Apostles or from Apostolicall men 23. And not without great reasoÌ„ doth God use that means both to ad estimatioÌ„ to his holy mysteries to preserve these pretious stones for the Jewellers that did know how to prise theÌ„ that even natural reason hath taught and that the very Heathen Philosophers have used therby to adde prise and to distinguish the fitness of the auditor Pythagoras therfore taught his schollars rather by word of mouth relation of others then by Dictats or writing Gallen also lib. 2. de Anatomicis Adminiculis declares how the auncient Physitians did preserve and teach their medicines and receipts onely by verball relation froÌ„ one from another Cicero 1. De legibus affirms that it is a great error in a well governed coÌ„mon wealth to have all governed by written lawes And therfore the most ancientest and famous Rabbines and not onely they but our Hyllarius and Origen doe teach that Moses had not onely delivered him the tables of the law in the mountaigne 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 testifie c. 14 5. I have declared to Moises many miracles and I sayd vnto him saying these wordes thow shalt speake openly and these wordes thow shalt hide and of such secret mysteries that of the Psal. 43. psal 77. Deutr 32. is to bee understood And in regard of these hidden mysteries Dyonis Areopag lib. de caelest Hierarchia â— 1. most diligently warnes Timothie That he should not disclose these things to the rude people So that we see God writ in Moyses heart many thinges that he did not write in the tables of stone This made St. Paul to speake the bidden mysteries in secrett and to give the little ones milk in that their weake stomackes could not brooke other meate And yet by pour rule Mr. H. Ainsw new borne babes like Ostreches should devour proÌ„ in freclie reading applying and epplicating the difficult places of scripture 24. Now since the second and third question are so neerely confined that the ending of the one is the begining of the other the ending of my reasons the begining of your answers and so requiring a resutation of them I thought good having in generall proved the necessitie of tradition besâ—des the written word to end my second part and with my particular proofes to begin the third poinct in interlacing the reasons answers replications together in order but both as breifly as I can 25. My first Reason to prove that the written word of God without the vâ—written word of God Tradition and the definition of the â—h is not the rule of faith in summe is this 26. That which is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knowen for Gods word go scriptures by themâ—â—lves are not the rule of faith 27 My Major is most certaine since nothing can be the indeficient rulâ— of all truth revealed and to bee revealed but the word of the first veritie God which is eyther the writteÌ„ word of God conteyned in the Prophets and the Apostlâ—s or the unwritten word of God coÌ„tained in Apostolical traditions definitions of the church and the uniforme consent of holie Councels and Fathers For still it is Gods or a Kings word whether it be immediately spoke by himself or by the mouth of another whom he authoriseth to speak or whither it be in writing And nothing else caÌ„ be unto us the rule to direct our faith except it first be knowen to be the word of God 28 My Minor is also true proved out of S. Augustine contra epistolam fundament Manich c. 5 Ego Euangelio non crederem nisi me ad haee commoveret Ecclesiae authoritas I should not beleeve the gospel except the authoritie of the church should move me thervnto Lanchius in his confess c. 1. and Brentius in his Prologo Kemnitij in examine CoÌ„cil Trident. Whitak contra Stapl. lib. 2. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policie lib. 1 pag. 84. et lib. pag. 200. et 142. doe all affirme that tradition of the church is necessarie to distinguish what bookes of scripture be scripture and what not And reason it self teacheth us since we doe not heare or see God or his knowen Prophets to write or speak this that is proposed unto us for the word of God most coÌ„venient it is least we wander in infinituÌ„ in proving the word of God by the private spirit and the private spirit by the word of God that there must be one certaine rule or depositum fidei and therfore St. Paul to Timothie â— 6. ch 20. Oh Timothee keep the depositum avoiding the prophane noveltie of voices and avoiding the opposition of falsly called knowledge which certain promising have eâ—red about faith and what that depositum is S Paul in his 2. to Tim 1. v. 13 â— 14 showes Have thou a forme oâ— sound of words which thou hast hâ—aâ—d of me in faith and in the love in Iesus Christ. Keep the good depositum by the holy ghost which dwelleth in us showing that Timothie 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 Trinitie Person Essence Consubstantial TransubstantiatioÌ„ froÌ„ one beginning Sacrament which the Apostle calls soâ—â—â—d words verba sana â— 29 You in 〈…〉 this my first a gâ—â—neÌ„t say that things may be belâ—â—ved though not gathred out of â—he written word understaâ—â—â—ng thâ—rby a humane and a common beleefe I know not what you mean by this except you would have Gods written word onely to be bâ—leâ—ved by a humane faith And therfore when I took you at your word and â—athered thâ—nce that some tradition or as you will terme it traditum is necessarily beleeved besides the written word For whâ— wee speak absolutely of beleefe in divinitie it is to be understood of a divine and not of a humane beleefe and when you speak of the cheef rule you say it may be bâ—leeved without the written word I might inferr that necessarilie it was to bâ— beleeved since you hold that the word of God is the word of God and that necessarily and so to be beleeved So that you may see that your water hath rather wet your shoes thâ—n that myne was spilt on the ground 30. 2. Wheras you say I doe vnjâ—stly condemn your assertioÌ„ that nothing to be beleeved is necessarie for salvatioÌ„ that is not taught by the written word I say most justly and I convinced you of falshood sufficiently when I sayd nothing is so necessarie to salvation by you as the written word which word is not proved by another written word of God To infirme which proofe of mine you produce two texts of scripture John 20 30 31. That
institutions c. Why did they in the printed Bible 1â—62 thrust in Rom. 11. Baals image which now Bible â—595 to corrected And if every image be an idoll as they translate it why Genesis the first can we not say God created AdaÌ„ according to his own idol And that all images in the old law were idols Exod. 25. 3. Regum 6. Why doe they make the Hebrew and Greek word that signifies hell when they list onely to signify the grave Though it be against scripture it self Gen. 37. I will goe down to the grave to 〈…〉 mourning which cannot signifie though racked in sense the grave since he thought his sonne to be devoured of wild beasts and so vnburied without a grave But when the self same word Prov. 15. speakes of the danâ—ied they translate onely hell how then can the parallising and coÌ„paring of one place with an other settle all doubts of the ignorant stop the mouth of the contrarie part who shall affirm that it is not the true sense Nay if scripture be a most manifest interpreter of it self Why did Luther that affirmed before this assertion of yours in assertione articulorum 10. damnatorum retraetate and recall that opinion of his before his death in colloq conviviali titulo de verbo Dei No man can vnderstand sayes he the Bucolica of Uirgil except hâ— be first five yeares a shepheard No man can vnderstand his Gâ—oâ—â—icks except he be five yeares a husbandman so let every man know that he hath not tasted sufficiently the scriptures except he hath governed in it a hundred yeares Nay if holy scriptures be so easy of themselves to be understood why doth Luther cal the epistle of S James stramineam and vnworthy of an Apostolicall spirit Why doth Beza writing on the eight chapter call into question the whole book of S. John when he averrs that it was not probable that our Saviour was left alone in the temple with a woman or that he did write in the dust with his finger My fourth argument you being forth thus That which by the lights lanterns of your opinion hath been wronged in the highest degree to bolster up heresie can not be a true and indeficient rule of faith You geaunt my assumption and you instance it in Luther Calvin Beza Onely to answer this you think it sufficient to say it is a rhetorical flourish No flourish that by your own confession hath flonge down your strongest pillars But you say it is the fault in them which willingly I graunt but with this addition that there is the like in you And I pray you tell me if all that have gone over such a bridge being in their right senses perfect judgmeÌ„ts have bene drowned would you think that bridge remayning thus unrepaired as it is a sure safe way So if all or most that have trusted to the naked and bare word of the scripture onely and to their own witts and spirits have grossely and dangerously erred wil you hold it so remayning an vndeficient rule Nay if the bare word so coÌ„firmes them in their errors that without some one common and visible judge they stil remain stiff in their errours can the bare word be the indeficient onely and the infallible rule But that it is so dispute against the Lutheran Calvinist Zuiâ—glian Anabaptist Protestant Faâ—â—list and they wil ell â—ite place of scripture interpretation for interpretation spirit for spirit â—ieng and reâ—ying you with places and spirits dictamâ—ns telling you long stories of the communication of the holy Ghost Wherefore I will conclude breifly this argument that the naked and bare word of the scripture cannot be an infallible rule and judge sâ—…t doth not make the partie overthrowen certaine that the sentence as much as lieth in the judge is passed against him which is the propertie of the sentence of every supreme judge that his decree be plainly seen and that without all contradiction the partie overthrowen in law may yeeld unto it For else there is no end of sentence no end of judgement if the partie overthrowen may with the like probability as before recomâ—nence his suite and offer plea without any â—â—d My fift argument which you put downe thus Many misteries of our faith are beleeved which explicitely are not declared in the word of God nor so infalliblie prescinding from all traditions of the church deduted thence so as they are sufficient to make a man beleeve with so firm an act of â—aith as is required Therefore that which makes that worthy of constant beleefe is a rule of faith aswel as the written word whether they be traditious divine or Apostolicall Now to all the places I bring to prove traditions How the world was onely governed and taught by traditions till Moses tyme who was the first pen-man of the holy Ghost and to that Ero. 14. Deu. 32. 37. c. you graunt that traditions were before necessary but you deny that they are now a rule of faith But you assigne no reason but onely this in disputing as if it were the total rule of faith where I would inferr onely that it was a partial togither with the word of God And whereas you object that these traditions spoken of in Deut. might for the Jewish Cabalists which are rejected by S. Peter 1. Pet. â— Tit. 1. 14 as vain conversation and Jewish fables Is plaine against the holy scriptures Deu. 32. interroga patrem tuum et anuntiabit tibi majores tuos et dicent tibi Ask thy father c. Ero. 14. Narrabis filio tuo in illa die dicens hoc est quod fecit Dominus Et Iob. 8. Iud. 6. Psal 43. Psal. 47. Eccles. 8 where it is plaine that the holy Ghost speakes of such traditions that are good to be followed not to be estemed vain idle fabulous To that of S. Pa to the Thes. is plaine that the Apostle speakes of that which was taught by word of his mouth yea of such traditions as you call humane in vs. For when S. Chrysost. comes to explicate the 2 Thess. 2. he explicates it so plainely for such traditions as wee have in controversie that D. Whitaker de sacra scriptura pag. 678. sayes that S. Chrisost. spoke in this point inconsiderately vnworthy of so great a father Therfore S. Paul and S. Chrysost vnderstood more here by traditions then you would willingly vnderstand And that not onely things of little consequence but of greatest moment are beleeved onely by tradition I prove manifestly since the Bible can not be canonicall without it were delivered by the hand of traditioÌ„ froÌ„ tyme to tyme as authenticke And besides how can you prove the procession of God the son and God the holy Ghost from God the Father as from one beginning or the consubstantilitie of the blessed Trinitie How are you able onely by bare scripture to prove the remedie in the old law vsed to women children for original sinne and
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 sayd For not by mans will was prophecie brought at any tyme but the holy men of God spake inspired by the Holy Ghost showing that the self same spirit whrewith they were writteÌ„ and resident in the church must interpret scripture And that you ought not condemne as you doe the uniforme consent of all the fathers of all ages and nations Thus dooth Mr H. A. as a boie hoodwinâ—kt at blindman buffe belabor himself and his own fellowes in stead of his adversaries 81. And that which I bring for congruencie for the primarie of S. Peter Act 15 ver 7. where he would gather that if the Gentiles were chosen by his mouth to heare the gospel that he was chosen also to preach unto them his inference is nothing to the purpose since we graunt the Popes primacie is from God and not of the election of men 82. I graunt that Pope Stephen the 7. called Stephen 6 did revoke many decrees which yet are not definitions of Pope Formosus in the yeare 89. But this argues onely a violence in fact and not an error in doctrine and faith And hence I inferr that it argues an essential assistaÌ„ce of the holy Ghost that could mainteyn his church though in the hand of the bad water the gardeÌ„ of the church through stonie water pipes make his arke of Noe to flâ—ate though in the tempestuous flood Genes 7 8. mainteyn 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 Councel he did approve onely 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 fel down and the Images of the church where Pope Formosus body was intombed did salute Formosus as Luitiprandus lib. 1. c. 8. witnesseth And though I graunt that Pope Stephen was a wicked man in the course of his privat spirit yet we may see the great respect that Fulco the Arch B of â—hemes did humblie 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 calles him Pope of happie memorie All which motives makes a strong argument for us that since of so many Popes so few could be taâ—ed though most of them unjustly of our adversaries yet for all the wickednes of some God hath still preserved the vnitie of faith that although all the other sees have had many hereticks that have governed Yet the sea of Rome had never any that by his definitive sentence did define heresie 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 condemne that heresie 84. The Canonists that you cite as to extend the power of the Pope above the lawe of God no doubt are falsly understood or cited But to disprove them in each particular I cannot in that I am not so wel read in the canon lawe and if I were I am in prison and have not commoditie of bookes and to send for 10. or 12. great volumes to look 3 or 4 places that I assure me are eyther falsly alleaged or injuriously applied will not quit cost especially since I convince you of one especial untruth hereafter where you say the Canouâ—sts call and esteeme the Pope our Lord God the Pope 85. But diâ—â—urnished of bookes as I am I thought good to let the authour to the protestant pulpit babell that hath no doubt seene pondered the decretalls answer you that on credit of some crackt cracking Crashaw that ingrosses such babels for whole sale whose citation or such like you are glad to reâ—â—â—le 86. For that which the author cites out of Decret 40 in appendice ad c. 6. The wordes of our Countreyman Boniface famous for sanctitie of life and justly called the Apostle of Germanie Where he setts down rather a historie then a decree of doctrine a matter of fact rather then a doctrinall definition True it is he sayes men rather sought instruction from the mouth of the Bishops then from mouth of holy scriptures and tradition Yet to show how farr he was from flatterie he showes that as the Pope may doe most good so he is eternally scourged with the Divill himself if he draw by his exaÌ„ple others into hell So that wee see he showes rather what was done theÌ„ what should be done As if a maÌ„should say such a maÌ„ is his Master it followes not that he should approve the unnaturall maistership Yea S. Boniface was so farr from preferring the Pope before God that in the self same canon he teacheth the contrarie in eadem appendice ad cap. 6. dist 40. Where he affirmes Christianitie doth depend of the Pope in secundo loco post Deâ— in the second place after God 87. And wheras Decretum distinct 19. â— 6 where it is sayd that the decretalls are numbred amongst canonicall scriptures that is to be understood in regard of the canonicall writings of the Councels and not in regard of canonicall writings of the scriptures in which sense both the begining bodie and end of the book showes that Cretian speaketh 88. As for that M. H. A. writes that the Pope can dispence against the lawe of nature you must know that things may be prohibited by the lawe of nature after a threefold manner First when there is a prohibition of a thing intrinsecall ill in it self and that by no circumstance it may be made good as to hate God or to lie and this is indispensable to the Pope 2. Other things are intrinsecall ill and prohibited till some matter or circumstance be changed as to steal in extreame necessitie or to kill and execute by publick authoritie and in these the Pope can dispence according to the cessatioÌ„ of the matter or mutation of the circumstance 3. Things in their nature may be commonly ill yet for the publick good there may be given some dispensation and so the Pope dooth dispense in mariages 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 hath still been a rule to them that have erred caÌ„not be a certain rule to direct all in faith But the scripture interpreted by the privat spirit as every one pretends given from God hath led many into dangerous most
