Mr. I. A. I proposed to my self when first I began to answer you in these questions of religion the defense of the truth which God hath vouchsafed me mercy to witnesse and 2. the saving of your soul from death by turning you from your evil way vnto Christ if such were his pleasure Now although for this latter I have small hope left seing you so stiffly bent to keep the religion â— received by tradition of your fathers yet for the first respect I cannot be silent for I have still what to answer in the behalfe of God and of his written word against the reasons which you bring for the Pope and his Traditions The Lord guide my hart and hand vnto the mainteyning of his truth if it may be vnto the gayning of your soul. You first profess to have a reverend esteem of the scriptures which you set down I like well of But somewhat you want as That by the scriptures we come to beleive in Christ in beleeving may have life through his name Ioh. 20. 31 That by theÌ„ the man of God may be made wise vnto salvatioÌ„ may be perfect and perfectly furnished vnto every good work 2 Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17. and therefore that no man presume above that which is written 1 Cor. 4. 6. This if you graunt as you cannot with reason deny there wil be no necessary or profitable vse of your vnwritten traditions eyther for faith in Christ vnto life for wisdome vnto salvation or for any good work Whiles we therfore keep us to this heavenly light of Gods written word so commended by your selves though againe you disclaym it as not sufficient without your Popes traditioÌ„s I may say with Moyses †Their Rock is not as our Rock even our enimies being judges You devide your treatise vnto 7. parts The first thing which you promise is to shew that my reasons taken from the word of God doo vanish of themselves This you attempted before but were defeted let us see now what your latter thoughts doo bring forth For answer vnto Deut. 5. 32. you aske ‡ what I can inferr hence but that the law ought strictly to be kept that we ought neyther to add nor to take from the 10. commandements c. I answer you strayten the words too much in restreyning them to the 10. commandements for you may see before in Deut. 5. 4 -22 that the people themselves did hear the 10. commandements promulgated and â—durst here no more but prayed Moyses to goe neere and heare the rest what God would say and to declare all vnto them This he did and God told him all the commandements ordinances and lawes which they should doe in Canaan whereupon he inferreth that generall admonition v. 3â— 33. touching all the wayes of God and not the 10 commandements onely So your limitation being weighed in the Lords ballance is found too light You proceed and ask what this is to my purpose to prove that the written word alone is sufficient to decide all controversies I answer I did express my purpose was to prove this That God onely is to be the umpier and arbiter of all controversies about religion whither it were by his word written or unwritteÌ„ I stood not vpoÌ„ that in this first point This I told you plainly before if your purpose were not wilfullie to mistake and make needless coÌ„troversie you would not after warning have doon thus the second time Like fruitless labour you bestow to prove that the law of God should be explicated by the Priests c. A thing which I never doubted of yea I hold that the B. of Rome if he were as he ought to be should spend all his dayes in explicating Gods lawes to the people so should all Bishops in the world But Popes lawes devises traditions should neither be explicated nor once meÌ„tioned in the church without detestatioÌ„ You say such additioÌ„ is prohibited as is contrary to Gods law as appeareth Deut 4. 2. 3. where the idolatry with Beelphegor was punished for adding or diminishing as the text implies I answer though you costreyn the text to seem to help you while you set that before which Moyses setts after yet to let that pass I grauÌ„t that you say if you vnderstaÌ„d it wel For seing all additions to Gods law is forbidden whatsoever is added by others is contrary to Gods law Now all additioÌ„ is plainly forbidden Deut. 4. 2. and 12 32. Prov. 30. 5. Therefore nothing can be added by your Pope or any which is not contrary to the law of God Your Doctors whom you rely vpon tel you the same nothing is to be added sayth Ambrose no though it seemes to be good That which hath not authority froÌ„ the scriptures saith HieroÌ„ is as easily coÌ„teÌ„ned as allowed The answer you â— give to Deut. 12. 