rish, neither shall any pluck them out of his hand; but he will give them e●er ●al life, joh. 10. 28. that it is not possible the elect should be seduced 〈…〉 Christ, Mat. 24▪ 24. for God putteth his fear in their hearts that they shall not depart from him: jer. 32. 40, and Gods gifts and caling are without repentance, Rom. 11. 29. and they that are born of God cannot sin unto death 1 joh. 3. 9 And these things accord well with Rom. 11. 20. 21. etc. for by faith we stand: but all men have not faith, 2 Thes. 3. 2. there is a vain faith, jam. 2. 14. 17. 20. from that men fall: and there is the faith of Gods elect, Tit. 1. 1. and this faith justifieth, Rom. 4. 3. 5. & 5. 1. and from it men never fall finally. They may fall into sin by infirmity, but shall not be cast off▪ for the Lord putteth under his hand: Psal. 37. 24. yea though they fall seven times, yet they rise again: but the wicked fall into mischief Prov. 24. 16. This is my faith: and your contrary Popish heresies I abhor.  
You deny not 
* S. 164. pa. 13●.  but your Popes may be reprobates and damned in hell. I trow then hell gates do prevayl against them, and so the promise in Mat. 16. 18. perteyns not unto them. You except, the Devil prevayls not against the Pope as he is head of the church, as he defines e● cathedra. Yes doubtless, therein he most prevayls against him, because he allures him into Christ's 
† Colos. 1. 17. 18,  place, and so makes him Antichrist. And if you had the mind 
‡ 1 Cor. 2. 16.  of Christ: you would no more regard what 
‖ Rev. 9 11.  Apolluon the P. of Rome, defineth ex cathedra, (unless he could prove it by the holy scriptures:) than what Apollo the D. of Delphos divined ex tripod.  
4. Your fourth show from Peter's confirming his brethren, being confuted by scriptures, Act. 14. 22. and 15. 41. 32. etc. you now say, the other Apostles confirmed not 
“ S. 165.  as the supreme pastor, not 
* S. 166.  as the head of the church by office. I answer, neither did Peter so: if you add that to your wrested text, God will reprove you, Prov. 30. 6. and your human testimonies (which you abuse also) shall not save you.  
You digress 
† S. 165.  to entwite me with gross corruption of the text, for Englishing presbyteros an Elder. I am loath to follow your outroades: only let me tell you, that you check herein your authentik Latin translation which turneth it 
‡ 2 joh. 1. 1  Senior, and 
‖ Act. 20. 17  Major nat●: and▪ in your divinity, Englishing both Cohen▪ Hiereus, a Priest, and Zaken, Presbuteros a Priest, as if these were one you deceive the simple with a sophistical equivocation. And you may as well say the Apostles were idiots, because they are called idiotai. Act. 4. 13. as say Christ's ministers are Priests (understanding sacrificing Priests,) because they are called Presbyteri.  
5. You daily again 
† S. 167. pa. 137.  about Peter's feet first washed, as some suppose▪ I let you alone with your fancy: let the reader judge whither it be a fit proof for his headship.  
6. So for Peter's martyrdom, whence you conclude it was promised 
S. 168.  to Peter to be head of the church. It is a bold untruth: the text saith no such words, proveth no such thing.  
7. Your 7. show was gathered also from a false translation, restraining, they began, Act. 2. 4. to Peter as if he began: which being but a guess, you now shrink 
* S. 169.  from that, to the next passage in v. 14▪ etc. where from Peter's sermon you would prove him head of the church. It is a world to see, what shifts you are driven to: the very naming of them, is to all wise men ridiculous. But if Peter for first preaching was head of the church: that Pope which first left preaching, was the head of the Beast: and so all your unpreaching Popes (at least) are Antichrists.  
You grant again 
† S. 170. pag. 138.  that the first miracle, which you uncertainly supposed S. Peter wrought, Act. 2. 11. doth not solely convince what you would: & herein I believe you. But I marvel at your discretion, that think a number of futilous and worthless arguments being heaped together, would persuade any unto popery, unless they be such as are spoken of Prov. 9 16. who so is simple let him come hither. And here you are too lavish of your tongue, in saying I cannot deny but our Saviour caleth Peter the rock, first washeth his feet, that Peter booth the first miracles etc. I denied the first, and you cannot prove the latter. Though were they all granted for Peter, yet your applying them to your Pope, is altogether groundless.  
The first 
‡ S. 171. 17●  excommunication by Peter, infers (you think) that he was head. Before you urged the act: which being proved insufficient, now ye flee to the first doing of the act. At the most this showeth but primacy in order; (which I granted:) seeing Paul and others did the like. But by your manner of reasoning, whosoever doth any thing first, shallbe head of the church. And why I pray you, by like reason should not those Popes that first practised Simony, sorcery and hypocrisy; be heads of the man of sin. You leave 
‖ S. 174.  it for the reader to judge whither all these reasons together show not that Peter was rock and head of the church. I also refer it to judgement. And if your vain shows for Peter be not sound proofs for your Pope: then he is left naked, as the heath in the wilderness, jer. 17. 6.  
I proved by the scriptures Mat. 28. 18. 19 20. joh. 20. 21. 22. 23. Act. 2. 4. that the other Apostles had equal office, charge and power, with Peter himself: you answer 
“ S. 175.  the places prove nothing: and if aught, it is equality of order & not of jurisdiction. Thus you resist the truth without reason: it were well if you would add 
* Prov. 16▪ 23.  doctrine to your lips. When all the Apostles are sent by the power of Christ, with like words and authority: when the rest (as Paul) do whatsoever Peter himself did▪ in word, prayer, Sacraments, censures, miracles etc. you barely say, they were not equal in jurisdiction. You weary me with your own words, and repetitions without proof. Seing God's word moves you not, let me try what mans will do: The rest of the Apostles (saith 
‡ Cyp▪ de simple. pr●l,  one of your Doctors) were verily the same that Peter was, endued with equal participation of honour and of power. Being blamed for your making Peter head and rock of the church, which are Christ's peculiar titles: You answer, he is the ministerial & subordinat head to Christ: as Christ is the 
* S. 177. pa. 139.  foundation, 1 Cor. 3. 11. & yet the Apostles are foundations, Eph 2. 20. I answer, first God's word no where caleth Peter the head: and why will you be wiser then God? Secondly the Apostles, because they laid the foundation which was Christ, as Paul showeth, 1. Cor. 3 10. 11. therefore the Church is said to be built upon their foundation, Eph. 2. 20. And in this they were equal: if any excelled, it was Paul, who laboured in laying the foundation more than the rest, 2 Cor. 12. 11. 1 Cor. 15. 10. In this sense if you speak of ministerial head, that by the ministry of the word Peter preached the head Christ, the thing is true, but the phrase is not good: it was true in Paul also as much as Peter, yea & in all the Apostles: 
† Act. 1. 2. 3. 4. 8.  and thus all Christ's ministers at this day, minister and preach him the head, which the Pope doth not. But you feign a thing which never was, that Christ should substitute Peter for head in his place & absence: no scripture tells you this, but the contrary, for Christ being 
‡ Mat. 28. 20.  present and 
: Rev. 1. 13. and 2. 1.  walking with his churches, needeth no vicar. And this title head, God in his word giveth only to Christ: Col. 1. 18. Yet you, leaving God's word, fly to your S. Basil for succour: that all men may see, your church and prelacy, is built on the sands of men's traditions, not on the Rock of divine oracles.  
You will not from it, 
“ S. 178.  but Peter signifies a rock: which I have disproved; and showed that Petros of Petra the Rock, and Cephas of Ceph, is no more than to be a Christian of Christ. Peter was a principal stone (yea the first if you will) laid upon Christ the chief 
* Eph. 2. 20.  corner stone, the 
† 1 Cor. 10. 4.  Rock: all Christians are 
‡ 1 Pet. 2. 5.  living stones laid on him also. Your racked allegations from Augustine and other Doctors, I will not spend time to confute: for I build my religion upon the Rock Christ, & not upon men.  