Gods commandment Exod. 34. 27. so sufficiently written as Paâ—…th it is able to make us wise vnto salvation even perfect and perfectly furnished vnto every good work 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. away therfore with your partiall rule oâ— vnwritten traditions they may not be neyther are they any rule for our faith for noâ—e must prefume above that which is written 1 Cor. 4. 6. But you ad a clawse to your proposition thâ—s where the written word dooth not sufficiently erpress divers mysteries of vs to be beleeved And where is that trow we I your assumption this clawse dares not shew his face for there it would conâ—â—nce you of falseshood If you affirme it not how frivolous deceytfull is your argumet If you intend to assume it though you express it not for so elsewhere you blame me for not vnderstanding your reasoning then say â— by your assumption you intend a lye against the truth and a stander against me It is a ly against the truth to say that the holy bible which we have written dooth not sufficiently express diverse mysteries of â—s to be beleeveâ— If have before disproved this by evident testimonies from heaven which you cannot withstand Ioh. 20. 31 2 Tim. 3. 1â— 17. Rom. 1â— 25. 26. 1 Cor. 15 3. 4. Aâ—â— 26. 22 Ioh. 5. 39. It is aslander against me when you say I grant your Minor for if this clause be there intended I did and doo disâ—â—aym it Your conclusion can be no better then your premisses even false and fraudulent Which that you or others at least may the better espye I wil shew how you wrap vp things in confusion and darknes First Tradition which title you claym for your vnwritten mysteries is as well the word of God written as vnwritten 2. Thes. 2. 15. but you doo oppose it to the written word Secondly holy Tradition or Doctrine by word of mouth was delivered alwayes by holy persons even as holy Tradition or doctrine by writing was delivered alwayes by holy scriptures The holy persons that spake were eyther God himselfe as to Moses in the Mount to Iob in the whirlwind or some Angel as to Abraham Iaakob c. or some holy man of God as Peter sayth spake being moved by the holy Ghost So Abraham is called a Prophet and so vvas Iaakob and all the holy patriarches from Adam to Moses The manner of speaking the vvord vvas also diverse as by visions or by dreames or by playn speech mouth to mouth or by secret motion of the holy Ghost Novv you shevv not vvhich of these vvayes your traditions come onely you give vs a generall paralogisme vvhich vvill serve as vvel to maynteyn H. N. or Mahomet vvith their nevv Gospel and Alkoran as the Pope vvith his nevv Canon lavv For thus may Mahomet or the Familist reason that vvhich vvas a rule heretofore may be a rule stil but the vvord of God given by visions revelations and instinct of the spirit vvas 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 vvill persvvade as soone to Mahometisme or Familisine as vnto Popery Novv as for the persons there vvil be no disparagement For Mahomet himselfe or H. N. vvill as easily be proved to be holy men of God as Pope Iohn the 23. vvho vvas judged by the Council of Constance to be a divil incarnate and as other your reprobate Popes that vvere monsters among men for their beastly life til their dying day as your ovvn vvriters doo record and your selfe in this your vvriting deny it not nor defend them herein And novv I pray you tel me vvhy men may not be induced by your manner of reasoning as vvel to receive the Turks Alkoran and H. N. his Evangelium regni as your Popish decretals I find no more mention in Gods book that the Pope of Rome in the vvest 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 Popes name much less his provvd office spoken of for good in the Bible You tel us of the promise to Peter Mat. 16. and Mahomet telleth us of the promise of the comforter Ioh. 16 7. That the Pope is head of the church is as vnpossible for you to prove by Gods lavv as it is for the Turks to prove that Mahomet is that Comforter You vvould have vs take the Popes ovvn vvord for a vvarrant the Turks vvould have us take Mahomets vvord for a vvarrant The truth is these both vvith their new doctrines and traditions are the curse and scourge of God vpon the world because they received not the love of the truth therefore God hath sent them strong delusion to beleeve lyes as th' Apostle prophesied 2 Thes. 2. 10. 11. You proceed for vnwritten tradition cite some scriptures Deu. 32 â— Ps. 43. 1. Ps. 77. Pro. 1. 8. Esa. 38. 19. Ier. 6. 16. Ecclus. 8. 11. 4. Esd. 14. â— 2. Thes. 2. 15. 1. Tim. 6. 20 2. Tim. 2. 1 from all which you inferr 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 former writings Here you repete the same scriptures againe but ansvver not vvhat I sayd you may thus doo a 100. times and vveary men vvith your tautologies Vnto the things vvhich heretofore I vvrote and vvhereto I referr you I novv add All parents vvere bound to teach Gods lavv to their children and children to heare obey their parents in the Lord. Deut. 6. 7. Eph. 6. 1. 4. If this serves for traditions then vnvvritten verities from all parents mouths vvere to be received as oracles of God If you hold thus I pray you tel it plainly If not then shevv vvhich parents had the facultie to teach traditions and vvhich had not 2. The traditions vvhich those scriptures speak of being novv vvritten are a part of the canonicall bible to be read and expounded in the church as being inspired of God profitable to teach c. if such be the traditions of your fathers Councils Popes which the vvorld seeth now vvritten 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 equall authority If you esteem your decretals of this vvorth I pray you tel me in your next If not then the scriptures by you cited vvill justify your Popes traditions no more then the Pharisees Mar. 7 3 6. 7. 8 9. 13. That the Doctrines taught by the fathers in Psal. 44. and 78. vvere vvritteÌ„ traditions the particulars in the Psalms doo evince against your too bold asseveratioÌ„s For the casting out
of the hethens planting Israel spoken of in Ps. 44. was largely vvritten in the book of Iosua The things rehearsed throughout Psa. 78. are writteÌ„ in Exo. Num. Ios. Sam. c. So the evident scriptures doo coÌ„vince you The old good vvay Ier. 6. 16 vvas the law taught by Moses and the Prophets Psa. 103 7. Deut. 8. 6. 9. 12. and 11. 22. 28 and 31. 29. Iudg. 2. 17. this law vvas vvritten 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 vvith the accomplishment of the promises vpon them that vvalked therin vvas the truth vvhich the fathers should tel their children Isa. 38. 19. as appeareth Deu. 6 6 7. Ioh. 17 17. And the things vvhich Solomon teacheth as a father Prov. 1. 8. c. are vvritten in that other his books Prov. 22. 20. Eccl. 12. 10. and of other things he vvilleth 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 needfull for salvation Vnto Ecclus. 8. 11. I think you meane 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 good If he mean other humane traditions of the Iewes then I answer the vvisdome of Iesus the soon of Sirach herein is proved to be foolishnes by the doctrine of Iesus the Sonn of God Mark 7. 7. 8. 13. Vnto 4. Esdr. 14. 5. 6. I answer the author is a fit man to bolster vp popish traditions by signes and lying vvonders He telleth as you allege of doctrines that Moses vvas not to teach but to hide These then apperteyned neyther to law nor gospel Deu. 32. 4. Rom 10 5. 6. 8. I am content therfore that they go among the Popes decrees He telleth that Gods law vvas burnt and that he vvould vvrite agayn all that had been doon in the vvorld since the beginning This lye is vvorthy to be put into your Legendaurie But what forgeries vvill not you bring to help your Pope withal To this also you may ad if you please your tale fathered vpon Dyonysius Areop with the vvriter thereof as vnlike that Dionyse in Act. 17. as Esâ—ras the 2. vvas to Ezra the first Vnto 2. Thes. 2 15. I answer all Pauls traditions I vvill gladly admitt of but not of the Popes therefore any more then of Mahomets Besides Paul taught nothing but from the vvritteÌ„ 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. Vnto 1 Tim. 6. 20 and 2. Tim. 2. 1. I answer as to the former whatsoever doctrine is Apostolik is also authenticall and I imbrace it The thing committed first from God to Paul from Paul to Timothie from Timothie to others vvas the sound doctrine of the Gospel 1. Tim. 1. 11. â— Tim. 1. 10. 11. All vvhich is written in the bible sufficient for faith for all good workes and for vvisdom vnto salvation 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. So that vnwritten traditions are needless for the gospel of life though necessary I graunt for the stablishment of Poperie Besides you mark not that this committing of the vvord to Timothie and by him to others will cary the crown away froÌ„ Peters feighned successor the Pope That Timothies successors at Ephesus have more â—o shew for themselves theÌ„ the Byshops of Rome for authority of vnwritten traditions if any there be Whereas you say S. Paul spake the hidden mysteries in secret I know not vvhere you learned this vnless by some secret tradition at Rome For if they vvere the hidden mysteries of the Gospell Christ willed them to be preached openly and Paul himselfe testifieth that they vvere published among all nations even to every creature vnder heaven and he vvrote his Epistles which conteyn the hidden mysteries of the wisdome of God to vvhole churches to be read to all the brethren True it is he taught them orderly first the rudiments of religion or doctrines of the beginning of Christ vvhich he calleth milli then the higher mysteries which he caleth strong meat Which order of his all good Byshops and ministers of Christ should follow stil in feeding their flocks But that the mysteries of Christ should be spokeÌ„ by him in secret so as the yonger Christians might not freely hear or read them as you gather is a tradition of your own There is none of his Epistles vvherein you may not find both milk and strong meat and as he vvrote so he spake in his sermons It may be you have reference to 1 Cor. 2. 7. we speak the wisdom of God in a mysterie even the hidden wisdom c. If so then you corrupt both Pauls vvords meaning The mysteries were not hidden or conceled from any Christian but from the princes of the world and naturall man as the words following manifest 1 Cor. 3. 8. 14. and hidden not as vnlawfull for them to heare but as vnpossible for them to vnderstand though they heard because in their vvorldly wisdome they despised God 1 Cor. 1 18 20 21. c. Thus men may see into vvhat strayts you are driven to find out your traditions which cannot be mainteyned but by wresting the texts The 3. thing which you vndertake to shew is that your reasons for all my answers remayn in full force you repete your â— reason thus That which is not known for Gods word cannot be the rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knoweÌ„ for Gods word go Scriptures by themselves are not the rule of faith I answer first by imitating your argument thus That vvhich is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the rule of faith But Popes traditions are not knowen for Gods word Therefore Popes traditions are not the rule of faith On the contrary I reason thus That vvhich is known for Gods word is to be the rule of faith The holy scripture is known for Gods word Therefore it is to be the rule of faith The first proposition is by your selfe here proved The second was also by your selfe graunced S. 3. where you said of the scriptures thus we reverence them as Gods holy word derived from the fulnes of truth c. The conclusion must follow of the premisses so the truth hath wonne for the book of God your error for vnwritten traditions must give place or ells your owne mouth shall condemn you Secondly I answer your argument is deceytfull as your former vvas For to omitt that it is all of negatives vvhich in strict reasoning should not be you add a term in the 2. proposition vvhich vvas not in the first viz by themselves vvhich also you put in the conclusion This is no right nor
compared vvith Tob. 15. 18. 1. Maccab. 6. 16. vvith 2. Mac. 1. 16. 2. Macc. 1. 19. vvith 2. King 25. Iudith 9. 2. 3. vvith Gen. 49. 5. 6. Esth. apopcryph 12. 5. 6. vvith Esth. can 6. 3. and 3. 2. Esth. apoc 11. 2. vvith Esth. can 2. 16. besides their Popes determinations for making and vvorshiping of similitudes or images of silver and gold wood and stone hethenlike for having the vvorship of God and scriptures in a barbarous tongue vvhich the people understand not and many the like are expressly contrary to the commandements of God as any man of common judgment may evidently preceive yea some of their Popes have repeled the decrees one of another as before hath been manifested Eightly The summ 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 our selves or humane merits vvhereby vve resting on God have and doo profess to have ful 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 salvatioÌ„ vvhereby their coÌ„sciences accusing them they neyther have nor profess to have such peace by full assurance that they are heyres of God unto salvation as vve nay they rage against this truth as against an heresie Ninthly The holy scriptures vvhich vve rest vpon are of such power and authority that many thowsands in their ages have given their lives for the defense of them and of the things taught onely in them yea even hereticks have dyed for things vvhich they have erroneously thought to be in the scriptures reveled But for Papists they cannot shew many if any that have vvillingly given their lives for such doctrines as have onely bene taught by men by unwritten popish tradition and not in their judgment by the prophetical and Apostolical scriptures Tenthly the Holy scriptures vvhich are the rule of our faith have prophesies of things to come and due accomplishments of the prophesies as they vvere foretold vvhereby vve are confirmed of the truth and infallibility of those vvritings But the vvritings of Doctors Councils Popes on vvhich Papists rely are destitute of this confirmation Neyther dooth the Pope use to prophesie though it vvere necessary if he vvould as Christs vicar obtrude his ovvn decrees for divine oracles seing the testimony of Iesus is the spirit of prophesie as the Angel sayd Rev. 19. 