32. is what is here forbidden but an Hethen imitation and immolation of their children c. Is here any pro hibition of explicating the true sense of the law c. I answer you run into your former fault abridging the scope of the text To imitate the hethens was vnlawfull but to divise things of their own heads yea and to imitate God otherwise then he commaunded them was wicked also Proofe in Ieroboam who made a feast not like the heathens but like the feast in Iudah 1 King 12. 32. yet was it sinful and the holy Ghost brandeth him with forging the moneth out of his own hart v. 33. Many of your Popes idolatrous feasts have nothing so good a colour And your devised worship of Lord Lady Angels Saincts Popes Confessors c. is not onely an imitation of the hethens but an idolatrie worse then many of theirs as when we have ended these questions in hand I will vndertake to prove vnto you As for explicating the law I before approved it Your former reason from the 4. commandment you seek to vphold with a staffe of reed For when God gives many commandements why will you make the keeping of one to be the keeping of all In deed if he had given but one precept and men had given the rest it were somwhat that you say But they are all given by the same God to be our life and righteousnes if we keep them For man to add any thing to the 4 or to any or to all the commandements is an odious syn Mat. 15. 9. Whereas against all additions to Gods word I alleadged Prov. 30. 6. and Gal. 3. 15. to overthrow your fraudulent distinction you frame a reply to Gal. 1. 8. which place I produced not In Gal. 3 15. the Apostle sheweth froÌ„ the similitude of a mans TestameÌ„t that much more vnto Gods nothing may be added Against this you having nothing justly to except doo choose to your selfe an other place more easy to pervert What els dooth this bewray but the helplessnes of your cause
not understand the scripture vvithout a master I ansvver as before this proveth no insufficiencie in the scripture but in the reader I vvil further confirm it by your ovvn position vvher aftervvards you undertake to prove That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith But these definitive sentences say I are some of them hard to be understood at least by the ignorant and many cannot understand them vvithout a master if therfore your argument be good your position is naught and you must seek a nevv rule in matters of faith Your humane testimonies say no more then is alreadie heard and ansvvered if they did say more and you pressed it I vvould make ansvver as to you but leave the Fathers to sleep in peace You procede vvith the second branch of your antecedent saying that the scripture hath many senses literal many senses spiritual vvherupon you gather siure is the old law when any difficultie happened the Preist was to decide it therfore with a farr greater interest the Prâ—ist of the new law that hath the spirit of interpretatioÌ„ redoubled and ratiâ—ication of his doctrine assigned and confirmed by Christ Jesus himself is to eâ—pound the hidden senses of scripture I ansvver first that ther be so many senses literal spiritual as you doo say resteth for you to prove in your next for in this you make none I hold the sense of scripture to be one though applied to many tymes places and persons Pentheus in the Poet thought he savv tvvo suns in the firmâ—ment when ther was in deed but one it was but the difâ—â—râ—perature of his own senses that made him so to think You suppose the word which shineth as the sâ—n in the firmament of the church hath many meanings when it is but the dazeling of your eyes Secondly though it were granted to haue many senses yet the law in Deut. 11. maketh nothing against my faith For I graunt the scriptures are to be expounded by the Preists and Ministers of God Deut. 33. 10. Ephâ— 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet not by mans owne judgment or at the wil of any mortal 〈…〉 but by the spirit of God and by the scripture it self as did the 〈◊〉 in Israel For no minister of Christ no not the Apostles haue deâ—â—â—nion over our faith but are in declaration of the teach to approve themselves to every mans conscience in the sight of God as Paul sayâ—th Neither mought the Preists of old decide controversies as they 〈◊〉 themselves their words were not oracles but they were to inform the people according to the law which the Lord explaineth by the preist Ezekiel thus In controversies they shall stand to judge and they shall judge it according to my judgements c. Ezek 44 