Your 
‖ S. 179.  reason why the gender was not changed in Christ's name as in Peter's, is for that all which admitted of his doctrine would not deny him to be head of the church. I see you love to say somewhat unto every thing. I also may say, all which admit of the Pope's doctrine, will not deny Peter to be head of the church: so (by your argument) there was no need to change the gender for him neither. And so the scripture hath done something needless: or else your answer is fruitless. How you save Optatus credit, and yourself from blame, for falsely interpreting Cephas a head, contrary to the holy Ghost, joh. 1. 43. who interpreteth it a stone: I leave it for the learned to judge.  
Your exception 
* S. 180. pag. 140.  that Peter was not elected to be the mouth of the rest, was refelled in my former writing, if you would rest: for Thomas, Philip, Jude, were not elected any more than Peter to speak for the other disciples, joh. 14. 5. 8. 22. yet you will not have them heads.  
So your distination of the Apostles equality in power of order, not of 
† S. 183.  jurisdiction; is a bare repetition of a thing never proved, but before refuted And where you add, equal as they were Apostles but not as they were Bishops: it is mere trifling, you might as well say, equal as they were men, but not as they were living creatures. For they were no otherweise Bishops, then as they were Apostles. And in Act. 1. you may see that judas his Episcopee or Bishop's office, was no other than his Apostolee or Apostles office, Act. 1. v. 20. compared with v. 17. 25. 26. Besides by 1. Cor. 12. 28. and Ephe. 4. 11. you may see the Apostles were by office the first in the church: that if the other were equal with Peter in the Apostleship (as you grant); they were equal also in all power: that if you resist any longer, you will be condemned of yourself. Your succession grounded but upon men's report, I allow not of, for you build on bogs.  
Your understanding 
* S. 184.  of that admonition Rom. 11. 20. 22. etc. is partly true, and against yourself in that you written before S. 162. partly it is frivolous, while you dream of more previlege to the See of Room and Bishop there, then to others churches and Bishops. You have no colour for this in the testament of Christ: yet is it the main thing that you should prove, if it were possible. No city in the world remaineth so execrable by God's word, as Rome for killing Christ of old, by her power and policy: and for being antichrist's throne. Rev. 17. and 18.  
It is worth the noting, that you 
† S. 185. pa.▪ 141.  do not hold the Pope is necessarily endued with God's holy grace. And that in matters of fact he maysyn (you say) as well as any other. Your Pope's facts I am sure prove this, if any should have the face to deny it. Hereupon I infer, that your Popes are not members, and so not possibly heads of the catholic church of God. It is high blasphemy to say the head of that church may want Gods holy grace, Colos. 1, 18. etc. & 2, 19 How now do you know that the traditions and definitions of your graceless Popes, are of God? If you try them not by the scriptures, (which you dare not, because of the private spirit,) they may deceive and damn your soul, as well as any other men. You say, you hold a necessary assistance which the Pope hath of the holy Ghost, as he defines ex cathedra. And upon what ground hold you this? You find in God's book no mention either of your Pope, or of his Chair, for good. The Apostle Peter directeth us to that which holy 
‡ 2 Pet. 1. 21.  men of God spoke: not to that with Satan's slaves do teach: such as was P. Silvester the 2. of whom Cardinal Benno 
Ben. in vita Hildebr.  writeth, that he came up out of the abyss (or bottomless deep) o● divine permission. And by the same answers of the Devil's whereby he had deceived many, he was also deceived himself, & was intercepted with suddayn death, by the judgement of God. And yet will you trust such a miscreant; that out of his chair he will tell you none but divine oracles. Never was there such a thing known since the beginning of the world, that a graceless reprobate, should have necessarily the assistance of the holy Ghost, so often as he sits him down on his chair, to define or determine the matters of God. No religion on earth (to my knowledge) ever admitted such an unreasonable doctrine; for which you have no proof, unless from the Popes own ungracious spirit: whereby he exalteth himself against all that is called God, 2. Thes. 2 4.  
Notwithstanding you 
* S. 186.  labour to justify your S. Leo that said the head (meaning I trow your ministerial head at Rome,) infuseth grace to the whole church: & that God took S. Peter into the fellowship of the individual unity. And do you, in earnest, believe these things of your reprobate Popes, as of S. Silvester the 2. of that Devil incarnate S. john the 22. & their like? I perceive it is not without cause that the scarlet coloured beast, is said to be 
† Rev. 17. 3  full of the names of blasphemy. And here you say I see your religion is no upstart religion, that so many years ago was maintained. Yes, upstart it is, but many years ago I grant: for the mystery of iniquity did work even while Paul lived, 2 Thes. 2. 7. & he told how after his departure 
‡ Act. 20. 29  grievous wolves should enter, not sparing the flock: under the name of wolves, comprehending it may be 
2 Tim. 4. 17 jer. 50. 17.  Lions also and all other savage beasts. Wherefore Antichrist is an old man, though you mistake, as if he were yet scarce in his cradle. 2. You help S. Leo, as meaning that which S. Peter said, of such as should be partakers of the godly nature, I answer, first this is a very friendly interpretation, that the fellowship of the individual unity, should be but participation of the godly nature which all Christians are partakers of. A man may thus interpret the Familists blasphemy, that they are 
“ H. N. Evan regni c. 1. S. 1.  Godded with God. But I will take S. Leo at the best. Secondly therefore I answer, that this speech of Peter was to all the Saints, that fled the corruption which is in the world through lust, 2. Pet. 1. 1. 4. so that S. Peter's privilege, will get little hereby, much less the Popes. For these graces have not appeared in many heads of your church, but the contrary, while your Popes followed the corruption in the world through lust, (as yourself deny not:) so then such were not partakers of the divine, but of the 
* joh. 8. 44.  Devil's nature. And now consider what grace they have infused into your church. But for this participation you say, S. Greg. the 7. prayed to S. Peter. I think we shall have a 
† Luk. 11. 2.  God of him anon. You say, nay, but that he would be an intercessor. And herein say I, you make him Christ: for there is, as the scripture telleth us, 
‡ 1 Tim. 2, 5.  one God, and one mediator between God and man, the man Christ jesus. 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 world 
jam. 5. 16.  availeth much as th'Apostle telleth us. Yet for all this, I think the Pope will scarce pray unto you, as he doth to S. Peter▪  
Whereas I said one of your Canonists called him 
* Cum inter. in gloss. extrav. Io. 22.  our Lord God the Pope: you first 
S. 187.  charge me with untruth, as if I said your Canonists and so made it an ordinary style of the canon law. I answer, you mistake my writing, wh●re you may see it said, one of them. But had I written as you say, you need no more blame me for untruth, than a paynim might cavil at the Evangelist, for flying that the thieves reproached Christ, Mat. 27. 44. when it was but one of them that did so, Luk, 23 39 40. You say, 
‡ S. 1●7.  in a written copy in the Vatican library, the word God is not found; but, our Lord the Pope. I rest in your report: for the blasphemy was so gross, as I think you are all ashamed of it. Yet that so it hath been divulged by yourselves in other copies, you cannot deny. And I trow you are not ignorant that your Pope is called God oftener than once: for see what is also written, Clement. in proem. in Gloss. and Council Lateran. Sess. 4. sub Leo. 10. Therefore you would help it by scripture, alleging Ps. 81. 6. I have said you are Gods etc. I am sorry that you set yourself to justify all grossness. Our Lord God, is a peculiar phrase to the only true God; not to magistrates called Gods by office: much less to any Usurper. But if you will needs have it so, let the Pope be called God of the Papists. D. Stapleton saluteth 
* In Epist. ant. princip. doct.  Pope Gregory 13. as his supreme Numen (or God) on earth. He was not therefore of the Prophet's religion, who said, whom have I in heaven (but thee oh Lord) and there is none on earth that I desire besides thee; Psal. 73. 25. Yourself have written the Pope to be the Universal Pastor, joh. 10. & he (as I told you) is one with the Father, joh. 10. 30. and you retract it not. I know no reason, if you hold this still, why you may not say as the Apostle Thomas said to the true Universal Pastor, Christ; My Lord & my God: joh. 20. 28. and pray to the Pope, as did that unclean mouth which said, 
† Paul. 〈…〉 mill. lib. ●●  o thou that takest away the sins of the world have mercy upon us.  