10. Nay rather the prophesies of scripture plainly foreshew the Church of Rome to be the whore of Babylon and her Lord the Pope to be Antichrist Which he fearing it wil come to light forbiddeth therfore his subjects the reading of Gods book Eleventhly Papists themselves are forced in disputing against Iewes which were once Gods church and from which they themselves with us received the books of Moses and the Prophets to use onely the holy scriptures and prophesies to convince them for their Romish church traditions the Iewes doo not regard With these scriptures the Papists doo rightly think the Iewes are sufficiently convicted Even so doo 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 vvord vvhich they acknowledge to be of God and they have no more reason to refuse this and draw us to their Popes decretals then the Iewes have to refuse the Bible and draw men to their high preists Rabbies and Thalmuds or the Turkes to their Alkoran 12. Finally grace vvisdom 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 vvisdom grace or majesty appeareth in Popes decrétals more then in other humane vvritings yea they are full of ignorance grossnes barbarisme error favouring of the Popes private spirit as any of understanding unless they be the Popes bondmen vvil confess and no singular grace appeareth in them more then in the books of H. N. or Alkoran of Mahomet For all vvhich and sundry other like reasons vvhich might be alleged every reasonable infidel vvhom God vvill save vvill rather incline to our grounds of ancient Christianity then to the other of late Iesuitisme or Popery Let him that readeth consider and give sentence By this vvhich hath bene vvritten you may see M. I. A. that we fly not for proof to our privat spirit as you often slander us but we say a Papist may be couvinced by the wisdome and majesty of God shining in the scriptures and other arguments forementioned more easily then 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 testimony to condemn the hethens the former must needs be more sufficient to condemn you especially seing you confess the scriptures to be of GOD vvhereas 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 graunt a Turk to be tried by the Bible and his Alkoran or a Iew to be tried by the Prophets and his Thalmud you will betray all Christianity And when one ask you a reason vvhy you beleeve the scriptures or any doctrine to be of God you answer that extrinsiâ—ally that is outwardly and in respect of your selves it is because your church that is the Pope vvho is head of your church telleth you so and not by your own private spirit Which is as if one should ask vvhy you beleeve the sun to be the light of the vvorld and you should answer extrinsecally because the Pope tells you so and not because of any private sight or discerning in your own eyes Ask you agayn vvhither you know the Pope to be a man of God furnished vvith his grace and spirit that he cannot deceive you You answer we hold not that the Pope is necessarily indued with Gods holy grace for in matter of faâ—t he may syn as wel as any other Ask you agayn how then you trust such vile ungracious Popes as many have been by your own mens testimony you answer you hold the Pope hath a necessary assistance of the holy Ghost as he defines ex cathedra out of his chayr as the head of the church Ask you a proof of this paradox and you cannot bring any one line of Gods holy scriptures to confirme it you can neythâ—r find the Pope nor his chayr there mentioned any more then Mahomâ—t or the Alkoran Then you flee to late humane testimonies of Doctors Fathers Councils vvhich also you vvrest Yet ask you vvhither those Doctors vvere necessarily indued vvith the spirit of God could not
invincible as my rule is uncorrigible Now vnto the point to be decided I breifly answer That a man may eliciâ—t a supâ—rnaturall act of faith many things are required first there must be motiva evidentis credibilitatis prudential motives of evident credibilitie viz. that all nations and men of principall giftes zeal and sanctity and â—â—dowments have beleeved so that it hath stood inviolable against so many and infinite heresies and persecutioÌ„s that it is so ancient so visible so constant and vniforme in all essentiall poincts of doctrine That it hath been sealed and confirmed with the blood of so many glorious Martyrs c. Secondly There must be Ecclesia proponens the Church propounding what is scripture and what is not scripture what is unwritten word viz. tradition and what is not Thirdly there must be prima veritas the first verity â—r Gods veracity that must be ratio formalis the formal reasoÌ„ why we doe beleeve Fourthly There must be a supernatural judgment dictâ—ting that now it is good at least generally to beleeve Fiftly there must be a supernaturall concourâ—â— of Gods holy illumination and a concourse of his infused habit of faith to determinate the indifferent power of our understanding to beleeve or not to beleeve Out of the progresse of which act an answer to your question may easily be deduced For when you ask whither our faith shal be tryed by the verdict of God or of man I answer you directly enough though with a â—â—stinction viz. That if you vnderstand by what formall motive we shall be tryed in our beleefe I answer by the verdict of Gods written and unwritten word But if you aske who shall determine our faith after a propounding manner so we say the Church concurreth after the maner of an applying conditioÌ„ teaching what is Canonicall and that which is not autentike And therefore I will prove first That onely the bare text of the scripture is not a sufficient rule of our faith 2. I will prove that the scriptures expounded by the Catholike Church is a true and indeficient rule of our faith 3. That this rule is onely found in the Romane Catholike church sentence and not in private mens illuminations and motions of a private and unseen spirit First then to prove that the bare scripture is not a sufficient rule of our beleife and that many mysteries and points are to be beleeved that are not expressely taught or evidently deduced out of the holy scriptures I frame this Argument Nothing is to be beleeved that is not taught or gathered out of the written word but that the Bible is Canonicall is neyther directly taught nor by evident consequence deduced out of the same therefore it is not to be beleeved that the Bible is Canonicall scripture The Major is the coÌ„mon assertion of protestants but especially I take it a cheife ground and principle of your sect vide Calvi de vera Ecclesia reformata pag. 473. and the Apologie of the Church of England pag 58. The Minor is approved by Hooker a principall protestaÌ„t in his treatise of Ecclesiast lawes lib. 1. pag. 84. lib. 2. S. 4. pag. 100. 102 who there writeth thus Of things necessary the very cheifest thing is to know what bookes wee are bound to beleive holy which thing is confessed as a thing impossible for the scriptures to teach And afterwardes he confirmeth thus For saith he if any one book did give testimony of all the rest yet the scripture that gives credit to all the rest would require another scripture to be credited neyther could we come to any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way So that we see eyther that he holds scripture is not to be beleived and authenticke or else he requireth the authority of somthing besides scripture to make it authentical The force of this Argument did drive Hooker lib. 3. paragraph the 8. pag. 1â—6 Zanchius in his confess â— â— Brentius in prologo Kemnitij in examine Conc. Trident Doct. Whitak contra Stapletonum lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 298 30â— to flie unto the authority of traditions to prove scripture to be scripture Which if once they graunt that traditions are sufficient to prove and try the groundwork of our beleife viz. scripture to be scripture why can they not ground other poâ—its of faith of lesser consequence 2. I prove that the bare and naked word of God cannot be an infallible rule or square of truth I prove it thus That which is difficult and includeth many senses at least to the ignoraÌ„t cannot be a certayne rule of faith But the scriptures are thus My Anteced Luther in his preface to the Psalmes acknowledgeth Tertull. in lib. De praescripti sayth Nec periclitor dicere ipsas quoque scripturas esse et voluntate dei dispositas ut haereticis materias subministrarunt cum legaÌ„ opportet haereses esse quae sine scripturis esse non possunt Where he confesseth that misinterpreting of scripture set the doore open to heresies S. Peter also sayeth that in S. Pauls Epistles there be many things hard to be vnderstood which the unlearned and unstable deprave as al the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition And the difficultie thereof made S. Augustin though a Doctor of incomparable wit and learning in his 12. conf c. 14. break out in the height of adâ—iâ—ation and say oh wonderfull profoundness of thy words c. Idem to 3. lib. 2. De doctrina Christ c. 6. confess that there was more in the scriptures that he understood not then of that which he understood The â—unuch of the Queen of Aâ—thiopia was dayly conversâ—â—t in the scriptures yet he confesseth that he could not vnderstand them without a master The second part of my Antecedent viz. that the scripture hath many senses litterall many senses spirituall of whose manifold deepe and mysticall sense the ignorant reader cannot be possest And therefore since in the old law when any difficulty happened the Preist was to decyde it and therefore with a farre greater interest is the Preist of the new law that hath that spirit of interpretation redoubled and ratification of his doctrine assigned and confirmed by Christ Jesus himselfe is to expound the hidden senses of scripture And therefore S. John vltim◠〈◊〉 bids S. Peter and his successors feed his flock with the spirit of interpretation which is the food to a reasonable flock and fold This made the Apostles when they were to decyde the controversies about the cessatioÌ„ of the ceremonies of the old law not to repaire vnto their private spirits interpretation but to a counsell gathered in Hierusalem where S. Peter was head where all was concluded with Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis It seemes good vnto the holy ghost and vnto vs. And therefore let S. Peter himself conclude That no propheâ—iâ— of scripture that is no interpretation
the secret and mysterie of the Gospel so as none need to say in his hart who shall goe up into heaven or who shall goe down into the deep for the word is neer us in our mouth and in our hart even the word of faith which they preached And by them we learn that all scripture is the opneustos inspired of God profitable for doctrine for reprehension for correction for instruction which is in righteousnes that the man of God may be artios and exeâ—tismenos perfect and perfectly fitted unto every good work These also after vocal preaching did write their gospel that such as read mought beleeve and in beleeving might haue life through Christs name and that their joy might be full Wherfore as we are referred to the scriptures for assurance of our faith so also are we willed not to presume or be wise above that which is written This being the auctoritie 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 beleeved that is not taught or gathered out of the written word But that the Bible is canonical is not directly taught nor by evident consequence deduced out of the same Therfore it is not to be beleeved that the Bible is canonicall scripture The Major as you say is the coÌ„mon assertion of Protestants citing Calvin and the Apologie of the Church of England The Minor you say is approved by Hooker a principall Protestant I answer the pillars of your propositions being earth and ashes the whole frame and conclusion of your argument lieth in the dust I told you before we entred into this feild that it is Gods word not mans that I would trie and be tried by Wherfore you bet the aier in vain if by any mans auctoritie you think to supplant my faith Much lesse will I approve what every Protestant hath written So leaving others I return unto your self Your first proposition is too generall I grant many things may be beleeved though they be not gathered out of the written word but I hold not any thing needful to be beleeved for salvation with God but that which is taught by his written word Which perswasionâ— ground upon these and other like scriptures Ioh. 20. 30. 31. 2. Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17. Eccles. 12 11 12. Your second proposition I deney Your reason learned from M. Hooker 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Fâ—â— if any book did give testimonie of all the rest yet the scripture that gives credit to all the 〈…〉 scripture to be credited neyther could we come to any paâ—se wheron to rest or assurance this way I answer Al 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 sayth 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 powreth out upon all his children some mesure without this spirit none can say that Iesus is the Lord though men should see all his mighty miracles and hear all his gracious words yet could they not be pâ—rswaded unless God opened their harts Therfore sayd our Saviour to Simon bar Ionas 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 sayth No man can come unto me except the father which hath sent me draw him Whither the word therfore be spoken or written it cannot be beleeved to be of God but by the spirit of God which therfore is called the spirit of beleef or of faith which spirit is joyned togither with the word in the Saincts as Isaias prophesieth who therupon are all taught of God have received as Paul sayth 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. Ioh. 5. 6. The whole word of God being of it self worthy to be credited and having testimony of the same Spirit which spake wrote it is also further confirmed by the power effect therof in the conscience peircing more sharply then any two edged sword and discerning the thoughts and intents of the hart The power majestie excellencie of the scriptures above all humane writings felt in the hart and confirmed by the spirit evidently prove to all that are Christs that they are of God and if from him then are they canonical the rule and mesure of our faith and actions these all doe bear witnesse one to an other the latter Prophets and Apostles commenting upon Moses the first divine writer Iohn the last coÌ„firming and abridging all other from the first in his heavenly Revelation The ear fayth Iob discerneth words as the palat tasteth meat for it self wherfore though the natural man discerneth no difference between Gods canonical and mans apocryphal scriptures yet the spirituall man 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 perswade it to them which are carnal have not the spirit as the Apostle speaketh It this be not as I have shewed but we must rely upon men for the ground of our faith then would I know how you can perswade an infidel to beleeve Christianisme rather then 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 mens voices shall cary it away our beleef in Christ is lost If miracles be alleged there is still the same controversie whither they be divine or divilish for hethens and idolaters have had miracles many and Antichrist as it is prophesied shal shall doe great wonders making fyre to come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men Your other allegations of antiquitie Vniversalitie c. wil not stop the mouth of Iuliâ—â— the Apostata but he will bear down Christianitie and restore Paganisme as being ancient and universal So there wil be no setling of the conscience til it come unto God and rest upon him alone and receive the plerophorian the full assurance by his spirit without which men can not discerne between the propheticall writings and the Iewes Thalmud between Christs Testament and the Turks Alkoran or between Gods oracle out of the Debir in Ierusalem and the Divils oracle out of his temple in Delphos Again as