â—4 Thus Gods law is the rule of judgement and the scriptures are not so bare naked as to need the raggs of mens inventions to array them If you yeeld not in this I pray you what answer will you make to the Iewes that shall plead vvith you against Christ and alledgâ— how their high Preists and Rulers which were to decide all controversies Deut. 17. decided this controversie of Iesus of Nazareth thus that he was a seducer a blasphemer a traytor therfore to dye the death If the bare and naked scripture as you call it help you not against their pontifical decrees and expositions you wil hav but a bare and naked faith the shame wherof no â—igleaves wil hide But the Preist of the new law you say is to decide vvith a farr greater interest I grant it for Christ being come the high Preist of good things that were to come hath farr greater privilege and power then any legal Preist and him we are commanded to hear But he is not the Preist you mean for you allege from Iohn 2â— that Christ biddeth S. Peter and his successors feed his flock with the spirit of interpretation c. I marvel hovv this wil make for your opinion that the bare word of God is not an infallible rule or square of truth For doo you think in good â—arnest that Christ would haâ—â—â—th Apostle feed his flock with ought save Gods word because he bad him feed then all other Pastors must doo so too For the same Apostle writeth afterward thus The Elders which arâ— among you I besâ—ech who am a coâ—lder c. seed the flock of God another Apostle sayth to the Elders of an other church Take hâ—ed to your selves and to all the flock wherof the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God c. If the commandement to feed privileged S. Peter above the law and word of God then all Christian Bishops or Elders haue like privilege because they haue like commandement But I deny eyther that Peter alone was to feed Christs sheep or that he mought feed them with any thing save Gods word For the Apostles doctrines were the commandements of the Lord. 1 Cor. 14 37. not their own counsels and if S. Peter or any other taught or practised contrary to the word he was to be withstood and reproved Gal. â— 11. Whâ—rfore â—ven Peter himself who knew wel the meaning of his coÌ„mission taught the church that their new birth was not of mortal feed but of immortal by the vvord of God and that was the word which was preached among them and which he exhorted them stil to desire that they mought grow therby willed theÌ„ that if any man spake it should be as the words of God and referreth them to the sure word of the prophets as to a light that shineth in a dark place that strange it is you should gather any thing against the auctoritie or sufficiencie of the scriptures because the Apostle was willed to feed the sheep of Christ vnlesse you think they should not have wheat but â—haff to feed upon And if your châ—if shepheard of Rome use so to feed his flock gather such doctrines from Christs commandement I will never goe over the Alpes to setch my food from him You next allege Act. 15. where the Apostles meaning to decide a coÌ„troversie repayred not you say to their private spirits interprctatioÌ„ but to a council gathered in Jerusalem where S Peter was head wher al was concluded with It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to vs. I answer you hold not to the point which you took upon you to prove viz. that the bare word of God is not an infallible rule of truth the scripture you cite maketh against you for the Apostles were publishers not of their own word but of Gods 1. Thes. 2 13. 1. Pet. 1. 25. 2. Pet 1. 16. They confirmed their sayings in this Council by the former scriptures Act 15 15 16. They expounded and applyed the scriptures to their present questioÌ„ by the same spirit which wrote them which
was no private but the most publik spirit of God without which no scripture can be vvel interpreted And vvhere you say S. Peter was head of that council you passe the boundes of the text vvhich shevves no such thing Christ vvas the head and he guided them by his holy spirit Peter after much disputation shevved his mind grounded upon the vvorks and lavv of the Lord Barnabas and Paul confirmed the same by their ovvn experience then Iames confirmed Symon Peters speech by the vvords of the Prophets thereupon gave sentence or judgment vvhat should be doon vvherto the Apostles and Elders vvith the vvhole church agreed Wherefore if any man vvere head reason vvould lead us to think lames rather then Simeon vvas the man Thus the