Your opinion about deposing Princes, I am not ignorant of, as you 
‡ S. 190  suppose. Your Mr. the Cardinal 
‖ Bellarm. tract. de Potest. S. pontiff, in temporal.  hath lately written more than a good deal hereabouts. But I forbear to urge this point, lest you should think, I went about to ensnare you. I wish more good unto you.  
For a conclusion you 
* S. 191.  repeat your former scriptures together for S. Peter's pre-eminence. I refer you, and all, to my former refutation of your shows. Only I will answer where you add now somewhat more: as you say, The Angel directeth Peter to go before them as their Captain, Mark. 16 17. This is a palpable perverting of the scripture: for the Angel there speaketh of Christ to the women; go tell his disciples and 
pag. 142.  Peter, that he goeth before you into Galil●e, there ye shall see him, This which Christ had promised to do himself, Mark. 14. 28. and now performed it, Mark. 16. 17. you falsely apply unto Peter: to prove him head and Captain: and so by Peter's feighned Captainship, to intrude your Pope as head and Captain; so thrusting out Christ. Did ever men offer such abuse to God's word as you do?  
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? Marry Magdalen was there before Peter, joh. 20. 1. why do you not make her head? But you falsify the scripture: for it saith they ran both together, but the other disciple did outrun Peter, and came first to the monument. That which the holy Ghost witnesseth of john, the other disciple: that do you ascribe to Peter. How unsufferably do you wrist the scripture? What lies (may we think) will you not preach to your seduced people, which may not read the scriptures: when you write thus to me? But any thing is good enough, to help your Popes: like proof like prerogative.  
Thirdly you add, S. Paul came to jerusalem 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. Peter's preeminencie, it might have some colour for the Bishops of jerusalem: but for the Pope of Rome none at all. No more then as if one should reason thus, judas betrayed his master: therefore the Pope is Antichrist. I think you will not grant the conclusion, though it be truer than yours. I further answer, that Paul there proveth his authority to be no way inferior to Peter's, both by his caling, v. 1. and his behaviour after his caling: for he went not to jerusalem to them which were Apostles before him, but (as he saith) unto Arabia, and turned again unto Damascus, v. 17. then after 3. years he went to jerusalem to see Peter, which being compared with his words and deeds after, Gal 2. 6. 7. 8. 11. etc. argue rather Paul's Privilege, than Peter's. For his going to Peter, will no more debase him, than the mother of our Lord, who went into the hill country to Elizabet, with whom she tarried much longer than Paul did with Peter, Luk. 1. 39 40 43. 56.  
And now we have seen your plea for S. Peter: I will show how a man might plead better for S. Paul, that he was the head of your Catholic Roman church as you vainly call it. 1. S. Paul was called to his office, not by S. Peter but by jesus Christ, Gal. 1. 1. 2. S. Paul received the doctrine which he preached, not from S. Peter but by revelation from jesus Christ, Gal. 1. 12. 3. S. Paul laboured in preaching the gospel, more than S. Peter did 1. Cor. 15. 10. 4. S. Paul went and preached without so much as conferring with S. Peter or the rest, Gal. 1. 16. 17. 5. The gospel over the uncircumcision (that is the Gentiles among whom Rome was chief) 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 written, and opened clearly the great mysteries of Christ, in his Epistles, more than S. Peter or any Apostle. 8. S. Paul's writings are by S. Peter himself reckoned among the holy scriptures, 2 Pet. 3. 15. 16. 9 S. Paul rather than any other Apostle, was called of God to preach at Rome: Act. 23. 11. 10. In his voyage to Rome he was marvelously saved from shipwreck, and very memorable accidents fell out beside in that journey, Act. 27. and 28. 11. S. Paul preached the gospel and suffered persecution in Rome, and stood for the truth, when no man there assisted him, Act. 28. 30. 31. 2 Tim. 4. 16. 12. S. Paul preached at Antioch where the name Christians was first given Act. 11. 26. 13. S. Paul. withstood S. Peter to his face, and blamed him when he did amyss, Gal 2. 11. etc. 14. S. Paul first casteth out the Devil of divination, Act. 16. 16. 15. He striketh Elymas the forcerer with blindness, Act. 13. 8. 11. 16. S. Paul in visions was taken up into the third heaven, into paradise, 2. Cor. 12. 2. 4. 17. S. Paul in nothing was inferior to the very chief Apostles, 2 Cor. 12. 11. 18. He was of that tribe, whose precious stone is the first foundation of the heavenly jerusalem, Rom. 11. 1. Rev. 21. 19 Exod. 2●. 10. 20. 21. Therefore for all those reasons S. Paul was head of the Catholic Roman Church. Here I appeal unto any unpartial reader, whither my proofs for S. Paul, be not stronger than yours for S. Peter: and whither the Pope was not overseen to choose S. Peter for his patron, whom he cannot prove by any one title of God's word, that ever he set foot in Rome gates: & to leave S. Paul, who was called of God to preach there, and did so a long time, as the scriptures do confirm. Yet for all this, you will not grant that S. Paul was head of the church: therefore say I, neither S. Peter: and as for your Pope, he hath no more ●ight to show for the same, than Mahomet.  
We have seen your proofs from scripture: you add unto them, Doctors And here as before you 
* S. 192. 193. 194.  bring in your forgeries of Clemens, and Dio●ysius▪ etc., with other wrested testimonies of the Fathers. Who all of them if they said as much as you would have them, had no authority to make an head for the church. Secondly whatsoever they said for Peter, it proveth nothing for your Pope. He must therefore show better evidence for his usurped prelacy; or else he must still be reputed the adversary that exalteth himself, 2 Thes. 2. 4.  
You proceed, 
† S. 195. pag. 144  and say that S. Peter's authority must be derived to his successors, lawfully elected and governing at Rome. This is the main point, which I would fain see proved. You could prove it by express 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: who for the main ground of your religion & church, whereof 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 human testimonies & traditions of men. I deny that Peter left any such successor in his office as you dream of; and for the Pope to challenge it, is to follow the violency of his private spirit, as you 
‡ S. 82.  said of Pope Stephen.  
Now let us hear your reason. Christ gave the power of preaching &c. (you say) for the good of others to the world's end. This I grant. So Christ nstituting S. Peter the head (you say) would have that pre-eminence derived to his lawful successors. All this I deny. 1. He made not Peter head, much less his successors. ●. He appointed no such successors after Peter in his office. 3. If Peter were to have successors, the Bishop of Rome, hath no more to say for it, by warrant from Christ, than all other Bishops in the world; who for preaching, ministering sacraments, and governing their flocks, have, and ever had, equal power with the Bishop of Rome, when he was at the best. Thus after your long and tedious dispute, you conclude with a fair 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 sound now you have proved your sixth part, viz. That the Pope's definitive sentence at least with a general council ●t. is a sufficient groundwork of faith: let any indifferent reasonable man give sentence.  
Here I did not dare you (as you 
‖ S. 196.  say) to bring in the arrows of the fathers &c: in an other place it was, that I gave you leave to use their reasons if you pleased; but not to press me with their bare names, as your manner is to do. And in all your long discourse, let the reader mind, what any one scripture or reason you have had by the help of Doctor, Father, Council or Pope, to prove your assertion that the Pope's definitive sentence is to be a ground of our faith.  
You 
* S. 197.  object (and that often) that unless I will eat my word, you must prefer the uniform consent of the Fathers, before me. I answer to your often repetitions, this. First I spoke of more, and others, than you account holy Fathers: yea I included such, as I doubt not but you would burn for heretics. Secondly, I spoke and again speak it unfeighnedly as is in my heart: being privy to my own manifold ignorances and infirmities; and esteeming of others better then of myself. Thirdly therefore I say, believe not me, but believe the word of God which I show unto you. If I speak of myself, tread it under your foot: but if I speak the words of God, in despising them you despise the Lord, sinning against your soul. 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. 