spake otherweise as wanting light Our Saviours most holy doctrines vvere vvronged and depraved in the highest degree by Pharisees vvill you therfore conclude that his doctrine vvas not a true and indeficient rule of faith Bevvare of such pleading and learn rather of the Apostles vvho though men depraved the scriptures yet referred the Christians unto them as being able to make us vvise vnto salvation through the saith that is in Christ Iesus and to make the man of God absolute and perfect unto all good vvorks 2. Tim. 3 15. 1â— Fiftly and lastly you argue many mysteries of our faith 〈◊〉 beleeved that are not explicitly declared in the word of God 〈…〉 iâ—fallibly prescinding from al traditions of the catholik church 〈…〉 theÌ„ce so that they are sufficient to make one beleeve that 〈…〉 act as our faith requireth Therfore that which makes these mysteries worthy of constant beleef is a rule of faith as wel as the written word whither they be traditions divine or Apostelical The first part of this your argument I deney for neyther many nor any mysteries of our faith are without their due and sufficient proof from the holy scriptures You labour to confirm that you sayd thus because till Moses 〈…〉 word but men were taught by traditioÌ„ You allege also Exod. 14. thou shalt tel thy 〈…〉 Deut 〈◊〉 ask thy father and he wil shew thee c. Iob 8 ask the former generation c. Also how after our Saviours coÌ„ming the Apostles preached viva voce before they wrote c. Your first reason is altogither 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 neyther 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 beleeve any one mysterie of faith seing before Moses all mysteries were taught by voice The pattern of the Tabernacle shewed to Moses on the mount could be no perfect rule for him to build by before it was shewed Was it not therfore 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 Ioh. 20. 31. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. Your other allegations out of Moses Iob wil serve much better for the Iewish traditions then for yours and confirm their Thalmud and Cabala rather then your papal decrees But the Apostles turned the Iewes from their vain conversation received by the tradition of the fathers and would not have them take heed to Iewish fables and coÌ„mandments 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. c. by which you may learn God opening your hart that Israel was not left to unwritten verities for a ground of their faith but were to tel their children the works of God that they had seen and heard as we all are to doo ours and for a rule of their faith and life to teach them Gods written law This you may see by the 44. and 78. Psalms wher the fathers told their children such things as are written in the books of Moses Iosua c. which as they continued the rule ground of 〈◊〉 rough out the Prophets ages so Malachi the last Angel of the old Testament comendeth them to the memorie of the church even as from the first giving they were the inheritance of the same The power and authoritie of vvhich Lavv and Prophets vvas so great as our Saviour sayth hâ—â— that vvil not hear them neyther vvil they be persvvaded though 〈◊〉 from the dead agayn Bevvare therfore least vvhile you â—â—â—k to support traditions you supplant Christian faith for a levv vvil presse you by tradition to receive their Cabala as vvel as their prophets seing you have had these all from them cannot vvithout them by your ovvn grouÌ„ds tel vvhat is canonical scripture vvhat is not and they doâ— affirm that God gave to Moses a double lavv the one vvritten the other by vvoâ—d of mouth â—ambam 〈◊〉 Misnajoth Your particulars insisted upon for the equal 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 persons in the god hed the baptising of infant the proâ—… hâ—ly Ghost the keeping of the Lords day the lawfulnes to â—at blood c vvhich you think can not be proved by scripture without tradition shâ—w that you are too much a stranger in Gods book for it afffordeth us sufficient proof for all of thâ—se And 〈…〉 us if we 〈…〉 without sure grouÌ„ds froÌ„ scripture shame would cover our faces before Arrians Anabaptists other heretiks if we should leâ— goe our 〈◊〉 foundation to build upon your sands As for other points of Masse for the dead c vvhich you mention upon certayne fathers credit as it hath no ground in Gods book so by the same it may easilie be refuted and what God condemneth no man can justify Wheras 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 coÌ„mandements of God but your church traditions I refuse for they are the institutions of mâ—n I grant you also that Paul taught more things by word then were written in that his Epistle but that he taught any thing as needful for salvation without warrant from the scriptures I deney or that the suÌ„m and effect of all that he taught be not in the Prophets his own and other evangelical writings If you wil not beleeve me beleeve himself who testifieth that he sayd none other things then those which the Prophets Moses did say should come beleeve an other Apostle which sayth thâ—se things are written that ye might beleev c. that in beleeving ye might have life through Christs name And wheras you wonder how men should deney the necessary vse of traditions asking if we will beleeve the Apostles why then we wil not beleeve them that lived in the Apostles dayes and such holy fathers as flourished shortly of er you may stay your wonder if you consider how Paul teaâ—hâ—th that the scripture is able to make a man vvisâ— unto salvation absolute and perfect unto every good work for now there is no necessary vse of other traditions unlesse it be for works that are too good and they be I trow work of supâ—rerogation You may also answer your own question if you mind how there lived in the Apostles dayes many vain talkers and deceiveâ—s of minds many false prophets that were gone out into the world and many Antichrists and how after their departing there entred in grâ—â—vous wolves Now seing such weeds flourished shortly after in the garden of the Lord is it not more safe for us think
Then descending more particularly he answereth that my Major is too generall For he sayes many things may be beleeved 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 sayes to be beleeved that is with an act of faith now that which is to be beleeved must be certaine and must have also infallible most certaine motives proportionable to so firm an act and must be beleeved of those at least that are schollars who are more precisely to examine the articles of beleef then laiemen so that wee have drawen water out of the rock since you graunt that tradition is necessary to your own beleef which afterwards you deny when you say there is nothing necessarie to salvation but is taught by the written word For now I ask those many things that may be beleeved without the written word eyther have their motives infallible and sufficiently propounded so they shal be faultie if those schollers to whom they are sufficiently proposed beleeve not or else the motives that are propounded are not certaine infallible and constant and so they shall onely cause an opinion or at most a humane beleefe and not a most firme constant supernaturall art of faith that is ever most certaine and infallible caused by the written and the vnwritten 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 writteÌ„ word which is most false since nothing with you is more necessarie 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 coÌ„fesse though against your position that something most necessary vnto salvation is to be belâ—eved and that without the written word now if that which is most necessary and the rule of all the rest be beleeved in that it is delivered by tradition surely things of lesse consequence though necessary to salvation may also be beleeved though ther is no written word of God to affirme it having tradition which is Gods vnwritten word tyme out of mynd 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 testimonie 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 wheron to rest or assurance that way and if you answer that all scriptures are theopneustoi that is in pired of God I will graunt you that but I wil demaund 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 provâ—d which is given you to prove And besides I would know of you how you know that your interpretation is onely true But you have your answer ready ceyned you say the things of God no man knoweth but the spirit of God But how doe you prove you have the spirit of God How doe you prove you have the effect thereof in your conscience piercing more sharply then a two edged swoâ—d For the Mamchei Montanist Arian â—estorian Pelagian Semipeâ—agian Lutheran Calvinist Familist will â—ll boâ—st of this private spirit will all say they are illuminated of God that they have the spirit that discerneth all things they are able as wâ—l as you to uphold their religion with wrested peeces of the scripture Now whereas you object that the Turk câ—n urge against us their Allcoâ—ans antiquitie I answer no siâ—ce the Romane catholicke church can shewe their beginner beginning increase and their declining estate And wheras you object againe that Iulian the Apostaâ—a may offer plea with us for antiquitie I answer no since he went out of the catholick church to whose faith he was Apostata and therfore supposeth the catholik church to be more ancient then he as he particularly opposed himself against her And if it be here objected that the heatheâ—â—sme he â—â—lo is anciâ—â—ter then our Christianitie I grant all but not ancienter then Judai me For God is more ancient then the Divil truth then falshood and so those Christians that are most ancient have the most true religion Your second Objection made against this point I answer that the high Preisthood that was judge did not err in that Moses was never â—viltie of Idolatrie Moses was joint Priest with AaroÌ„ as it is recorded in the Psalmes Moses et Aaron in sacerdotibus ejus et Samuel inter eos qui invocant nomen ejus All which appeares and is most manifestly showen also in that he ordered Aaron Exod. 29 And in that there Moses is coÌ„manded to sacrificâ— Applicabis et vitulum etc. maâ— abis euÌ„ in conspect Dei etc. offeres incensum super altare And that Moses did execute al this it appeares out of Levit. 8. Likewise I answer that when our Saviour Iesus Christ was condemned the high preisthood did not err in that the high preisthood remayned in our Saviour for he was then cheif judge and decider or â—he the high preist was our Saviours superiour which ye wil not grant For that prâ—â—sthood was infallible onely till Christs coming being also clearly foretold that at his coÌ„ming the highpreist should concurr vnto his death and condemnation and so not to be directed by the holy ghost Finally wheras you would confute me by my own practise in that I râ—solve all things by the definitive sentence of the Church grounded on Christs promise to S. Peter Math. 16. that his faith should not faile and that he being converted he should confirme his brethreÌ„ all the other Apostles I answer that as our Saviour was of infinite grace and mercy to promise so he was of infinite power and fidelitie to perform Now wheras you object that I know onely this promise by Mat. 16. that by the Popes churches sâ—ntence I knovv onely S. Matthevves gospell to be canonicall and that the gospell of Nicodemus is not authenticke I grant all but I deny that here there is any maze or circle that you would fayne from hence inferr since this mutuall reference and reciprocall dependence is in diverse kindes and then Aristotle will tell you that it is no circle or vitious argumentation to demonstrate a causa ad effectum et ab effectu ad causam and a younge Philosopher wil tell you that the materia and the form doe mutually depend and reciprocally cause one an other but the one in genere subjecti and the other in genere causae formalis And as a Iewel in his prize
It is sayd to be full of baâ—iy And the 1. â—â—eg 7. 15. It is sayd that the braâ—en pillars were thirty eight cubiâ—â—â— in length and yer 2. Parall 3. 19. but thirty five Math. 1. 8. It is sayd that Joram begaâ— Qziaâ— but in the 4. book of the Kings which the Protestants call the second it is written that Joram was father to Ochozias Ochoizas to Joas Joas to Amaâ—â—â—s not Joram to Ozias otherwise called Azarias Mat. 1. 3 16. Joseph is called Jacob wheras S. Luk. 3. 23 nameth him 〈◊〉 Mat 10 10. the Apostles sent to prâ—ach are forbidden to have a â—reffe in their â—aâ—ds and yet S. Mark 6 8 baâ— them take onely a staffe or rod in their hand Mat. 26 34 and Luk. 22 34. sayth that before the cock did crow Peter should deny him thrice but S. Marke the 14. 30. sayth Christs words were Before the cock shall crowe twise thou shalt thrisâ— deny me Mar 15 25. â—ayth our Saviour was crucified at the third howre but S. John 19 14 saith it was about the sixt houre before he was condenmed by Pâ—â—ate So that you see the comparing of place onely with place often times may bring a poore man into a maze or circle except he adde to this the authoritie of the Church and the holy Fathers and the learned Doctors exposition by whose helpe all these seeming contradâ—â—tions will easily be salved Now wheras you may answer that these difficults are in matters of fact and not of doctrine so it much imports not whither a man reconcilâ—s these places or no I graunt the first but I deny the sequâ—â—â— For since you teach that al difficults of scripture may be helped by comparing of one place with another now when as ignorant men shall folow this your rule as an unfallible guide when they see themselves ledd by it vnto a contradiction they doe not onely begin to cal into question this but al other things conteyned in the scriptures seing the self same truth affirming the little as well as the great and as much abhorring from coÌ„tradiction of a litle matter as of a great The second braunch of my antecedent which I bring is that holy scriptures hath many senses litterall and spirituall yea and often many senses literrall and many senses spirituall All this you deny wonder that I doe not prove it I answer that no disputant useth to prove comoâ—mâ—â—â—mes and principles and we use not to prove coÌ„mon 〈◊〉 at most Protestants allow of viz. of a litterall and a spirituall sense the lâ—sâ— wherof they divide into three members into an all gâ—ricell tropological anagogicall sense yea and not without great cause they allow of this since D. August lib. 11. confess cap. 26 et lib. 11. De â—â—â—â—tate Dei c. 19. sayth also that the scripture often haâ— many litterall senses But you against the holy fathers held that it hath onely one sense but as you answer appliable to diverse places times and persons Here I wonder that you should be so consideÌ„tly hoveld with your own concâ—â—t and so caried away with your privat spirit that you see not that which to most manifest But even as a pigeon that is seeled in your soaring spirit you see onely the way at length to your own downfall though in your conceit you ascend bolt upright for a season But that the scripture hath many senses we leave as proved and if to prove fitter for another place Now it sufficeth for this place to show that which you graunt to sufficient to prove the second part of my antecedent For if that one sense hath reference to diverse tymes places and persons it must needes be very difficult require some common help besides themselves to obtaine their severall true expositions nay here me thinks you graunt that the scriptures hath diverse senses since you graunt diverse as it were formalities of senses respecting divers places tymes and persons Here also in prosecuting of this point you seem to mistake our doctrine For we hold that neyther Apostle or the Pope have domintoÌ„ over our faith or authoritie to institut Sacraments of themselves neyther can they make what they will as a matter of faith or tradition But it must be received tyme out of mynde by the vniform coÌ„sent of that Church which hath kept her peâ—petuall succession of Bishops from S. Peter and then S Aug. in epist. 118. will teach you that insolentissimae infaniae est existimare non certe fieri quod ab vniversa ecclesia fit that it is a most insolent madness to think that it should not be right that the whole church doth teach Besides the Pope doth not make a matter of faith but declareth onely that such and such a thing is to be beleeved and that by the inspiration of Almighty God guiding him as he is the head of the church Neyther dooth he for all this omitt to use all humane helpes of counsell and consultatioÌ„ with the learned that though as he is head of the church he hath a promise froÌ„ Almighty stil to assist him yet in that he might not seeme to presume in omitting the vse of naturall and prudentiall helpes and meanes he vseth all diligent serâ—tinp therein The place of 15. of the Acts which you examine of mine where I lay that in the counsel held at Hierusalem all was concluded with this of S. Peter the head It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us This I sayd and still averr makes much against you For here the Apostles to end the controversy in hand trusted not their own several spirits but to a mature deliberation and counsell where S. Peter was hâ—ad and vinâ—eere though he vsed an Apostolicall inguisition and therfore it is noted in the 7. verse that Peter role up showing thereby that he was head and had the preemineâ—ce of place first to speak noting also his priviledge that the first Gentills were chosen by his mouâ—h though S. Paul was designâ—d to convert them Now unto that which you 〈◊〉 that verse 13. and 14. S. James 〈◊〉 stanâ—â— all and that hence we might rather hold him head of the Church I answer that doth not hence folow in that S. James in that he was an Apostle and Bishop of HierusaleÌ„ gave his sentence nert For surely S. Paul and S. Barnabas also spake though their speach is interposed for the better declaration of the question to be decided and for the greater confirmation of S. Peters sentence And though S. James sayd in his speach I judge he doth not meane thereby that he gave the principal definitive sentence since he and all the rest followed and seconded by their suffâ—ages the decision of S. Peter as it is plaine in the text The whole assembly for reverence of his person and approbation of his sentence holding their peace The which S. Hierâ—m affirmeth saying all the multitude held their peace and into his sentence James the Apostle