decree had povver and force from Gods vvord vvhich by the holy Ghost vvas serched scanned manifested of the Apostles and Elders vvas approved and consented to of the vvhole Church there the Apostles Elders and brethren all vvhich and not Simon alone sayd It seemed good to the Holy ghost and to us And that all care and diligence should be used to decide controversies by the vvord of God I acknovvledgâ— but to deney Gods vvord vvhich you call bare and naked though it be gloriously arayed vvith al ornaments of the spirit to be an infalâ—ible rule of truth is farr from my hart and farr from being proved by these your allegations But you shut up your argument thus Therfore let S. Peter himself conclude that no prophesie of scripture that is no interpretation as the holy Fathers interprâ—t to made by a private spirits interpretation But the Apostle concludes not your purpose that Gods word or scrâ—pâ—ure is not an infallible rule of truth therfore you are nothing hâ—lpenâ—â— this text though you constreyn it to spâ—aâ— otherwâ—isâ— then the auctor 〈◊〉 it downe which was not is you say by a private spirit 〈…〉 but of ones own interpretation or of it own explication or 〈◊〉 This speech dooth no whit disprove the auctoritie sufficiencie or iâ—â—â—llibilitie of the prophesies of scripture which the Apostle before did approve vâ—râ— 19. Therfore this standeth still firm against you thâ—t Gods bare word meaning without the raggs of mens inventions is aâ— infallible rule of truth but how this infallible rule is to be used interpreted applyed c. is a second consideration And though I would not swery from the question yet to help you what I may I will speak a litle of that which you allege If by 〈◊〉 spirit you mean an humane spirit or the spirit natural in man I grant it no prophesie of scripture is of private or of a mâ—â—s own interpretation he can not by all his wâ—t learning or industrie explane it without the spirit of God If you mean a private mans interpretation as that no privat man can interprete any prophesie I deney it For the publick man with you is the Pop he interprets all having his supposed soveraigntie from Peter But if all other be private men save Peter and his successors the Popes then doe you injurie to all the other Apostles Prophets Evang lists Pastors and Teachers at that time and in ages since as if they without Peter or the Pope could not interpret any prophâ—sie of scripture It is also against your own Bishops Preists Iesuits and against your self for none of you but the publick spirit of the Pope onely can interpret any scripture which if it be so why medle you now with controversies about the scriptures against me seing you can give but a private spirits interpretation which the Apostle in your own judgment condemneth If all Church officers be exempted from the private number and are amongâ—th publick and may all interpret then will your Pope have â—â—le privilege from this place above other Bishops Or if you think that no private that is as you speak no 〈◊〉 man can interpret any prophesie of scripture you doo injurie to Gods people or lâ—itie For were not all the laie oâ— people of the church in Corâ—â—th willed to covet spiritual gifâ—s and rather that they might prophesie which all of them might perform in the church Doth not the wind blow where it lysteth Gods spirit breath on whoÌ„ he pleaseth Prophesies of scripture never were of propre or private interpretation yet Christ a carpenters son brought up unlettered nâ—yther Preist nor Levite but a laie man in Israel was permitted to interprete the prophesies of scripture publikly and Câ—iaphas himself cavillâ—d not against him as being a private spirit The Apostles also were unlettered and private men yet were they not for that forbidden to interpret scriptures but if they lived in your church it seemes they should Consider I pray you of these things and the Lord give you understanding But you procede with this matter and thirdly you argue and by your argument as you say break the force of a pretended answer thus Not onely scriptures by themselves are not sufficient to prove what is canonical and what is not but also that scriptures helped by private mens interpretation are not sufficient to prove the same I see this your proposition but I see no proof in sted of that you digresse to complayn that the poorest handycrafts man c is allowed to interpret the hardest places of scripture But all this proveth not the point in hand namely that the scripture is not a sufficieÌ„t rule of our faith For this it may