† Sanctorun patrum authoritas, ad assentiendun ipso●um dictis neminem compellit nisi in divinis fundata fueritscripturis, aut divinae innitatur revelationi Saith Biel, Lect. 41. sub con. Mis.  Leave therefore your disdaining 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. Pet. 1. 24. 25. Finally, you are far from an uniform consent of the fathers to prove your heretical assertion. Though many of them were mistaken in some things: yet were they not so senseless as to believe that graceless reprobate Popes, must needs have such grace as to desine nothing but truth out of their chair. But you that have abused the holy scriptures, as I have proved: what wrong will you not do to the fathers.  
You are 
‡ S. 199.  moved I see, with my free applying of the scriptures that speak of Antichrist, unto your Pope. I am content to bear your contempt: but I must call evil evil, and faithfully witness what God hath manifested: though men 
* Rev. 16. 10.  gnaw their tongues for pain.  
You go about 
S. 200.  to prove that the Pope is not Antichrist. First, 
† S. 201 pa. ●45.  for than it should follow that hell gates have prevailed against God's church many 100 years etc. I answer, nay: For it is prophesied the woman (the church) should flee into the wilderness, where God should feed her 1260. days, Rev. 12. 6. which may be so many prophetical years, as Dan. 9 24. though therefore the church was persecuted into secret places, yet hell prevailed not against it. In the old world, the church was but in that one family of Noah: Gen. 6. 1. Pet. 3. 20. And Christ likeneth these last days, unto those; Mat. 24. 37.  
Again you except, how many martyrs, Doctors etc. in offering up homage to the beast should broil in hell. etc. I answer this is no proof if it were as you infer. But howsoever it is true the soul that sinneth shall die; yet in many things we 
‡ jam. 3. 2  sin all: and the blood of jesus Christ cleanseth us 
1 joh. 1. 7.  from all sin (except the sin 
1 joh. 5. 16  against the holy Ghost,) even from our 
* Psa. 19 1●.  secret sins. Although therefore many Doctors helped up Antichrist unawares: yet doubt I not, but God's mercy hath superabounded above all their sin, and saved them, for they did it ignorantly.  
Your 2. reason 
† S. 202.  is, Antichrist shallbe one particular man as joh. 5. 43. another shall come in his own name so he is opposed by 
‡ joh. 5. 43.  Christ person to person etc. but the Popes are many successively. And 2 Thes. 2. he is called the man of sin etc.] I answer, when Christ said Another shall come, he meant not one person, but many of one kind successiuly. My reasons are, first because he said elsewhere, 
Mat. 24. 〈◊〉.  many shall come in my name, saying I am Christ: and there 
“ v. 2●.  shall arise false Christ's, & false Prophets. Secondly because Antichrist is described as a Beast, Rev. 13. which beast in the Prophets signifieth a kingdom, and many persons of one sort, as is said in Dan. 7. 23. the fourth beast shallbe the fourth kingdom etc. So the Lion was for all the Kings of Babylon, the Bear, for all the Kings of Persia etc. Dan. 7. 4. 5. & so by proportion that deformed beast Rev. 1●. for all Popes. Thirdly because the word [Allos] another, which Christ useth, often noteth many particular men of one kind; as in joh. 4. 37. one soweth and another reapeth: which he expoundeth in the next words, v. 38. other man laboured, (meaning the Prophets) and ye (my Apostles) enter into their labours. And thus the man of sin, though he be one person at once, yet successively meaneth many: as when Christ saith, joh. 10. 10. the thief cometh not but to steal: he restraineth it not to one thief in person always; but meaneth every thief whensoever he cometh. Fourthly Antichrist cannot be one singular man, as you think; because he must reign at least 1000 years: as may be gathered by Rev. 20. 4. where the godly which worshipped not the Beast, lived & reigned with Christ 1000 years during which time the Beast persecuted and killed them: also by the woman's lying hid in the wilderness so many days, Rev. 12.  
Your 3. reason is, 
* S. 203.  Antichrist shallbe of the tribe of Dan, as Gen. 49. 17. Dan shallbe a serpent etc. jer. 8. 16. the neyghing of horses was heard from Dan. etc.] I answer, first you show no reason that this is meant properly of Antichrist. And if figuratively, it is nothing to the purpose: for Antiochus, Nabuchodonosor and others figured him also. Secondly, jakobsprophefie (which was a 
† Gen. 49. 2●.  blessing and not a curse as Antichrist is) was literally meant of Samson, a man of that tribe, (called therefore Bedan, 1 Sam. 12. 11.) who for his subtle undermining of the Philistines, was likened to a serpent; judg. 14. etc. And thus the Chalde paraphrast on that place expoundeth it, saying: There shall be a man which shall be chosen & rise out of the house of Dan, whose fear shall fall upon the people's, and he shall valiantly smite the Philistians as an adder, as an asp he shall lie in wait by the path, he shall s●ay the strong horsemen in the host of the Philistians etc. That of 〈◊〉. 8. is meant properly of wars in those costs of Dan; in those times: not of Antichrist now, as the whole scope of the scripture there manifesteth.  
Your 4. reason is, 
‡ S. 20●.  Antichrist shall oppugn the mysteries of our saviour 1 joh. 2. 22. and extol himself above all that is said God 2. Thes. 2] I answer, this is true in your Popes: for they oppugn Christ in his office, of prophesy, priesthood and kingdom; in their heretical doctrine of man's merits, mass sacrifice, purgatory; etc. and in making laws for the church; in forbidding people the holy scriptures in their mother tongue, and many the like. Though this is done, under colour of meekness and holiness; for the beast hath 2. horns like the lamb, as if he were Christ's own vicar. Rev. 13. 11. If you rest not in the scripture, let S. Bernard move you: who witnessed that 
* Bern. Ep. 125.  the Beast in the Revelation which hath a mouth speaking blasphemies, occupied Peter's chair.  
Your 5 
† S. 205.  reason is, The 7. mountains in Rev. 17. are said to be 7. Kings▪ none of whith agree with the Pope.] I answer; yes, the seventh agrees very well. For the woman is the great city, Rome. Rev. 17. 18. the beast on which she rideth, hath 7. heads, which are expounded there to be both 7. mountains and 7. Kings. Rev. 17. 3. 9 The 7. mountains are famous through the world, as Palatinus, Capitolinus, Aventinus, Esquilinus, Caelius, Viminalis, Quirinal●s: on which mountains Rome was builded. The 7. King's are also the 7. governments of Rome, renowned also in histories. As by 
‡ Cornel. Tacitus l. 1  Kings, by Consuls, by Decemiviri, by Dictator's, by Triumvirs, by Caesar's, by foreign Emperors and Popes. Therefore when john written, the five first were fallen & removed, Rev. ●7. 10. and one (saith he) is; namely the sixth, by the Caesars: and another is not yet come, which was the foreign Emperors, (as Trajan the Spaniard, and the like,) who when they came should continue but a while, Constantine going to Byzantium, and the Empire being overrun by the barbarous Goths &c. And the Beast (saith he) 
v. 11.  is the eight, and is one of the seven: meaning the Popes, who by an Ecclesiastical government differ from the civil Emperors, and so are an eight: yet because they reign together with the Emperors, they make as it were one regiment, and so the eight is one of the seven, as the scripture saith. And that the word King doth signify a kingdom or regiment, appeareth by Dan. 7. 17. where the 4. beasts are said to be 4. kings meaning kingdoms, as is explained in v. 23. the fourth beast is the fourth kingdom. 
“ Likewise in Esa. 23. 15.  So this exposition is plain, and according to truth. And thus, notwithstanding all that you have brought; the Pope remaineth Antichrist.  