Loe here agayn my second assertion justified by your C. that the vvord of God is to be found in the Prophets and Apostles vvritings As for the meaning or understaÌ„ding of these scriptures explaned by the church that remaineth for a third consideration But furder to confirm this second he sayth The rule of the catholik faith ought to be certayn and known for if it be not known it wil be no rule to us and if it be not certayn it is no rule at all But nothing is more known nothing more certayn then the holy scriptures which are conteyned in the Prophetical and Aposiolical writings that most foolish must he needs be which denyes that credit is to be given unto them Agayn he confesseth that the holy scripture is a most certayn and a most safe rule of beleeving These things spake your Cardinal though perhaps not of himself but as being high preist that yere when he disputed against the Libertines others that despise tho scriptures of God And thus hath the truth obteyned testimony out of your masters mouth whose learning I crow his scholars wil not withstand or if they doe this dâ—o nâ—s given against them by the lesaitâ— They fight with Moses with the Prophets with the Apostled wich Christ 〈…〉 to God the father and the holy Ghost which contemn the holy scriptures and â—aelâ—s of God Thus have I proved sufficiently as I supposâ— in my former this writing that God vvord vvill is to be found in the propheticall and Apostolical scriptures that if you longer resist you vvilbe condemned of yourself Other humane testimonies out of Augustine Hier many like Doctors I could further all edge to confirm this trach but the vvitnesse of God is venough for me both it and the testimonies of your Cardinal are sufficient against you And novv I come to your first assertion vvhich yovv took upon you to prove That the bare scripture is not a sufficient rule of our beleef â— that many mysteries and points are is be beleeved that are not erpâ—â—slâ— taught or evidently deduced out of the holy scriptures Against this I brought in my former vvriting evident testimonies from heaven as 2. Tim. 3. 16. 17 Iohn 20. 31. 1 Cor. 4. 6. others against vvhich you open not your mouth An â—…g your first argument that vve mought not by any aequivocation mistake one another I shevved my meaning distinctly hovv things many man be beleeved though they be not gathered out of the written word understanding hereby a coÌ„mune or humane beleef wherin men may varie vvithout danger of damnation As for example a man may beleev that the Apostle Matth â—vvvvis in AEthiopia Thomas in India Iude in Persia upon the report of humanâ— records And so Peter at Rome if you vvil But for salvation with God I sayd not any thing is needful to be beleeved â—ave that which is taught by his written word You in your replie seeking advantage by vvords conclude that I hold some tradition necessarie besided the written word thus now have drawen as you say water out of the Rock synce I grant that tradition is necessary to mâ—… beleef Wheras I used not the vvord necessarie but may be evidently restreyned things needful for salvation to Gods written word to that your water is spilt on the grouÌ„d cannot be gathered up agayn hovv ever you may strive about vvords vvhen matter fayleth Agayn my assertion that nothing is needful to be beleeved for salvation with God but that which is taught by his written word is you say most false since nothing with mâ—is more necessarie to salvation then the written word which word is not proved by an other written word c. Where first you fight against God vvho sayth in Iohn 20. 30. 31. Many oâ— her signs did Iesus in the preseÌ„ce of his disciples which are not vvritten in this book but these things are vvritteÌ„ that ye mought beleev that Iesus is the Christ the son of God and that in beleeving ye mought have life through his name And agayn in 2. Tim 3 16. 17. All scripture is inspired of God and profitable for doctrine for reprehension for correction for instruction vvhich is in righteousnes that the man of God may be perfect perfectly tiâ—tâ—d unto every good vvork These are the testimonies of the holy Ghost as your self vvil 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 â— how then is my assertion most false doe you not gave the lye unto the holy ghost Secondly I wish you to deal plainly distinctly with me my words as I endevour to do with you I hold the word of God to be absolutely necessarie as a means for maÌ„s salvatioÌ„ which is the â—rst point this word was first spoken afterwards writteÌ„ by men that weretâ—aried by the holy ghost To our first fathers the vvord spoken was necessarie sufficient whiles it was not written to us novv the written word is left as a necessarie mean or instrument sufficient to teach us Gods vvil bring us to salvation vvhich is the second point Against the sufficiencie hereof you except that this written word is not proved by an other written word vvheras before I have proved that the scriptures of God doe prov approve coÌ„firm one an other his spirit vvhich is in theÌ„m â—n al his people doth seal that they are true More sound sufficieÌ„t proof ther needeth not nor caÌ„ be had You relie upoÌ„ the church but I say vvith the Apostle if vve receav he vvitnes of mâ— the vvitnes of God is greater As yovv carp here at the vvritten vvord so did the faithlesse Pharisees as the spoken vvord yea at the eternal speaking vvord the son of God himself Thow bravest witnes of thy self sayd they thy witnes is not true Though I bear vvitnes of my self sayd Christ my vvitnes is true for I knovv vvhence I came vvnither I goe but ye cannot tel vvhence I come and vvhich â—r I goe Ye judge after the flesh Even so the scriptures bear vvitnes of themselves say I yovv accept not this theyr testimonie And vvhy doubtlesse because you knovv not vvhence they came you judge after the flesh Our Lord Iesus had the vvitness of Iohn Baptist other men many but he received not the vvitnes of men nor praise of men So the holy scriptures hav vvitnes of the church saincts in al ages but they receav not the vvitnes of men as that vvhich is most irrefragable Christ had greater vvitnes then Iohns for the vvorks vvhich he did bare witnes or him that the Father sent him So the works which the scriptures doo in the consciences of men bear witnes that they are of God The Father himself which sent Christ
bare witnes of him so the Father which hath sent uâ— the scriptures beareth witnes of them Ye have not heard his voice at any time sayth Christ neyther have ye seen his shape his word ye have not abiding in you for whom he hath sent him ye beleev not So say I to you if ye beleev not the scriptures it is because the word of God abides not in you if you hear not them neyther wil you be perswaded though one rise from the dead agayn Luk. 16 31. But loe how you require proof of a received principle for which by lawes of right reasoning you deserv not to be reasoned with as a Christian It is the speech of an atheist to cal for proof that ther is a God of a Turk oâ— pâ—ynim to cal for proof that our divine scriptures are of God Professed Christians grant this why should we then warr one with an other about our own received grounds The books that I hold to be inspired of God authentik canonical your selves grant â—o to be Cease therfore I pray you to â—ight against God least by your own mouthes you â—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 onely true you say I have my answer ready coyned viz. the things of God no man knoweth but the spirit of God It is wel my answer hath been coyned in the Lords mint and it shal be wel with you if you receiv your money from no worse coyners But what fault find you with this coyn you ask how I do proov that I have the spirit of God For my self first I answer with th'Apostle 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 my self onely as the tree is known by the fruits so may my spirit by the fruits thereof be discerned whither it be of God or no. For my interpretatioÌ„ I answer it may be truth it may be error let it be tried by the scripture it self of them that have the spirit of God Further proof ther is none on earth till the great day come when all secrets shal be made manifest But for the scripture vvhich is the thing you should keep unto it needs not my proof that it is inspired of God it hath proof in it self of God then vvhich can be no greater It is as if you should ask me proof that there is light in the sun my ansvver vvould be all vvhose eyes have the spirit of life and sight in theÌ„ doo see it the blind and senselesse can never discern it So is it much more in the things of God Learn it I pray you of our Saviour vvho saith that the vvorld cannot receive the spirit of truth because it seeth him not neyther knovveth him but yee my disciples knovv him for he dvvelleth vvith you and shall be in you and he shall teach you all things and he shall testify of me he shall glorifie me for he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you Now this Anointing or holy spirit all that are Christs have none other in the world and it dvvelleth in them and they need not that any man teach them but as the same Anoynting teacheth them all things and it is true and is not lying If you say with Nicodemus how can these things be I answer with Christ Verily verily we speak that we know and testify that vve have seen but ye receive not our vvitnesse If ye cannot perceive the vvind that blovveth nor knovv hovv the bones doe grovv in the vvomb of a woman with child how should ye know the work of God that worketh all If you see not Gods spirit in the script â—res it is because the eyes of your hart are blinded yet the light shines in darknes though the darknes comprehends it not If you still call for testimonie and proof of the spirit you have been answered it is the spirit which testifieth that the spirit is truth and if you refuse to walk in this light you must grope in darknes till you lye down in sorow But you still object as having a mist before your eyes that the Manichie Montanist Arian and all other haeretiks will vâ—aâ—â— of this private spirit c. be â—t â—o and cannot you trie the spirits as the Apostle biddeth whither they â—e of God doubtlesse if you were of God you should not onely trie and find out but overcome them for greater is he that is in the Saincts then he that is in the world this promise have we received from the Father 1 Ioh. 4 4. Againe you consider not though you were put in mind that Ievves Turks and Ethniks vvill beat you with your ovvn vveapons For the Iâ—vv resteth upon the books of Moses and the Prophets vvhich are the ground of our Christian religion and from them he reasoneth against â—esus of Nazareth our hope To allege novv against Ievves the authoritie of your catholik church or Pope is no more then for them to allege against youth authoritie of Annas and Caiaphas and the church of Israel If you confound not the Ievv by scriptures as did the first Christians by demonstration of the spirit and of power your self vvil turn back and be ashamed for no other weapons vvill vvin the victorie in this feild And the same vvill foile all Antichristians and heretiks vvhosoever for though they take up the sword of the spirit which is the word of God yet the true spirituall man vvhose eyes are in his head vvill return that svvord into their ovvn harts and slay them thervvith For the vveapons of our vvarfare are mighty through God to cast dovvn holds and a vvise man goeth up into the citie of the mighty and casteth dovvn the strength of the confidence thereof Prov. 21. 22. I but the Romane catholik church you say can shew Turks their beginner beginning increase and declyning estate And vvil not the Ievv say as much against us Christians that they can shevv our beginner beginning increase c. If this be your best defense the Turk vvill laugh you to scorn And IVLIAN the Apostata vvould not have his mouth stopped by your slight answer because he himself went out of the catholik Ch which was more ancient then he for then if a Ievv should novv come to your catholik church his brethren Ievves might stop his mouth by your yeason because he goeth out of a church more ancient then himself Iulian pleaded not for his own person but for Paganisme as much more ancient and universal then Christianisme vvhich if they be unfallible demonstrations of the truth our faith vvill perish unlesse vve deduce our antiquitie from paradise vvhere in deed Christianitie did beginn And so
maketh him a ground of grounds whereon 〈◊〉 bâ—ild our faith that he must tell us what is divine scripture and vvhat is the meaning of every point of scripture vvhat is unvvritten veritie c. and none may doubt or contradict you give me an anansvver from Aristotle Philosophie but altogither neglect the true sophie or wisdome that is from above For by what ground from God may I be assured that the B. of Rome rather then of Eph sâ—â— c is the onely man in the world on whom my â—aith must rest oâ— that ther is such a mutual reciprocation betwixt Gods 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 witnes agayn of the scriptures holdeth them forth or should as the pillar ground of truth But this not alwayes nor necessarily For how thâ—n is it come to passe that the church of Ephesus which in Pauls time was the pillar and ground of truth hath long synce been swallowed up of heresies Why may I not fear also that the church of Rome whom Paul wâ—rn d not to be hie minded out to fear least God who spared not the natural branches the Iewes would also not spare her but cutt her off is swallowed up of like evils And to follow your ovvn similitude hovv do you manifest that the Pope is the onely skilful Lapidarie that must value the Carbuncles Saphirs and al other precious stones that shine in the scriptures If a Lapidary should shew you a chaulk stone and say it 〈◊〉 a diamond prize it aâ—â—ording vvould you beleev him and give him 〈◊〉 price yet you beleev the Pope vvheÌ„ he tels you that the fabulous books of â—obie and of Iudith other like apocryphal are canonical inspired of God to be prized as dear as Mosâ—s and the Prophets As he shevves little skil in this art that gives such rubbish in sted of the Topaz Chrysoliteâ— so dare I not trust him in valuing the stones upon Aarons Ephod or shevving the vertue uses of them vvhâ—r of he is more ignorant as experience hath taught them many other men Yet you refuse the holy Ghost the spirit of al truth who onely 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 wil prove by your own confession be the child of damnation Now verily I am loth to put my soul into his hand that hath so little care of his ovvn or make him the onely Pilote of my ship that sayles himself into the gulf of hâ—ll And wheras you vvould havâ— me giv you leav to be of Sâ—â—â—gâ—stines mind who sayd he would not beleev the scripture to be scripture without the authoritie of the church if he and you understand Christ the head of the church auctor of the scriptures good leav have you But if you mean his supposed Vicar the Pope for so your catholik church shrinketh into one man or any such prelate you may take leav if you vvill but I vvil give you none For Augustine vvho vvrote a book of â—etractations râ—pâ—â—nting his ovvn sundry errors and oversights mought err in this as vvel as in other points it is not vvisdom for any man to follovv him in all things that vvas deceived in many And this is such an assertion as behoved him eyther vvâ—l to explaine it or plainly to retract it and not to leav a stumbling block before the blind And if you vvil needs blindfold your self and folovv him yet give others leav to use their ey-sight least they fall into the ditch And herein I not you follovv Augustines stepps for when controversie was between Hierom and him about Peters syn Galat. 