be and is how ever men err in expounding it Of this point I have spoken before your assertion is not an argument and if ther were but a pretended answer yet your bare position would not break the force of it the yron is blunt and you have not whet the edge therfore you must put to more strength Fourthly you argue thus That which by the lights and lanterns of your opinions hath been wronged in the highest degree to bolster vp heresies cannot be a true and indeficient rule of faith The assumption is a rhetorical flourish for what more 〈…〉 quent say you with hereâ—iâ—s then at their fingers ends to 〈◊〉 places of scripture c. And here you mention divers points and persons and then without conclusion passe on to an other argument The assumption which is personal touching Luther Calvin c and unjustly bâ—nt against us I leave to strive about and could requite you with the like of your Popes and Prelates who have wronged the scripture not in the least degree Your proposition I deney for though men wrong the word of God never so much eyther ignorantly or wilfully yet is the word never the worse not lesse sufficient rule of faith The Preists in Israel wrested the law by which they should haue taught the people yet was the law in it self a true and indeficient rule of faith to which the Prophets referred the people and blamed those that
writing yea you might better have scaÌ„ned first and answered that place cited by me out of hâ—lâ— S. Chrysost on the 2. of the Thess. oratione 4. Stand and keep your traditions where the holy Father sayes it is plain the holie Fathers did not deliver all things vp â—â—istle but many things without writing and those things also are worthâ— of faith and S. Chrysost sayes Est traditio nihil quâ—ras ampâ—ius which wordes are so playn that they made Or Iâ—wâ—l to say they were words unworthy so hâ—lp a father And that S. Ambrose did approve of tradition is plain out of his 34 sermon on Lent where he reproving those that would keep certaine dayes after Lent when this after fâ—st was neither as the feast of Lent neither delivered by the authoritie of our antestors So that we see if wee should but give Mr. H. A. the Sâ—â—cons place but to put oile into our lampes he would adde his dust and askes to quench it rather 〈◊〉 contemning still as he doth the authoritie of the holy Fathers in terming their authoritie produceâ— against him dust and ashes 17. Mr. Henry Aynsworth objects against me that I have turned over his third and fourth Arguments oâ— reasons denying them to prove that which they were cited for I answer I possed them over But see here Mr â— A. hath turned them off the ladder to their last dâ—steniâ— not showing that they proved ought what he intended by them we may suppose his reasons were wounded to death in the answerâ—â— the former oâ— like runaâ—ates have forsaken their armes that of â—â—â—ted barely before but one appeareth in his likeness I hope ouâ— adversarie will acknowledge or amend his slight dealing herein 18. The second part that Iam to prove is that the rule of our faith is not onely the written word but joyntly the unwritteÌ„ word of God tradition and the authoritie of the church councells and Fathers is the ultimate decyder of all matters of controveâ—ste This I prove first thus That which was the totall rule of our faith before the written word of God may be well the partiall rule of our faith after where the written word of God doth not sufficiently eâ—â—ressâ— divers mysteries of us to be beleeved But traditioÌ„ was a sufficient yea and the total rule of our faith til Moses tyme the first 〈◊〉 in of the holy ghost go tradition now togither with the written word is a sufficieÌ„t rule of our faith My major through out this whole tract shal be proved My minor is graunted by Mr H. A. 20. Secondly Not onely before the law of Moses men weâ—â— wholly directed by the month of tradition but after also as it appeares in Deut. 3â— verse 7. Ask thy fatners and they shall annantiate unto thee ask thy auncestors and they shall tell thee showing that of many thinges that were to be beleeved wee should depend of the instruction of our auncestors for in the wordes young 〈◊〉 diatâ—â—y before that is implied coâ—â—ra generationes singulas and Psal. 43 1. Oh Lord we have heard with our eares our fathers have 〈◊〉 unto us that which thou hast wrought in their dayes and in the ancients dayes Prov 8 1. Heare oh sonne the discipline of thy father and doe not leave the law of thy mother Isa. 38 19. The father shall make knowen to his sonne this truth where truth discipline showes rather matters of discipline and doctrine then matters of fact as Mr H. A. would interpret and Jere. 6 16. Stand upon the wayes and see ask of the ancient pathes what is the right way and walk in it and ye shall find rest unto your souls which is playne there that the Prophet doth not onely speak of matter of faith but to prevent error and 〈◊〉 of doctrine also see Eccles 8 11. 