And think it not 
“ S. 206.  much that Antichrist is so ancient. The jews look for Christ; and he is come 1600. years ago, but they know him not: You look for Antichrist, and he hath been 
† 2 Thes. 2. 7  well nigh so many years in the world, and you are not aware. If you read the book of the Revelation judicially, (God opening your heart,) you may discern that mystery of Babylon which yet is hidden from your eyes. And for pre-eminence forbidden to Christ's ministers, see Mat. 20. 25. 26. Luk. 22. 25. 26. That which you allege of Tit. 2. 15. shows the power & authority of the word duly preached and applied to men's consciences, and is not peculiar to the head of the church the Pope, (for you see Titus there had it;) but it is common to all Christ's ministers.  
You turn back 
S. 20●. etc.  to your general argument, which I had confuted. How good a defence you have brought, I am content to let the prudent reader judge. Only where you 
† S. 209.  charge me with falsehood for saying the Pope with you is above the law; which you deny in my sense: I answer, my sense is according to your own explication, that 
‡ S. 94.  extrinsically and as it is to be known of us, God's word depends on the churches (that is the Popes) authority. He putteth Apocryphal lying books in to the holy canon: his interpretation (though absurd and heretical) must stand for authentic: and a definition of his ex cathedra, you reverence as an oracle. And he dispenseth against God's law. Is not he now above? yea he sitteth as God in the Temple of God, as Paul prophesied, 2 Thes. 2. 4. 
The 3. of your assertions The 7. part   
The third thing which heretofore, (the seventh thing which now) you should prove, is, that the indeficient rule of our faith is only to be found in the [●●man] catholic church sentence, and not in private men's illuminations etc. I hold neither of these, as I told you before. You labour again to maintain the former. First you prove this, 
“ S. 213.  in that the Roman church (you say) is the only true & catholic church. I answer. You fayrly beg the question; and would prove it is so because it is so. You speak untruly, in calling her the true church; proudly, in caling her the only true church: absurdly, in caling her the catholic (that is, the universal) church. None of all these, can you make any proof of you refer in the margin to S. 123. and let men look what proof they can find there. I for the present refer you and all, to your own Cardinal Baronius testimony of your holy church as he found it in his ancient records, and put it in his Chronicles thus. 
* Tom. 10. Annal. an. 928. S. 8.  What was then the face of the holy Roman church? how filthy was it, when most mighty and eke most filthy whores ruled at Rome? at whose pleasure, seats were changed, Bishops were given, & which is horrible and vile to hear, false-popes' their paramours were intruded into Peter's seat etc. Lo here the beauty of that Catholic church, whose sentence you say is the indeficient rule of your faith.  
You are 
* S. 214. pa. 147.  glad that I refuse the name catholic: and I am glad of, and content me with that ancient name of a Christian given of God, Act. 11, 26, keep you your new fangled name of your own divising, to be called a catholic, that is, an Universal. I envy you not.  
You are very 
† S. 216.  angry that I proved unto you the marks of your Roman church, by the word of God; which you had set down without proof. You had cause rather to be thankful. But now the reader may see, how having nothing sound to reply, you wilfully persist in your error, for which I am sorry. Your reproaches I bear with patience.  
Leaving your former reasons helpless: you 
‡ S. 218. 〈◊〉.  conclude with a common argument for your church & religion; That seeing your faith is confessed to be so ancient, if it be not from God, it must be grounded on carnal motives, viz, the profit of the spiritual or the temporal. But it is not (you say) for the profit or pleasure of the clergy, as appears by their charity , vows, fasting▪ praying etc. Nor of temporal Princes, for how should so many Emperors, Kings etc. be brought to confess their sins; fast, etc. I answer, first your religion in some points of it is ancient I confess, even as ancient as the Apostles days, when the mystery of iniquity begun to work, 2. Thes. 2. 7. & men loved pre-eminence, 3. john. 9 & many Antichrists went abroad, 1 joh. 2. 18. which were foretunners of the great Antichrist following. Who was to be reveled when he that then letted, (viz. the heathen Empire) was taken out of the way, 2. Thes. 2. 7. 8. But yet the truth of the Gospel preached by the Apostles, was more ancient, 1 joh. 2. 24. which therefore is to be our rule and stay: not human doctrines that came up after. Secondly I answer, the ambition, profit and pleasure of the Bishops and Priests, were the motives unto this height of evil. For histories record the 
* See Eusebius l. 8. histor. c. 1.  contentions that were in churches, and among Bishops, (especially of Rome and of Constantinople,) who should be greatest. This made P. Gregory to say 
† Greg. l. 4. Epist. 38.  the King of pride is at haud and (quod dici quoque nefas est) an arwie of Priests is ready for him. I wish you would believe this Pope's tradition, here. As for Profits and pleasures; who seeth not, that Christ and his Apostles being poor, 
‡ Luk. 8. 3. joh. 12. 6.  and Peter himself having neither silver nor gold to give a needy man, Act. 3. 6. Your clergy have gotten such patrimonies, falsely purloined in S. Peter's name, as they are of the richest in the world; their treasures infinite, their palaces like Kings, 
‖ Vehiculis insidentes, circumspectè vestiti, epulas curantes profusas; adeo uteorū convivia regales superarint mensas: saith Ammian. Marcell. l. 27.  their apparel prince like, their Kitchens full of the finest fare; the plesantest & fertilest lands in all countries being engrossed for the clergy; & for church livings. Their doctrines of Purgatory and pardons, being only to pick men's purfes. Their vows of chastity, being to desile themselves in filthy Sodonne, adultery and fornication▪ witness the 6000. children's heads that were found murdered in P. Gregory's fishpond, which moved him to reverse his own wicked decree that restrained the Clergy from their wives: besides infinite other testimonies of these evils, in other places. Their fasting being a mere mockery, to abstain superstitiously from the flesh of beasts and fowls; and to fill themselves with the flesh of fishes, with bread and wine and oil, and all such juncates. Their prayers being vain repetitions of their Paternosters, Avees, etc. upon beads in an unknown tongue. Albeit many poor people in blind devotion, have (I grant) suffered many hard things in their penance, such as Paul caleth things which have a show of wisdom, in voluntary religion and humbleness of mind, and in not sparing the body. Colos. 2. 23. So that in very deed, there never was a more carnal pleasing religion in the world. As for the Kings and Princes, they have had their necks under the Pope's girdle, partly against their wills, by the Pope's fraud and tyranny treading them under his feet: partly by superstitious fear of the Pope's curse, and of purgatory fire & such like bugs, wherewith they were kept in awe. As for the Popes, they were privileged by their own decrees, viz. That neither the Emperor nor Kings, nor all the Clergy might judge the Pope; as Pope Silvester 
* Coranz. sum▪ council. in 16. f. 46. ●.  did enact. Because the Pope is subject to none but God, as said P. Symachus. Cap. 9, q. 3. Aliorum. So it came to pass, as the scriptures foretold, that 
* Rev. 17. 1●  Kings gave their power & authority to the Beast; and 
† Rev. 18. 9  lived in pleasure with that whore; and 
‡ Rev. 18 3  all nations were drunken with the wine of the wrath of her fornication: and 
Rev. 13. 3. 4.  all the world wondered after the beast, worshipped him, and said, who is like unto him? etc. And though the vials 
“ Rev. 16.  of God's words wrath are now already in great measure powered out upon that kingdom of sin, yet many will not believe that it shall fall, till in 
* Re. 18. 10.  one how● the judgement thereof come, when also they will bewail it: but 
† Re. 18, 20.  heavens, and the holy Apostles and Prophets will rejoice, when God hath given their judgement on it. These things I pray you seriously to consider of: and the Lord give you understanding. 
The 4. & ● parts.   
And now, (having done with your replies to the former matters,) I will speak of those interlaced paragraphs which you bring in S. 98. &c: of the vicious circle as you call it, wherein you think we walk, proving (as you say) the authority of the scripture by the private spirit, and our private spirit by the authority of the scripture etc. But your Catholic opinion 
S. 114. etc. p. 125. etc.  you say you will defend from such an idle proof and circular resolution of your faith.  
I answer; first you do me wrong to set down my assertion so: if you would deal honestly and plainly, you should express an other man's meaning in his own words. But you set down vanity, and spend many lines in framing objections and answers of your own. I refer the reader therefore to that which I said in my 2 former writings, and shall more fully set down here.  