2. Hierom alledged many Doctors to back his opinion then desired of him as you doo now of me to give him leav to err with such men if he thought him to err Augustine answered that he had Paul himself in sted of them al yea above them al and to him he did flie and appeal from them al that were otherweise minded and asked leav of them that he mought rather beleev so great an Apostle then any other how learned so ever As you would have leav to be of Austins mind for the other point so wil I take leav to be of his practise in this Your â— argument now foloweth drawn from the difficultie hardnes to understand the scripture Wherto I answered granting some things to be difficult in the Bible but deneying the inference that therefore it is no certayn rule or square of truth Yow reply that the testimonie alledged 2. Pet. 3. 16. doth prove it for in what say you dooth S. Peter say that S. Paul is hard but concerning many points of our faith and religion as concerning predestination reprobation vocation of the gentils 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 playn in it self Paul is not so obscure as your Pope Secondly the Apostle saith that the unlearned unstable doo pervert or wrest these things as the other scriptures also but what is this against those that be taught of God and stablished in the truth by his spirit Evil minded men wil wrest al things be they never so playn Shal we therefore have no rule no sure grouÌ„d of our faith To come theÌ„ neer unto you in this point I freely grant that many high mysteries are in the scriptures hard to be vnderstood of us ignorant men but withal I add this that those mysteries are made more hard by your Popes determinations For wheras men mought have some good mesure of light in these mysteries by the playn scriptures it is come to passe by your Popes prelates glosses interpretations coÌ„ments c. that darknes grosse darknes 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 doe not right therfore to complayne of difficultie insufficiencie in the Prophetical and Apostolical writings Why rather mind you not theâ—saying of the holy Ghost in the scriptures Prov. 18 8. 9. The words of my mouth are al playn to him that wil understand and streight to them that would find knowledg 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 doubtfull Delphik oracles of the Divill uttered for mens destruction You think the late fathers and your Popes can
this Peter was first I confesse 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 they began sayth 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 shal work another miracle in confirmation of my saith if from this though it be granted you can by sound argument coÌ„clude him head as your Pope expounds the head ship Howbeit the first miracle was the speaking with strange tongues for that 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 blasphemie of Hymenaeus Alexander delivering them to Satan and the forcerie of Elymas striking him with blindnes If miracles prove supremacies the church shall have many supreme heads 10. He first discovered Simon Magus and condemned him If the Pope vvould doe so too Simonie at this day vvould not be so rise When Sergius tertius Benedictus 4. got the Popedome with briberie and Alexander the â— bought the voices of many Cardinals whither was Cephas or Magus their predecessor If the vertue made Peter head the contâ—arie vice made your Popes the taile How be it your Prelates if writers say true have been more ready to receive with with Iudas then to give with Simon All these and other circumstances concurring in S. Peter showes you say manifestly that S. Peter had preeminence above all the other Apostles that he is the rock and head of the churchâ—â— They are showes in deed circumstances standing a farr off but never a one of them have striken a stroke in this your â—â—lâ—tation Peter had for the most part preeminence in order I readily grant but his office and auctoritie was one and the same with the other Apostles Mat. 28. 16. 20. Ioh. 20 21. 22 23. Paul relating the offices ordeyned of God in the church saith first Apostles secondly prophets 〈◊〉 and agayn he gave some Apostles and some Prophets but the scripture no where sayth first Peter the head of the church then Apostles And that Peter was neyther head nor Rock I proved in my former writing if you will admit of proof from Gods book if not then keep your showes and circumstances still but make no such conclusions with a manifest-lye You proceed and say that Peter was particularly pointed out by his ovvn name his fathers name and his new name Cephas that no cavil might be took at a legacie so stronglie particularly firmed unto S. Peter His legacie is no way by me impugned I know it is firme though not so great as you would make it But you impugne the legacie of the other Apostles unto whom in Peter vvas promised and after to them all generally performed whatsoever power Peter had in the ministerie of the gospel Mat. 28. Ioh. 20. Act. 2. yea you impugne the dominion of Christ himself whiles you would make Peter the Rock and Head of the catholik 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 onely the Rock let the equall reader of my former writing judge you make bold and bare affirmations without proof of holy scripture or humane learning Petros you say signifies eyther a Rock or a stone but what learned auctor doo you shew 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 enemie the Pope vnder the pretence of Peter And that your church hath made shipwrack against this Rock not onely of faith but of learning also appeares in this that you make Cephas upon Optatus credit in Greek to signifie 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 doo all or any of these scriptures shew that Cephas signifies a head nothing lesse You that entwite we with my private spirits interpretation should have been better avized then thus openly and directly to oppugn the publik interpretation of the holy Ghost Ioh. 1. 43. wher Cephas is interpreted Petros a stone not Cephalee a Head Or if you think the Apostle had also a private spirit and knew not Syriak and Greek so well as Optatus yet mought you have preferred the publik approved learning of your owne linguists who interpreting Cephas a Rock shew that Optatus head wanted wit in this that he sayd it signified a head and they want conscience that upon this false ground apply these scriptures that speak of Christ the head unto a mortall creature wheras the Rock is the creator God himself as the Lxxij Greek interpreters if you wil learn of them wil teach you But let me follow your arguments You say my objection that S. Peter answered as the mouth of the Apostles and therfore 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 superioritie If every spokes-man were master-spring of all their judgemeÌ„ts for whoÌ„ he speaks it were something that you say but ask a jurie 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 parhameÌ„t are they the master-springs of all their judgments with whom they sit When Thomas when Philip when Iude spake unto Christ in the name of the rest were they master-springs of all the others judgements I perceiv 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 sonns of Abraham be two sonns in that they represented two nations You want help to make up your argument thus But Abrahams a sonns were 2. sonns stil though they represented 2. nations therfore 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 shal be Antichrist stil though he take upon him to represent the Church yea and God himself You grant me that all the other Apostles were a foundation Apoc. 21. but not the principal Neyther
the Martyrs of the primitive church yoâ— will allow of for your Martyrs whether of S. Laurence or â—o 7. Whether you allow of Constantius the first Christian Emperour to be of your religion 8. Whether you will allow of any of our three conversions of England to have been to this religion which you now professe 9 Whether you hold that those that have died or shall die resolved Romane Catholicks have bene or shal be saved 10. Whether you will graunt the Church of Christ or the synagogue of the Jewes to be more visible or less subject to ruin and subversion 11. Whether you allow of the last edition of the protestants Bible or else what edition you propound to your flock â—â—â—etest to be folowed 12 Whether sufficiencie onely since I take you hold ordering or imposition of hands not to be vsed is to be required to make one of your teaching Elders or if onely that sufficeth not to assigne what more is required To these questions I intreat you Mr Henry Aynsworth that earnestly to give an orderly breife and distinct answer to ech one of these questions for on the resolution of these many fruitfull consequences may be gathered to make easie any poinct hereafter to be controverted betweene vs. But now breifly to set downe my arguments which I maintain stil you have not satisfied in no one poinct I will therfore breifly set them downe in forme desiring an answer as breif yet as solid and as substancial as you can affoard onely graunting denying or distinguishing which in deed is to answer in forme like a scholler Your conclusion as I take was this The written word of God contained in the Bible is the onely sufficient rule of our faith My reasons were these in substance to prove the contrary though the same in word I can not affirme not having one line of yours or my conference That which is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the onely rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knowen for scriptures go the bare scriptures which is the written word of God can not be the onely rule of faith My Major is most certaine and evident My Minor I proved out of Dr. Whitaker Hooker Zanchius Brentius all holding traditioÌ„ necessarily to distinguish scriptures froÌ„ no scriptures Also I take I proved this out of the holy Councells out of S. Augustin contra epistolam fundamenti Manichaeic 9. Ego Euangelio non crederem c. I would not beleeve the Gospel except the authoritie of the church should move thervnto Neyther did you answer my Minor when you said scriptures â—r knowen by themselves For first you slight and let slip the authority of those that in common reason I should beleive assoâ—ne as your self 2. You doe not answer to the authoritie of S. Aug 3. your answer is against common sense Since if scriptures were as prime a principle as that the sun shines or that honie is sweet no man could beâ— ignorant thereof that had all his naturall faculties and if more then the natural faculties and the object disposed be required you eats your owne words For then it is not so knowen a truth And how shall I know I have this spirituall eye of discerning truth more theÌ„ my adversarie that accepts of some things for no scripture that I do allow of as scripture c. Why had not S. Aug this â—ie that with whole Councel of Carthage accpted of the bookes of Machabees as divine and Canoricall scripture why had not S. Hierom that translated the holy scriptures Another reason that I urged was thus Many things were beleeved before the written word of God many things are now beleeved that are not expressely taught in the written word of God go the written word of God is not onely the rule of faith The first part of my Antecedent is easily proved For the church of God till Moses tyme was well governed and yet had no written word My second part was proved I giving instance that the Sacrament in the old law for expâ—ating of original syâ— in women The mysterie of the B. Trinity that God the holy ghost did proceed froÌ„ God the father and God the sonne as from one beginning That Easter day should be celebrated on Sunday and not on Saturday That the Creede of the Apostles is to be beleeved and yet no one of these is expressely taught in holy scriptures you sayd yes but you cited no place of scripture for probation thereof Moreover you have not satisfyed the places of holy scripture I cited to prove traditions especially you have not answered to that place of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. v. 15. nor to the authoritie of S. Chrysost. homilie 4. iâ—â— Thes. 2. wherin Dr. Whitaker sayes he speaks unworthy of so holy a father nor to the place off Basil or S. Hierom or S. Aug. De Genesi ad literam lib. 10. c. 23. where he tearheth many fasts feasts solemnities to be kept and beleeved onely through tradition and he testifieth there that in no wise we could beleeve the baptising of childreÌ„ without vnwritten tradition Another which I vsed was this That which is most difficult hard and almost for occurring difficults inexplicable can not be to the unlearned at least a certaine and unfallible truth But the scriptures are thus as well witnesseth your own conscience and divers places I set downe that seem to contradist one another go Moreover how should an artificer know whether this Bible be well translated or no since he can neyther conferr it with the original or the vulgar Latin And I showed how these difficults are not trivial Amongst other places I cited that place of S. Peter the â— chapter v. 16. In which are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the unlearned and vnstable deprave as also the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition No doubt S Peter meanes of those things S. Paul delivered touching vocation grace justification and predestination In which I showed how parvus error in principio magnus est in sine to which the words of S. Peter alludes to as also the rest of the scriptures meaning that an error in some one transcendall poinct of these doe cause error in many other places that depend hereupon But is these and more plainly examplified I had nothing but quotations imâ—ertinently alleged and no determinate answer to the difficult That whose onely the hath been defective and erroneous yea to the greatest Elercks to every one howsoever unfâ—ilfull and unlearned can not be a certaine and unfallible rule of faith But that the bare scripture is so I showed by diverse seming plaine piares cited by the Arrians Pelagians Semipelagians Donatists EutheraÌ„s Anabaptists â—t All which vie scripture for scripture If you give an interpretation of their place of scripture that they bring to confirme their hereste they will give also an interpretation