4 Esdr. 14 3. 2 Tim. 2 15. 1 Tim. 6 20 2. Tim. 2 1. what can be hence inferrâ—d but that the Israâ—lites and Christians were to be directed by the help of traditions See the holy fathers so firme and so frequent for this great truth that falshood it self of our adversaries cannot tell how to oppose see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cited before number 16. 〈◊〉 in the â—ere of our Lord 80 lib. 3. â— 4. calles tradition dives deposicoâ—um a rich treasurie or â—usrodie Eâ—emens 〈◊〉 lib. â— Strema â— 4 in the yeare 200 say is that the knowledge of traditisÌ„ by succession is come from the Apostles et lib. 7 Stromat â— 9. he calls unwritten tradition the 〈◊〉 of truth Origenes in the yeare 240 in his 5. 〈◊〉 in Numeros et trâ—â—t 29 in Math teacheth that wee beleeve and doe many things by tradition S. Athanasius in his epistle ad Epiâ—tâ—te tuâ— sayes That it is sufficient to answer to his adversaries that it is not the doctrine of the Catholick church that the holy fathers have not thought so S. Basil also sayes he can beleeve many things by the unwritten witness of the Apostles the 2. Councel of 〈◊〉 in actione 7. approves the authoritie of unwritten traditions D. â—ier in the yeare 390 in his dialogue contra Lucifer affirmes that for his part if ther were no scripture yet the consent of the whole church were sufficient And S. August De baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 7. c. 53 affirmes that which the universal church holdes neyther is it instituted but was ever reteyned we may judge most rightly to be delivered by the Apostles idem epist. 86. ad â—asul Yea if our adversaries testimonie is availeable in confirming a truth against themselves for us See how Martin Luther in his Lypsick disp submits himself to the judgment and determination of the holy church and in his epist. ad Marchionâ—â— Brandeburg which is to be found in his second in Germane language folio 2 3. He is not ashamed to say it is an horrible thing to heare or say that which is contrarie to the uniforme testimonie of faith and the doctrine of the holy Catholick church that from above a thowsand with uniform consent she had kept John Calvin in his book against Pigâ—â—ius bragâ—ingly but with dissimulation affirms that he would not refuse the triall of the universall Church and warrant of tradition Phil. Melancthon in his epist. ad Frâ—der Myream De locis veteris Theol de caena Domini affirmes that it is not safe to depart from the consent of the ancient church and in his epistle ad Iohannem Cratonem vâ—â—tatista he confesseth that doubt in a mans conscience is a tortuâ—er and that the vniversall consent of doctrine must prevaile for confirming of a truth and he graunts that the best Masters are Irenae us Tertullian and S. Augustin that have left many monuments of truth for us to whom they did adjoyne the rule of faith the suffrages of the learned the consent of the Apostolicall churches and this is that which he affirms they deduced from the
Now to folow your waÌ„dringes What dooth Gal 1. 8. say against that I set down The word besides meaneth as you think contrary to and not more then they had receaved because he forbidds not any explication or true gloss c. I answer you weary your selfe and others to prove that which none denyeth Explications of Gods law by the mouth of his ministers are allowed of God Nehem. 8. 8. these are not additions such as God forbiddes Galat. 3. 15. Our question is of other or moe lawes or doctrines then God hath taught And vnto those which the Prophets had writteÌ„ and Paul with the other Apostles taught none might be added For he kept back nothing that was profitable but taught the whole counsel of God Act. 20. 20. 27. so then whatsoever men could add more or besides was not profitable neyther any of Gods counsel therefore it was contrary and so may be put among Popes traditions For their doctrines and traditions are as evidently contrary to Gods word as darknes is to light Such be your image worship contrary to Exo. 20. 4. your praying to creatures contrary to Mat 4. 10. Rom. 1. 25. service in a barbarous vnknowen tongue contrary to 1 Cor. 14. 