Secondly, I told you heretofore, 
‡ pag. ●5●  that if I had to do with a Turk or Pagan, that denied our scriptures, I would give him other grounds: but dealing with you that profess to be a Christian, and allow the scriptures to be of God; it is enough to confute you by the scriptures. Yet now, as if you were about to turn Turk, you call for proof that our scriptures are God's word. And you regard not my former convictions, nor your Mr. the Cardinal's 
* See p●. 57●  reprehensions of your errors, though you before referred me to him.  
Thirdly, in going about to clear yourselves of this idle proof as you call it, (which yet you can never do) you go upon grounds wherewith Turks and Pagans may be moved to give credit unto the scriptures: which was no part of the controversy between you and me: and you lay down motives 
* S. 11●. etc.  persuading to Christianity, which are nothing unto Popery, and Antichristian traditions against which I dispute. For these causes I shall not follow you in your ranging movable waves, but will set down first the things that we hold, and reasons of them: secondly I will use some motives which may persuade any reasonable man, Turk or heathen; to incline unto our religion, rather than to yours.  
1. We hold all the writings of the Prophets and Apostles, to be of God, full of heavenly wisdom, inspired by his spirit: 2. Pet, 1. 21▪ and 3 16. 2 Tim. 3. 16.  
2. That therefore they are of divine authority; and unfallible truth▪ wherein the creature is bound to rest, as in the word of the creator: and sufficient to make men wise unto salvation. Many reasons there be to persuade men, that the scriptures are of God: some principal, which are from God himself: others secondary, which are from men. God himself testifieth the scriptures to be of him two ways. Outwardly, whereby he prepareth the heart unto faith, by motives of credibility: and inwardly whereby be assureth the heart of the believer.  
The outward motives are: which God giveth us in the word itself.  
First in the Holy scriptures there is a Majesty wisdom and grace of writing, differing from all other writings in the world; which the mind of man (if it be not blind) may see and discern to be of God; as the eye discerneth the light of the Sun, from the light of a torch or candle: For God hath showed as great wisdom in the Scriptures, as in the making of the world. Psal. 19  
Secondly the doctrine itself or institution in the scriptures, excelleth all human doctrines and laws, as leading us from ourselves, from this world, & from Satan the prince of it; unto God, in faith, love, holiness, fear, humility etc. And these things far passing the reach of any earthly creature naturally to conceive or comprehend fully, though he be taught: much less could they be by men devised.  
Thirdly the prophecies, which shine through all the scriptures, persuade this. For as God convinceth all heathens idols, and Gods, to be vain, because they could not prophesy; and proveth his own sole deity by this foretelling of things to come, & performing them, Isa. 41. 22. 23. 24. 26. & 44. 7. 8. 26. So the Holy scriptures, by the prophecies and true events of them, may be discerned to be divine, and of God: from all other writings in the world.  
Fourthly it appeareth by the consent and agreement of all the parts of the Holy Bible, though written by several men at several times, even hundreds of years one after an other, and that also after diverse manners, some histories, some prophecies, some songs, some parables, some epistles etc. in all which notwithstanding, there is an harmony; that no one writer in any place, crosseth or convinceth an other of error or falsehood. The like whereof, is not possible to be showed of half so many writers, that ever so agreed together in their writings, since the world began.  
Fiftly, the efficacy of the scriptures, & powerful working in the hearts of all sorts of men, illumining the mind, changing the affections, sanctifying the whole body, soul and spirit of men, that have read and heard their words: Whereby all other false religions have been confounded and abolished, and this hath been established against the forces of the devil, and of the princes and powers of the world, and sense of the flesh, and natural mind of man: All which do manifest that these cannot but be of God.  
The inward testification of God, is by his Holy 
* 1 Cor. 2. 10 11. 12. & 14 37. 1. joh. 2. 20.  spirit, which illumineth the mind, to understand the things given us of God, writeth them in our hearts, and sealeth up the assurance of the promises that are in them, unto the believing conscience.  
The secondary testimony that the scriptures are of God, is from men: as,  
First the Universal consent of churches in all ages, of the jews first, and after of the Christians in all places, which have received, believed, and obeyed the Holy scriptures, as the Oracles of God: yea even Antichristians themselves acknowledge them to be from heaven.  
Secondly the multitude of men that have given their lives, for defence of these scriptures and doctrines taught in them, yea even the heretics themselves, who thought their errors were confirmed by these scriptures and therefore died in them, are not excluded from this motive; which is such, as the like can not be showed of any book under the sun.  
The first outward proofs, which God hath engraved in the scriptures themselves; are sufficient to convince all men, and make them without excuse. For as the invisible things of God, that is, his eternal power and godhead, are to be seen in his works the creatures; Rom. 1. 20: so the invisible things of God's word, the powrfulnes, wisdom and all-sufficiency thereof unto man's salvation, are to be seen in the Holy scriptures: which 
Psal. 19 7. etc.  they that believe not, will not be persuaded though one should rise again from the dead: Luk. 16. 31. And if God will damn the wicked, that do not by his works discern him, and honour him as God: much more will he damn the profane, that do not by his scriptures discern his holy will, and obey the same.  
The inward testification by the spirit of God in the believers heart, is for the comfort and assurance of every one that hath it: not for any outward proof to others, much less to the wicked which have it not, neither can perceive it. In vain therefore doth Mr. I. A. and the papists, call for manifestation of that, which they can not discern: and cavil against the spirit, as not a due outward proof, when we allege it not for that end.  
Now will I set down some motives which may draw any reasonable infidel (if God shut not up his heart from understanding,) to come ●ather unto true Christianity, with us the Reformed churches: then unto Catholikisme or Popery, with the Romists'.  
First we allege for the trial of our faith and religion, the most ancient records in the world, as Moses, and after him the Prophets: and the Apostles & Evangelists, first founders of Christian religion through the earth. But Papists dare not stand to these, but allege for the trial of their religion, later new records of Doctors, Councils, Popes etc. Now in all reason, that which is most ancient, should be most true, both as Gods 
† Deu. 32. 17 jer. 6. 16.  law showeth, and as Tertullian also heretofore 
‡ In lib. advers. Pra●. c. 2.  pleaded.  
Secondly, we allow all men (by that common light and judgement which God hath graven in the heart of man, & which is the ground of all expositions,) to read, hear, examine, and judge of our proofs, reasons, testimonies; and therefore ●o● exhort all, to have the scriptures, 
‖ joh. 5. 39  and to peruse them: and to 
“ 1 joh. 4. 1.  try the spirits of all men. But Papists allow not their ignorant disciples▪ ●o read or hear the scriptures in their mother tongue, nor to try their doctrines, & spirits (which is 
* joh. 3. 2●. 21.  a sign that they are not of God) but do captive all men's judgements unto the definitive sentences of their Popes: which is as if men should put out their own eyes, that the Pope might lead them blind.  
Thirdly, the grounds which we build upon, namely the Prophets and Apostles writings, are both 
* Mal. 4. 4. Luk. 16. 20. 31. 2 Pet. 1 19 & 3. 2.  commanded of God, and by Papists themselves, the scriptures are acknowledged to be of God, authentik and canonical, so that we build upon the Rock, even our adversaries being judges. But their traditions, and Pope's decrees besides scripture, are 
† Deut. 12. ●2. Isa. 29. 13. Mar. 7. 6 7. 8. 13.  forbidden of God, and allowed of none save themselves, neither do we acknowledge, or can they ever prove them to be of God, any otherwise then Mahomet may warrant his Alkoran: or the jews their Thalmud.  