though we should graunt that Elias did think himself left alone in Israel yet Almightie God did answer him I wil leave 7. thowsand men in Israel that have not bowed their knees to Bâ—al 50. I answer that Esay the Prophet in his first chapter dooth use the self same fiâ—ure of Synâ—â—hdâ—che also the self same manner of speech is vsed the 4. â—eg 21. For Manasses himself did râ—pent and redeeme mâ—nn and many were never seduced so understand that also of the Prophet here 51. That of which Azarias dooth prophetise 2 Paral. 15. is to be understood of the Israelites that were dificient and not of the Jewes that were constant I graunt also that at the coÌ„ming 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 faile is to be understood of the destruction of Hierusalâ—m and the câ—â—â—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 vnderstood the particular departing of Antichrist and his â—rew from the church And so by these grounds to the usual objections against the perpetuall visibilitie of Gods church wee may answer any thing that hath bene or may be produced 53. Yet to confirm this truth with one short reason I argue thus This church of God if it must be invisible Eyther 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 tyme of persecution no bodie could persecute an invisible thing 54. Now wheras you sayd you show how the labyrinth of my religion leadeth to the Pope the center of our circle True it is I sayd the vltimate resolution of our religion is to be resolved into the veracitie of God revealing as into the formal causâ— and into the authoritie of the church as into the applying â—ause And I am glad you have traâ—ed me not to your heretical quicksands but to S. Peters 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 â—ou in regard of the church of Rome as Beames in regard of the sun as boughes in regard of the tree as a river in regard of the fountayn So that he concludes he that separates himself from the church of God he must needs vanish fade and drie up in that they lack their origen by which all unitie is preserved 55. I gave you 2 or three instances to show how the word of God might in a divers kind depend of the Church and the church of the word of God as we prove the self same a priori et a posteriori the operation of the stone or herb depends of the skil and knowledge of the herbalist and lapidarie and their skil and knowledge depends of the innated and inward proprietie of the stone and herbe For neyther 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 your self a way to a ridiculous building without foundatioÌ„ as I shall shew anone 56. You answer nothing to this but that I prove out of natural philosophie as though divinitie though it excels is not concordant to natural reason whereas we can beleeve nothing that we see implies by the light of naturall 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 showes 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 salue if you did daily consider it For there he warnes her that she might conforme her conversation to the house of God the pillar of truth And though the text sayes in the house of God yet it must be understood in the particular church that must have reference to that place as wee shall prove hereafter where S. Peter did establish his chaire Ioh. 14 16. Mat. 16. Math. 28 Ephes. 4 Ioh. 17. Luc. 22. Psal. 2. Ephâ—s 2. 58. When you seeme to drawe out of my speech that I denie for my witness the spirit of God is your error and fraude For I hold that which is taught out of these places 1 Cor 2. 10 11. Iob. 28 2 13 22. c. to signifie 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 Pilote I would save you from that bottomlesse gulphe that ghaspes to receive your erroneous soule 59. St. Augustines authoritie you let slip denying him a fit Maister to follow you say he might retractate this but neither you doe nor can show that he did retractate it 60. As for S. Augustines opposition to S. Hierome it was in some smal matter and not in a matter defined vp 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 bee a certaine and infallible rule of saith to the ignorant and rude at least 62. My major propositioÌ„ is most certain For a rule must be known and certaine and more fit to our capacitie to bee conceived then that which is to be ruled and certefied therby 63. My Mmor also I prove both in regard of many seeming contradictions of the Hebraimes nature of things therin contained being high misteries 64. In answering of this Argument you say some thinges are hard in the scriptures I proved this difficultie and hardnes was in principal matters which I proved out of the second of S. Peter 3. 16. Our most deare brother Paul according to his wisdome given hâ—m hath written to you as also in all his epistles speaking of them in these things in which are certain thiâ—gs hard which the unlearned unstable deprave as also the rest of thâ— scrâ—pâ—ures to their own destructio Hence is gathered that not on ly the places of S. Pâ—ul touchiâ—g vocation justification sanctification predestination and â—â—prâ—bation inâ—â—pâ—icating which pointes 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 showes that one of the cheife matters they did deprave was about justifying by faith And I showed you here as erring a little
For first and formost you doe not distinguish what are scriptures and what are not by the authoritie of the church For so you should admit of all that she dooth receive and if ye reject any thing that she hath doubted of you should as well as yow refuse those bookes called Deutrocanonici of the old Testament you should as well reject those Deutrocanonici of the new testament as the epistle to the Hebrewes Judas epistle and the Apocalyps but the touch of your triall is the private spirit and the unction not of the holy Ghost but of an addle head and a self conceipted phancie 100. And that you like a blind baiard walk in this round though you may apprehend you have gone many a mile and to show that you have confined your selfe in the selfe same circle I prove 101. For first I aske how you know the scripture of the Prophets and Apostles is Gods word you answer the spirit of God the testification and witness of the spirit the annointing of the spirit doe testifie to you that they are written by God But then againe I demaund how you prove that you have that spirit of God this spirituall annointing You answ what maÌ„ knoweth what is in him but the spirit of God that is in him 1. Cor. 2. He answers again that he can make no proof of that to another that is onely knowen to himself againe no man knoweth how the wind bloweth or knowes how the bones do grow in the wombe of a woman Eccles. 11 5. it is the spirit that testifies 1. Joh. 5 6. So that we see you prove the scripture by your private spirit and your spirituall annointing and you prove you have this spirit by the scripture As if a child should prove he were no bastard in that his mother sayes so and she likewise prove that she her selfe were honest in that he saies so Or prove the Church of Amsterdam to be a true church in that the Amsterdamian spirit interpreting the scripture saies so And that the Amsterdamian spirit is a true spirit in that the AmsterdamiaÌ„ spirit sayes so So I demand of you how you doe know the scripture to be Gods word you answer out of the testificatioÌ„ of the holy ghost And how you know the internal testificatioÌ„ is froÌ„ God you answer likewise out of the scripture interpreted by the Spirit My sheep heares my voice and how doe you know how it is the scripture You answer by the testification of the inward spirit so that we see your discourses like puppets have their motioÌ„ froÌ„ one string speak by the mouth of the same interpreter 102. But now to show the falshood and unprofitablenes of your circular discourse I demand what you hold the testification of the inward spirit to be For you must hold that it proceeds from God as wel as your inward habit or act of faith and then againe I aske whether you be certaine by the certaintie of faith that you have this inward act of faith that you have the testification of the spirit Then I argue this certitude must proceed from an other testification and that from another and the other from another so wee shall runne headless in infinitum 103. Besides I ask whether that testification of the spirit since it can not have his residence in the will being a certaine perswasion or speech of God belonging to the understanding and so it must be a certain notice or cognitioÌ„ If it be obscure I aske how it is distinguished froÌ„ faith if it be clear evident how is it to be distinguished froÌ„ the knowledg or vision of a thing so that wee see you affirme a thing that indeed you doe not understand what it is 104. But before I gathered your mind when you said the scriptures of themselves are so cleare that by themselves they appeare for scriptures so that you seeme to resolve that which you beleeve in to the holie scriptures and the formal reason why you beleeve it into the testification or perswasion of the spirit yet this also you doe not hold to alwayes For other times you resolve both the one and the other into the testification of the inward spirit with you most often which showes your great inconstancie grounded on seare 105. But admitting that you had onely sayd the things to bee beleeved or fides externa were to be resolved into the holy scripture onely Yet so you should admit of as great an absurditie For so you should say the gospel of S. Mathew or the whole scripture taken totally togither are not canonical and authentick nor that Mr. H. Aynsw is predestinated or that his sinns are remitted All which Aprove For nothing he is to beleeve for which he hath not the expresse word of God But none of these are expressed in the word of God If he will say he will gather these by necessarie consequence his adversaries may oppose him and he can show no certaintie If he flie unto the inward testification of the spirit theÌ„ I inferr that the things to be beleeved ar not to be resolved into the scriptures alone So Mr H. A. eates his own word though without one graine of salt or pretence of reason Yet to show this a little more plaine I reason thus Is the scripture the word of God you answer it is and that without all question But I demaund how you know it is the word of God if you answer by the testification of your inward spirit you ride your first circuit If you say it appeares by it self this is not so plaine since most parts and parcels of scripture have bene doubted of and that by schollers Yet admit scripture were so cleare a light by it self yet you cannot avoid as great a difficultie For I aske whether you will prove the whole scripture by the whole and then every one will see you â—â—ie for refuge thether which you ought to defend If you say that the whole scripture is proved by some particular parcell of scripture you are bound to show me that which you can never performe viz. that any part of scripture dooth affirme the whole scripture and every part and parcel thereof to be scripture 106. And if I should graunt you this yet another absurditie at the suit of reason hath arrested you For by what will you trie that particular parcel of scripture that so authoriseth al the rest to be scripture Thus you see in defending your private spirit you have undergone the labours of Hercules the difficulties arising as Hydraes heades two for one as one is dissolved 107. Besides this opinion of theirs doth not onely lead a man into these endlesse windings but it makes against coÌ„mon sense that God should leave his holte scriptures so carelesse at six and sevens unsettled that every hereticli might challenge to himself to be taught from God so that he might reject the
faithful vvay of reasoning If as your maÌ„ner is you vvould have me to vnderstand it in the first I vvill so Then it is thus That which is not by it self known for Gods word cannot be tâ—e rule of faith This now I deny and your proof is vvanting The proof vvhich you make for it as you had set it down I admitt of concerâ—ing the vvord of God onely vvhere you extend Gods vvord to the definitions of the church c. I run not so farr vvith you But require you to prove your churches councils fathers definitions to be Gods vvord vvhich you doo not Your 2. proposition I deny for the scriptures by themselves vvithout your traditions may as easily be known for Gods vvord as the Sun in the firmament may be known to give light vvithout a candle This I vvill manifest hereafter Yoâ— seek to prove your aâ—â—ertion by authority of men That I refuse as insufficient by authority of Christ vvho theweth their religion to be vayn vvhich teach for doctrines the precepts of men Mat. 15. 9. Secondly you allege a reason Since we doo not see or heare God in his known Prophets to write or speak the word c. there must you say be one certayn 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 acertain platforme of words delivered to them over and above Pauls epistles amongst which you name for one Transsubstantiation I answer first God his vvisdome power majesty truth c. are to be seen as evidently in the vvritings of the Prophets and Apostles as his eternall power and Godhead are to be seen in the creatures of the vvorld Rom. 1. Ps. 19. although Atheists cannot see these in the one nor Papists in the other Secondly as men doo not hear God vocally in his Prophets so if they did hear him in them or in Christ his sonn yet could they not beleeve vnless Gods spirit illuminated their harts Iohn 12. 37. 39. So your reason is against Christ himselfe as vvel as against the â—…pture Thirdly the church whereto you vvould send us when 1. â—ayth this is Gods vvord how shall men know it so to be any more then they knew the vvords that Christ spake to be Gods unless you lift vp your church above Christ. Fourthly vvhat church mean you Greek or Latine or AEthiopian and how shall men know Christs Church from Antichrists And if the Latin church tel us the fables of Tobit and Iudith are Gods canonicall scripture and the Greek church say they are nor but apocryphal vvhich of these shall vve beleeve Thus you vvould draw us into a vvilderness vvherein vve may loose all stay of faith and fall eyther into despayr or atheisme To those vvords of Paul I have answered before and to let pass your mistaking as if he did inioyn a sound of words as you vvrite further I vvould have you manifest if you can vvho are Timothees successors and vvith vvhom he left Pauls depositum as you call it And how a man may know your kenophonie and monstrous vvord of TraÌ„substantiatioÌ„ to be one of Pauls holsom vvords rather then the Lutherans Consubstantiation Your contending against the distinction vvhich I gave of beleeving 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 seing you cannot or vvill not vnderstand and rest in the truth Your marginall 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 vvriting You in reciting the scriptures vvhich I brought doo maym the texts to ease your shoulders In Iohn 20. 30 31. you leave out these words and that in beleeving you might have life through his name So in 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. you neyther mention nor answer this that by the scriptures the man of God may be perfect and perfectly fitted vnto every good work Whereby â— proved that faith vnto life and every good vvork 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 Vnto your answers 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 replye but leave it vnto judgment But to help you if it may be I vvill breefly note your oversights 1. You allege my words sundrie times as if I had sayd Gods spirit is in all people vvhich I never spake nor thought but proved the contrary by Ioh. 14. 17. I sayd Gods spirit is in all his people vvhich if you doubt of see Rom 8. 9. 16. 1 Ioh. 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 hâ—ve playnly spoken By which blasphemie God must be beholding to men Christ to the Pope that by their witness men may beleeve in Christ and his vvord The contrary is evident by Mat. 16. 17. flesh blood sayth Christ hath not reveled it vnto thee but my father vvhich is in heaven See also Gal. 1. 16. 17. and 2. 6. 9. 3. You are often vp agayn vvith your bastard phrase of the private spirit vvhereas al Gods children have the publick or catholick spirit if you vvill so call it as I playnly proved in my former vvriting you have nothing to say against it but that the spirit worketh otherwise in the head then in the foot vvhich is a manifest tergiversation vvhereof in due place 4. You cary your self 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 sory for it Enter into your self and see by vvhat spirit you doo discern the Pope to be Christs vicar as you suppose and his traditions to be Christs oracles Will you not say it is by the spirit of God Now vve are assured that Christ is more able to furnish us vvith the spirit of God then the Pope is to furnish you That you perceive not Gods spirit to be in us but reproch us it is not strange for the vvorld as Christ sayth seeth him not neyther knoweth him Your fathers also could not perceive Gods spirit to be in Christ himself but sayd he had an vnclean spirit and we his servants are not better then our Lord. 5. So for the majesty of the scriptures shining as the sun in his strength by their majesty vvisdom harmony c. proving approving themselves one an