11 16. 28. robbing the people of the chalice in the sacrament contrary to Mat. 26. 27. justification by mens works contrary to Rom. 3. 20. 22. 24. and 4. 2 3 c. and many other idolatrous observations as plainly contrary to Gods law ever vvere the abominations of the heathen Finally Chrysostome a Doctor whome you rely vpon sayth that Paul preferreth the scriptures before Angels from heaven Here then if you wil beleeve him is no place at al for vnwritteÌ„ traditions Whereas you bring Rom. 16. 17. to shew that para meaneth contrary no man denyeth it but that it signifieth no more then contrary in your sense you prove not In Rom. 1. 25. you may see parâ— ton ktisantâ— meaneth any thing â—â—sides the creator onely But our strife was not about para or Gal. â— You 〈◊〉 as the Prophets additions to Moses law were Gods so the churches definitions are Gods not mans I deny your 〈◊〉 the churches additionâ— which you call definitions are not Gods as the Prophets writings 〈◊〉 were added to Moses books you are not farr froÌ„ blasphemie in making such a comparison If that were true you might read and expound as authentick scriptures your churches additions and Popes traditions as Christ read Esaias the Prophet and expounded hiâ— in the synagogue Luk. 4. 1â— 21. The proofs you would bring are Luk. 10. 16. he that heareth you heareth me c. Mat. 18. 1â— 18. tel the church c. Deut. â—9 15. or 〈◊〉 they shall stand before the Lord before the Preists c. I answer these scriptures shewe not that they might add any thing to the word of God but they prove the coÌ„trary For they were sent to preach the Gospel Mark 16. 15. that was Gods word not any creatures Thes 2 2. 4. 13. So they were not additions not definitions of their own such as your church makes Also the Preists were bound to teach Gods lawes not their owne Ezek. 44. 24. And so the hearing of them that teach Gods word is the hearing of God himself in his ministers But the contrary to hear the churches traditions is not to hear God for they were many against God as you may see Mark â— 3. 4. 9. 10. c. For els behold what strange doctrine you wil bring in viz. that everie church yea every preist and minister may make additions to Gods law and the people must be bound so to receive them as Gods word Here to helpe your selfe you retire to your old skonce saying it is true of particular churches but so farr as their doctrine accordeth with the Somane catholick church A meer fiction of your own head what one title of Gods word doo you or can you bring for this stuft did Christin Luk. 10. 16. speak to the church of Rome more then to the Church of Corinch Ephesus or any other you make your Roman Church an idol by putting her in Gods place to give lawes you make her a monster whiles being a particular Church you proclaym her for the catholik that is vniversal Church And her doctrine if it accord not with Christs as it dooth not is with her to be abhorred and accursed Gal. 1. 8. By this which hath bene sayd let the prudent judge how soundly you haue proved that any other word or doctrine then Gods may be brought into the Church for a ground of our faith which was the first thing in controversie The 2. part that you are to prove as you say is that the rule of our faith is not onely the written word but jointly the unwritten word of God tradition and the authority of the Church councils fathers is the ultimate decider of all matters of controversie In this assertion you confasedly shuffle togither for your advantage the church councels fathers By the Church you mean your Romish Church which is none of Christs and therefore can judge no Christian controversie Councils and fathers are named but for a show For â—oâ— regard nothing that Councils or Fathers say vnless your Pope approve it On the contrary I hold that Gods written word is to be the rule of our faith and by it all churches Councils Fathers are to be tried whether they be of God or no. But let us heaâ— your proofe That which was say youâ— the total rule of our faith before the written word of God man be wel the partial rule of our faith after where the written word of God dooth not sufficiently cruâ—â—ss diverse mysteries of us to ve beleeved But tradition was a sufficient and total rule of our faith till Moyses time the first 〈◊〉 of the holy Ghost Therfore traditioÌ„ now together with the written word is a sufficient rule of our faith The firâ— prop. you say 〈◊〉 proved the second you â—aâ— is graunted by me I answer If the writings of God were as dark and deceitfull