Fourthly, the writers of our grounds the Holy scriptures, were all 
‡ 2 Pet. 1. 21 Rev. 18. 20. Luk. 13. 28.  holy persons, governed by the spirit of God; and not any one of them was a reprobate. But the writers and determiners of popish traditions, have been many of them (and that by the papists own confession) most wicked and vile persons, that sold themselves unto sin and Satan all days of their life, and got their popedoms some by simony and bribes; some by schism and sedition, and other like evil means. Therefore in all reason, they are nothing so worthy to be believed or rested upon, as the sacred writers on whom we depend.  
Fiftly, the Holy Apostles & Prophets (to whose writings we cleave) preached not 
‡ Isa. 8. 20. 2 Cor. 4. 5. 1. Cor. 3. 57  themselves, but God's law and Christ: drew no 
“ 2 Cor. 1. 24.  man to subjection unto themselves but unto God: sought not in their doctrines or writings their own wealth or worldly preferment, sold not the Gospel, nor 
* Act. 8. 18. 20. 2 Cor. 2 17.  made merchandise of it: Whereas Popes (on whose definitive sentences Papists do rely) preach themselves; as, we declare, (saith 
† Extra. de Major et obed. unum linked.  P. Boniface) we define, and pronounce, that it is altogether of necessity to salvation, that every human creature be under the Bishop of Rome. So other their traditions and definitions, tend to the maintenauce of their own pomp, dignity, worldly wealth and pleasures; for their Pope's bulls, pardons, and blessed reliks are set to sale for money; so are their Priests masses and Trentals, as the world well knoweth: and therefore of all natural wise men are justly to be suspected: and the holy Prophets to be preferred much before them.  
Sixtly, the holy writers whom we depend on; are all of such authority and credit, as we admit of proof from any one of them because they all teach one faith and obedience. Whereas Papists send men to Bishops, Doctors, Fathers, Councils, which disagree one from another: so making great show of them to the simple; whereas themselves as often as they list, refuse the judgement and exposition of their father's doctors &c. as is to be seen in Cardinal Bellarmine and others, that often do refuse the sentences of the Fathers: and conclude with the Council of Trent or definitive sentence of the Pope.  
Seventhly, the scriptures that we build upon do all agree and are ●one contrary one to another, but how ever there ●ay seem contradiction, yet they are easily even by themselves reconciled if men will labour in them. But Papists have also for their rules of faith, Apocryphal book and fables, wherein are many open lies and unreconcilable contradictions against the Prophets, as Tob. 12. 15. compared with Tob. 15. 18. 1. Maccab. 6. 16. with 2. Mac. 1. 16. 2. Macc. 1. 19 with 2. King. 25. judith. 9 2. 3. with Gen. 49. 5. 6. Esth. apopcryph. 12. 5. 6. with Esth. can. 6. 3. and 3. 2. Esth. apoc. 11. 2. with Esth. can. 2. 16. besides their Pope's determinations for making and worshipping of similitudes or images, of silver and gold, wood and stone, hethenlike: for having the worship of God and scriptures in a barbarous tongue which the people understand not, and many the like; are expressly contrary to the commandments of God; as any man of common judgement may evidently preceive; yea & some of their Popes have repealed the decrees one of another; as before hath been manifested.  
Eightly, The sum of our faith learned from holy scriptures, is to trust on God and Christ alone for mercy and salvation; not on creatures, as Angels, and souls of men, nor on ourselves or human merits: whereby we resting on God, 
* joh. 10. 29 Rom. 8. 38. 39 Luk. 10 20. and 12. ●2. Heb. 10. 22.  have, and do profess to have full assurance of our salvation; and so have peace of conscience, in life and death. But Popish faith learned by tradition, teacheth men not to trust on God and Christ alone, but on the intercession of creatures, and Pardons of Popes, and on their own merits also for salvation: whereby their consciences accusing them, they neither have nor profess to have such peace, by full assurance that they are heirs of God unto salvation, as we: nay they rage against this truth; as against an heresy.  
Ninthly, The holy scriptures which we rest upon, are of such power and authority that many thousands in their ages have given their lives for the defence of them, and of the things taught only in them; yea even heretics have died for things which they have erroneously thought to be in the scriptures reveled. But for Papists, they cannot show many (if any) that have willingly given their lives for such doctrines as have only been taught by men & by unwritten popish tradition▪ and not in their judgement by the prophetical and Apostolical scriptures.  
Tenthly, the Holy scriptures which are the rule of our faith, have prophecies of things to come, and due accomplishments of the prophecies as they were foretold: whereby we are confirmed of the truth and infallibility of those writings. But the writings of Doctors, Councils, Popes, on which Papists rely, are destitute of this confirmation, Neither doth the Pope use to prophesy; though it were necessary, if he would as Christ's vicar obtrude his own decrees for divine oracles, seeing the testimony of jesus is the spirit of prophesy, as the Angel said Rev. 19 10. Nay rather the prophecies of 
† Rev. 13. & 17. etc.  scripture plainly foreshow the Church of Rome to be the whore of Babylon, and her Lord the Pope to be Antichrist. Which he fearing it will come to light, forbiddeth therefore his subjects, the reading of God's book.  
Eleventhly, Papists themselves are forced in disputing against jews (which were once God's church, and from which they themselves with us received the books of Moses and the Prophets:) to use only the holy scriptures and prophecies to convince them: for their Romish church & traditions, the jews do not regard. With these scriptures the Papists do rightly 
* Mr. I. A. sect. 41. 43.  think the jews are sufficiently convicted. Even so do we much more▪ (having the scriptures of the new Testament added to the old) rightly hold it sufficient to convince the Papists by the written word which they acknowledge to be of God▪ and they have no more reason to refuse this and draw us to their Pope's decretals, than the jews have to refuse the Bible, and draw men to their high priests, Rabbis and Thalmuds: or the Turks, to their Alkoran.  
12. Finally, grace, wisdom, and divine majesty appeareth in the holy scriptures, to all that read them (except they have a reprobate sense) even by the confession of our adversaries. But no such wisdom grace or majesty appeareth in Pope's decrétals, more than in other human writings: yea they are full of ignorance, grossness, barbarism, error, favouring of the Pope's private spirit; as any of understanding (unless they be the Pope's bondmen) will confess: and no singular grace appeareth in them, more than in the books of H. N. or Alkoran of Mahomet. For all which and sundry other like reasons which might be alleged: every reasonable infidel whom God will save, will rather incline to our grounds of ancient Christianity; then to the other, of late jesuitisme or Popery. Let him that readeth consider, and give sentence.  
By this which hath been written, you may see (M. I. A.) that we fly not for proof, to our private spirit, as you often slander us: but we say a Papist may be couvinced by the wisdom and majesty of God shining in the scriptures (and other arguments forementioned,) more easily than an Atheist can be convinced by the wisdom and majesty of God shining in the creatures. And if this later were sufficient (by th'Apostles 
† Rom. 1. 20. etc.  testimony) to condemn the heathens: the former must needs be more sufficient to condemn you: especially seeing you confess the scriptures to be of GOD: whereas the Atheist will not confess▪ the world to be of God: and yet you dare not abide the trial of your religion by this book of God, without your own traditions and decrees also. Whereas if you grant a Turk to be tried by the Bible and his Alkoran; or a jew to be tried by the Prophets, and his Thalmud, you will betray all Christianity.  