other to the faithfull conscience you turne vvind because we caÌ„not perswade the Arians c. by conference of scriptures to beleeve aright It is not what vve can perswade others but our selves For there are many Arians and other heretikâ— vvhich you vvith your fathers councils Popes are not able to convert Yet you think your Popes decrees are Gods vvord and vve know that the holy scriptures are so indeed And the more to convince you look to your Mr. as you called him Cardinall Bellarmine and see a sound argument of his to prove the knowledge and assurance of the scriptures to be of God by the testimony of the scripture it selfe Bellar. de verb. dei I. 1. c. 2. argument 4. 6. You ask a question thinking to intangle me what the seal of the spirit is and you suppose divers answers Because you are so partial a judge of my spirit I pray aske your Pope what the seale of his spirit is and how he discerns scripture whither he build without ground as you say I doo Look what he can wel answer for himself to satisfy your conscience that think to be answered by me In the mean while mind that the seal of the spirit is for my own assurance and comfort which concerneth an other man nothing 2 Cor. 1. 22. 1 Cor. 2. 11. 7. You having my answer already doo refuse it saying it is most false that the scriptures are distinguished from other books by themselves as light from darknes For then say you every one that had but naturall perfection of the organ and free proposing of the object should distinguish this light This say I is most true for the law of God is a light Prov. 6. 23. which when it is by him free proposed and the organ that is the mind of man wich now is blinded recovereth naturall perfection that is to say is illuminated or renued in knowledge after the image of him that created it every such man with his perfect organ seeth the word of God to be in the scriptures as every man that hath a perfect naturall ey seeth the light of the sun and can assure himself hereof though he goe not to Rome to ask the Pope whither the sun gives light or no. But you are as a man without sense that though the sun shine at noon day yet if the Pope say it is midnight you will beleeve him so on the contrary For you profess to beleeve each part of scripture to be Gods holy word derived from the fulnes of truth Now this is because the Pope tells you so and he tells you also that the books of Tobit Iudith Maccabees c. are scripture canonicall although in them there be apparant lyes as you may see Tobit 12. 15. compared with Tob. 15. 18. Iudith 9. 2. compared with Gen. 49 5. 6. 1 Mac. 6 16. compared with 2. Mac. 1 16. 2 Mac. 1. 19. coÌ„pared with 2 King 25. 1. c. so 2. Mac. 1. 20. 21. 22. 31. many the like Now though the Apostle sayth no lye is of the truth 1 Ioh. 2. 21. yet you beleeve these lyes are derived from the fulnes of truth because the Pope will have it so to be Thus the blind lead the blind into the ditch So you doo not by your private spirit as you say distinguish heritiks from true beleevers but by the definitions and declarations of the church that is I trow of the Pope I shewed you a better way by the Apostle 1 Ioh. 4. 1. 4. but you love darknes better then light And by your grounds if you had lived in Christs dayes on earth you would have distinguished Christ as an heretick from true beleeving Iewes by the definitions of that church and Preisthood Vnto Iewes you confess you must shew other grounds then your Popes authority But if they retort vpon you your private spirit as you doo to me eyther your mouth is stopped or your conscience in pleading against me as you doo is corrupted Yea when you are driven about the high Preists that condemned Christ to say their ignorance was most vincible by their own law which was the scriptures your own mouth giveth sentence against you For by the same law say I the ignorance of your Romish Preisthood is most vincible also Your owne traditions are of no more force against us then the Iewes were against Christ. You charge me with racking many wrested places of scripture to prove the church of God invisible and you oppose many scriptures against it I answer eyther your care was litle or your conscience was large to write so vntruely The question was whither the church erred or no that I proved by many examples and testimonies of scripture as is to be seen in my former writing when your mouth is stopped her in you pass by all that I alleged and turne to another matter wherin you seem to say somewhat and answer vnto scriptures which I mentioned not I mean to hold to the point and not to follow your wandrings which are in the moveable pathes of that strange womaÌ„ Prâ— 5. 6 That which you answer to my demonstration of the Labâ—riâ—th of your religion leading to the Pope c. I shall not bestow labour to reply upon but leave it to judgment so for your answers to the scriptures by me alleged for I will not strive to have the last word Whither I answered nothing as you say to your reason let the reader see Your 2. Argument from the hardnes of the scriptures you agayn repete and dilate Seing you make no other proofe then was before I vvil not follow you to repete my answers but referr to my former writings To prov 8. 8. 9. you reply it is to be vnderstood eyther of generall doctrine or of precepts of manners and good life I answer you ought not so to restrayn it For wisdom there sayth al her words are righteous all are playn will you say nay generall doctrines are playn but not particular precepts of manners but not of faith Belike then the foolish woman that whore of Babylon Apo. 17. must explayn matters of faith and particular doctrines Well I shall content me with Wisdoms playn words and vvhat she teacheth not I regard not to learne if you vvill needs goe to the banket of stollen vvaters and hid bread know that the dead are there if you vvill take vvarning Where I shewed how your Popes determinations make Gods law more hard to simple men instancing the second commandement corrupted by your glosses and distinctions You take vpon you to defend your image-worship by the brazen Serpent and Cherubims And might not Ieroboam so have defended his golden calves Gods law sayth Thou shalt not make to thy self any similitudes thou shalt not bow down to them nor vvorship them you make many similitudes of God Christ
you this but the contrary for Christ being present and vvalking vvith his churches needeth no vicar And this title head God in his vvord giveth onely to Christ Col. 1. 18. Yet you leaving Gods vvord fly to your S. Basil for succor that all men may see your church and prelacy is built on the sands of mens traditions not on the Rock of divine oracles You vvill not from it but Peter signifies a rock vvhich I have disproved and shewed that Petros of Petra the Rock and Cephas of Ceph is no more then to be a Christian of Christ. Peter vvas a principal stone yea the first if you vvill layd upon Christ the chief corner stone the Rock all Christians are living stones layd on him also Your racked allegations from Augustine and other Doctors I vvil not spend time to confute for I build my religion vpon the Rock Christ not upon men Your reason vvhy the gender vvas not changed in Christs name as in Peters is for that all vvhich admitted of his doctrine vvould not deny him to be head of the church I see you love to say somwhat unto every thing I also may say all vvhich admitt of the Popes doctrine vvill not deny Peter to be head of the church so by your argument there was no need to change the gender for him neyther And so the scripture hath doon somthing needless or els your answer is fruitless How you save Optatus credit and your self from blame for falsely interpreting Cephas a head contrary to the holy Ghost Ioh. 1. 43. vvho interpreteth it a stone I leave it for the learned to judge Your exception that Peter vvas not elected to be the mouth of the rest vvas refelled in my former vvriting if you vvould rest for Thomas Philip Iude vvere not elected any more then Peter to speak for the other disciples Ioh. 14. 5. 8. 22. yet you vvill not have them heads So your distination of the Apostles equallity in power of order not of jurisdiction is a bare repetition of a thing never proved but before refuted And where you add equall as they were Apostles but not as they were Bishops it is mere trifling you might as vvell say equal as they were men but not as they vvere living creatures For they vvere no otherweise Bishops then as they were Apostles And in Act. 1. you may see that Iudas his Episcopee or Bishops office vvas no other then his Apostolee or Apostles office Act. 1. v. 20. compared vvith 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 vvith Peter in the Apostleship as you graunt they vvere equal also in al power that if you resist any longer you vvill be condemned of your self Your succession grounded but vpon mens report I allow not of for you build on boggs Your understanding of that admonition Rom. 11. 20. 22. c. is partly true and against your self in that you vvrote before S. 162. partly it is frivolous vvhiles you dream of more previlege to the See of Roome and Bishop there then to others churches and Bishops You have no colour for this in the testament of Christ yet is it the mayn thing that yow should prove if it were possible No citie in the world remayneth so execrable by Gods word as Rome for killing Christ of old by her power and pollicie and for being Antichrists throne Rev. 17. and 18. It is worth the noting that you doo not hold the Pope is necessarily indued with Gods holy grace And that in matters of fact he maysyn you say as well as any other Your Popes facts I am sure prove this if any shoud have the face to deny it Hereupon I inferr that your Popes are not members and so not possibly heads of the catholik church of God It is high blasphemy to say the head of that church may want Gods holy grace Colos. 1 18. c. 2 19. How now doo you know that the traditions and definitions of your graceless Popes are of God If you trie them not by the scriptures which you dare not because of the private spirit they may deceive and damne 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 Gods book no mention eyther of your Pope or of his Chayr for good The Apostle Peter directeth us to that vvhich holy men of God spake not to that vvith Satans slaves doo teach such as vvas P. Silvester the 2. of vvhom Cardinal Benno vvriteth that he came up out of the abyss or bottomless deep o◠divine permission And by the same answers of the Divils vvherby he had deceived many he vvas also deceived himself vvas intercepted vvith suddayn death by the judgment of God And yet vvil you trust such a miscreant that out of his chayr he vvill tel you none but divine oracles Never vvas there such a thing known since the beginning of the vvorld that a graceless reprobate should have necessarily the assistance of the holy Ghost so often as he sits him down on his chayr to define or determine the matters of God No religion on earth to my knowledge ever admitted such an unreasonable doctrine for vvhich you have no proof unless from the Popes own ungracious spirit vvhereby he exalteth himself against all that is caled God 2. Thes. 2 4. Notvvithstanding you labour to justify your S. Leo that sayd the head meaning I trow your ministeriall head at Rome infuseth grace to the whole church that God took S. Peter into the fellowship of the individual vnity And doe you in earnest beleev these things of your reprobate Popes as of S. Silvester the 2. of that Divil incarnate S. Iohn the 22. their like I perceive it is not vvithout cause that the scarlet coloured beast is sayd to be full of the names of blasphemie And here you say I see your religiō is no upstart religiō that so many yeres agoe was mainteyned Yes upstart it is but many yeres agoe I grant for the mysterie of iniquity did vvork evē vvhiles Paul lived 2 Thes. 2. 7. he told how after his departure greivous wolves should enter not sparing the flock under the name of wolves comprehending it may be Lions also and all other salvage beasts Wherefore Antichrist is an old man though you mistake as if he were yet scarse in his cradle 2. You helpe S. Leo as meaning that vvhich S. Peter sayd 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 al Christiās are partakers of A man may
have been confounded and abolished and this hath been stablished against the forces of the divil and of the princes and powers of the world and sense of the flesh and naturall minde of man Al which doo manifest that these cannot but be of God The inward testification of God is by his Holy spirit which illumineth the mind to vnderstand the things given us of God writeth them in our harts and sealeth up the assurance of the promises that ar in them unto the beleeving conscience The secondary testimony that the scriptures ar of God is from men as First the Vniversal consent of churches in all ages of the Iewes first and after of the Christians in all places which have received beleeved 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 defense of these scriptures and doctrines taught in them yea even the heretikâ—s themselves who thought their errors were confirmed by these scriptures and therfore died in them are not excluded from this motive which is such as the like can not be shewed of any book under the sun The first outward proofs which God hath engraved in the scriptures themselves are sufficient to convince al men and make them without excuse For as the invisible thinges 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 Gods word the powrfulnes wisdom and alsufficiencie therof unto mans salvation are to be seen in the Holy scriptures which they that beleeve not wil not be perswaded though one should ryse agayne from the dead Luk. 16. 31. And if God will damn the wicked that doo not by his works discern him and honour him as God much more wil he damn the prophane that doo not by his scriptures discern his holy wil and obey the same The inward testification by the spirit of God in the beleevers hart 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 neyther can perceive it In vayn therfore doth Mr. I. A. and the papists cal 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 wil I set down some motives which may draw any reasonable infidel if God shut not up his hart from understanding to come â—ather unto true Christianity with us the Reformed churches then unto Catholikisme or Popery with the Romists First we allege for the triall of our faith and religion the most ancient records in the world as Moses and after him the Prophets and the Apostles Euangelists first founders of ChristiaÌ„ religion through the earth But Papists dare not stand to these but allege for the triall of their religion later new records of Doctors Councills Popes c. Novv in all reason that vvhich is most ancient should be most true both as Gods lavv shevveth and as Tertullian also heretofore pleaded Secondly we allow al men by that common light and judgment which God hath graven in the hart of man which is the ground of al expositions to read hear examine and judge of our proofs reasons testimonies and therfore â—oâ— exhort al to have the scriptures and to peruse them and to try the spirits of al men But Papists allow not their ignorant disciples â—o read or hear the scriptures in their mother tongue nor to try their doctrines spirits which is a signe that they ar not of God but doo captive al mens judgments 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 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 adversaties being judges But their traditions and Popes decrees besides scripture are forbidden of God and allowed of none save themselves neyther doo vve acknowledg or can they ever prove them to be of God any otherwise then Mahomet may vvarrant his Alkoran or the Iewes their Thalmud Fourthly the writers of our grounds the Holy scriptures vvere all holy persons governed by the spirit of God and not any one of them vvas a reprobate But the writers and determiners of popish traditions have been many of them and that by the papists owne confession most wicked and vile persons that sold themselves unto syn and Satan al dayes of their life and got their popedomes some by simonie and bribes some by schisme and sedition and other like evil meanes Therfore in al reason they are nothing so vvorthy to be beleeved or rested vpon as the sacred vvriters on vvhome vve depend Fiftly the Holy Apostles Prophets to vvhose vvritings vve cleave preached not themselves but Gods law and Christ drew no man to subjection unto themselves but unto God sought not in their doctrines or vvritings their ovvn vvealth or vvorldly prefermeÌ„t sold not the Gospel nor made marchandise of it Wheras Popes on vvhose definitive sentences Papists doo rely preach themselves as wee declare sayth P. Boniface we define and pronounce that it is altogither of necessity to salvation that every humane creature be under the Byshop of Rome So other their traditions and definitions tend to the maintenauce of their own pomp dignity vvorldly vvealth and pleasures for their Popes bulls pardons and blessed reliks are set to sale for money so are their Preists masses and Trentals as the vvorld vvel knoweth and therefore of all naturall vvise men are justly to be suspected and the holy Prophets to be preferred much before them Sixtly the holy vvriters vvhom vve depend on are all of such authority and credit as vve 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 wheras themselves as often as they lyst refuse the judgment and exposition of their fathers doctors c. as is to be seen in Cardinal Bellarmine and others that often doo refuse the sentences of the Fathers and conclude vvith the Council of Trent or definitive sentence of the Pope Seventhly the scriptures that vve build upon doo all agree and are â—one contrary one to another but hovv ever there â—ay seem contradiction yet they are easily even by themselves reconciled if men vvil labour in them But Papists have also for their rules of faith Apocryphal booke and fables vvherein are many open lyes and vnreconcilable contradictions against the Prophets as Tob. 12. 15.