And when one ask you a reason why you believe the scriptures or any doctrine to be of God: you answer that 
‡ S. 91. pag. ●21.  extrinsically (that is outwardly) and in respect of yourselves, it is because your church (that is the Pope who is head of your church) telleth you so, and not by your own private spirit. Which is, as if one should ask, why you believe▪ the sun to be the light of the world; and you should answer extrinsically, because the Pope tells you so; and not because of any private sight or discerning in your own eyes. Ask you again, whither you know the Pope to be a man of God, furnished with his grace and spirit, that he cannot deceive you. You answer, 
S. 185. pa. 14●.  we hold not, that the Pope is necessarily endued with God's holy grace: for in matter of fa●t he may sin as well as any other. Ask you again, how then you trust such vile ungracious Popes as many have been, (by your own men's testimony?) you answer, 
* Ibidem.  you hold, the Pope hath a necessary assistance of the holy Ghost, as he defines ex cathedra, (out of his chair,) as the head of the church. Ask you a proof of this paradox: and you cannot bring any one line of God's holy scriptures to confirm it; you can neither find the Pope nor his chair there mentioned, any more than Mahom●t or the Alkoran. Then you flee to late human testimonies, of Doctors, Fathers, Councils, which also you wrist. Yet ask you, whither those Doctors were necessarily endued with the spirit of God, & could not e●r & deceive you. You dare not say this, nay in deed you deny it, whiles you refuse any doctrine or exposition give by Doctor, Father or Council, which the Pope approves not of: and this is ordinary to be seen in yourbooks. Follow you now still, upon what assurance you stay; & it is, your Pope is Christ's vicar, & cannot ere ex cathedra, because himself saith so. And this is to make him a God. For only God is the ground 
† Rom. 3. 4.  of truth, on whose word all creatures should rest. And so by this argument alone, if there were no more, your Pope is proved to be that man of sin which exalreth himself above all that is called God: & you are of those upon whom God hath sent strong delusion to believe lies, as the Apostle prophesied. 2. Thes. 2. 4. 11. Besides it is▪ against all reason to take a man's witness of himself. The law of 
‡ Isa. 44. 9  God and 
jon. ●. 〈◊〉.  Christ is against it; the law of man condemns 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 written unto you, God by me warning you of your fearful estate. Take heed, and despise not the mercy of the Lord, call you to repentance. Be not unsensible of your calamity & extreme peril, as he that sleepeth in the mids of the sea on the top of the mast, 
* Pro 23. 34▪ 35.  and saith, they have stricken me, but I was not sick; they have beaten me, but I felt it not. To day 
† Psal. 95.  if ye will hear the voice of God, harden not your heart; lest he swear in his anger, that you shall never enter into his rest. My prayer shallbe against your evil: and that you may find mercy unto life, if such be the will of God, Amen.  
From Amsterdam the 6. of November 1613. Your friend that wisheth your welfare, 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 defence of the truth, as you grant you have of the second attendement 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 
Her name was Har phastes if I well remember.  light only, should content himself so in the dark like Senecaes' poor blind woman who accounted all others to be blind, and that only she did see. But if you would as well have taken pains but even to have summed my reasons and proofs faithfully, as you vainly repeat so often your own: Mine and yours indifferently paralleled would have manifested long ere this the truth. But you conceal so my proofs, and so magnify your own, that it is no wonder your se●tar●●s prifeth yours as things of worth, when in deed they are but gaddie glass, and plain bristol stones in stead of Diamonds. And therefore as I remit you for all your slight reply to my former answer in so many sheets of paper delivered, so I remit your auditory, but to compare both for their satisfaction and manifestation of the truth if they be intelligible. It being a tedious thing to take so often such fruictless pain, as to plough 〈◊〉 so many sheets the barren sands. A short answer especially being not compatible to many unjoincted and scattered citations, were not your vanity therein sufficiently unmasked in the former. And since you do confess to be tired, as indeed I profess I am, but to read your slight stuff; I shall content myself to point out how you have satisfied me in no one point, referring myself to my former defence, which doth, and shall stand in force for aught therein that you can justly oppugn.  
To the first of mine wherein as I show that your reasons vanish of themselves, you keep a great pother to no purpose; Nay you overthrew yourself granting the unwritten word of God to deepde controversies, & that the law must be explicated by Priests. For as traditions, the unwritten word are included and implied in the written word, or belong to the explication or performance of the same; so also fasts, feasts, and ceremonies of the Church are virtually included in those general 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 contrary, as you do in your reply 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 refer to the indifferent reader; But verily I may speak and not from my own judgement, that your writings deserve no answer.  
I answer, apostolical traditions are to be taught as the word of God and to be expounded. what then?  
In answering my first reason feign you would re●ai● we with a spllogisme of your own▪ seeing that which is known for God's word is the rule of faith▪ which I deny not. But holy scriptures are known for God's word, which in your sense I deny▪ For they are not known by themselves but by tradition, and the authority of the church; For many pa●●ells of scripture have been doubted of by those that bragged of the spirit of God to discern scripture; And you neither save yourself from an infinite process in that kind, & if you could do that, how can you prove the whole Bible to be canonical, as I have proked?  
In my 32 parag: I fully satisfied your tortured places; and if I do leave out some places it is in that they are virtually answered in other places expounded; For if a man should examine each place you bring, we should never have an end.  
And if the scriptures be as clear as the Sun to be distinguished, it follows that they must be known of all, if you say of all his, you do petere principium, since every one will pretend to be his: I 
See 113.  proved also by the authority of S. Aug: that scriptures in Actu. 2 & to be known to others, requireth necessarily the authority of the Church, to which as to very many places more, you never answer. 
See from par. 97, 98, to 113. 145. 150. 151, 152, 154.   
You wrong yourself, and not I you, since you give just occasion to me to term the guide of your religion your private spirit; for the word ●p●ly befitts your grounds as I prove effectually; and I do convince that our faith is not subject to any such circular vagary, 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 will a matter of faith, but only doth declare it, parag: 69. 
See from the 113. to 153. left unanswered.   
And to what end should I answer him, that never answered me as I did proceed; but only by snatches which is not to answer me, but his own fancy and to fight with his own shadow? that vilefies the holy Fathers as earth and ashes? that allows of no rule of scriptures, but what his private spirit prefers? That condemns and contemns the name 
* which yet is found & believed as an article of your belief.  Catholic as a new idle upstart phrase? What shall I deem of him but as one that sits in cathedra pestilentiae ready to avoid, or deny any thing, and willing to pervert others?  
As for your motives; to propose which only, is not to answer mine; I refer myself to the judicial and indifferent reader to compare both together; see par: 109 120. 121. 122. 153. where I show how 
See the pre-eminence given to S. Paul by you, answered in C. Bellar: as also see those canonical. books defended that you term Apocryph.  you build on sands and spiders webs; and how we ground ourselves one the firm rock, and of those true notes of the ancient Fathers did defend themselves from heretics, see from 115 to 135. etc. Therefore since there is nothing in your present that is not abundantly cleared in my former: I desire you if you will further proceed that some way my last answer and yours, may be set down word for word: Or if you think not convenient, to avoid prolixity hereafter, I desire you set down all that shall be spoken or answered in form only; which proceeding will clear more the question in one quarter of an hour, and in a quarter of paper, than this kind of discourse and dilating will do in a quarter of a year and in a choir of paper. And thus having answered yours received about the beginning of June 1614 I end, desiring God to give you true humility to embrace the truth no doubt in your understanding seen.  
June 18, 1614 Your well wishing friend John Aynsworth  
And that many things to be believed are not taught expressly in the written word▪ I have often instanced, as the Sabaoth on Sunday, the Apostles Creed, the receiving fasting, kneeling and not sitting, eating of strangled meats, see parag▪ 92.  
The Conclusion.  
BEcause I am not willing to strive for the last word, I cease further writing about these matters, having nothing of weight left for to refute any more, seeing my opposite thus giveth over. I am content, that not only Mr. john Aynsworthes last answer (as he desireth,) and mine, but also that all the passages between us, be set down word for word, for any that please, to see and compare. Am willing also to answer (as God shall give me means) unto whatsoever Mr. joh. Aynsw. shall further set down in form only, as he speaketh: leaving the things that have passed between us, to the indifferent censure of the judicious reader.  
Henry Ainsworth   

Faults escaped in the printing.  
Pag. 5. line 3. for master sping, read, master springs.  
Pag. 65. line 8. before the end, read Prov. 8. 8. 9  
Pag. 68 line 22. for or Christ's, read of Christ's.  
Pag. 108. line 17 for in the same, read in the Sun.  
Pag. 139. line 2. for if it be proved, read if it proved.  
Pag. 142. line 4. before the end, for before their as there, read before them as their.  
Pag. 151. line 6. before the end, for law, ever; read law, as ever.  
Pag. 181. line 6. for God's words wrath, read God's wrath.  
The end.