as is this your writing it were woe with vs all In the first proposition you say it may well be the partiall rule of our faith in the conclusion you say it to so If I should say It may wâ—ll be your argument is deceytfull and conclude therefore it is deceâ—tfull would you graunt the conclusion yet is it truer then yours For that which was a rule before may be a rule still if it please God so to continue it this you need not labour to prove But that which was a râ—â—â— before neyther may nor can be a rule still when God hath taken it away put another in the sted And this is the very truth if you would receive it For before Gods law was written it was spoken and by speech from the mouth of holy persons it was to be learned But now it is written oâ—
as the holy fathers interpret is made by a private Spirit interpretation Thirdly I argue and by my argument I break the force of a pretended answer thus Not onely scriptures by themselves are not sufficient to prove what is Canonicall and what is not but also that scriptures helped by private mens interpretation are not sufficient to prove the same For they doe not onely allow of private learned mens interpretation but the poorest handycrafts man or the sillpest huswife that is they doc allow to interpret the hardest places of scripture to shoulder the vniforme consent of all the fathers Doctors and schoolemen with some fond toyes of their owne braine and invention yea to give their glosse of those places of S. Paul where he speakes of justification and predestination whereas they should â—â—y Oh altit ido sapientiae et scientiae Dei quaÌ„ incoÌ„prehensibilia sunt judicia ejus â— When as they should rather rely on the auncient Fathers exposition S. Hierome in his old yeares went as farre as Alâ—randria to heare Didimus S. Hier. ad Paul Epist 103. c. 5. 67. vsed such hard discipline retirement into the desert abstineÌ„ce for obteyâ—ing the tâ—ue interpretation of the holy scripture How should we beleeve each private handycrafts manns censure and his silly interpretation against the vniforme consent of the holy Fathers against the streâ—me of the learned of all ages But admit they should have iâ— warâ—ly that speaking spirit to satisfy themselves how should a man be perswaded they it to be a lanterne unto others stepps Nay how will they prove against their adversaries that they also have not that motion of the spirit and though we should graunt they be illuminated in the truth of oneâ—â—ysterie how shall we know with like certainty all other different mysteries But you will answer out of the 1. Cor. 2. Spiritualis autem homo judicat omnia ipse autem a neminejudicatur a spirituall man judgeth all things and he is judged of none To which I answer admit that a spirituall man knoweth something yet it doth not follow that his supernaturall insâ—â—â—â—ts extendeth it self to all things but onely to the knowledge of those for the obteyning of which that illumination was inspired For Deliseus that had a redoubled spirit of Elias sayth Domiâ—â— celavit hoc a me et non indicavit mihi Our Lord did hide this from me and did not shew it why then may not these simple soules rather feare that their private spirits defect in the declaration of some mysteries rather then the redoubled Prophet confesse â—â—s ignorance in some things Yet let us graunt that some few men should fully comprehend and penetrate the mysteries of our beleefe yet for a twofold reason we denâ— to give unto them a definitive sentence and censure of matters of faith First in that we are not so certified who these particular men be that have these especiall illuminations and illustrations and therefore we are to preferr the definitive assertion of the Popes holynesse and his counsell before uncertainty of mens inventions 2. Since that the effects of this particular illumination and assistance of the Holy Ghost is not manifested and warranted by any extraordinary workes or miracles or the like in the it were to make a desperate tender of Gods truth to point this or that man whole vinpâ—ore of any controversy in that many other men in the pretence of some few mens illuminatioÌ„s might challenge unto theÌ„selves the like prerogatives of interpretation Fourthly I argue that which by the â—ights and lanterns of your 〈◊〉 have ben wroÌ„ged in the highest degree to bolster vp heresies cannot be a true and indeficient rule of faith For what more frequeÌ„t with â—eretickes then at their fingers ends to â—ite places of scripture to back their heresies as the Arians Pelagians Luther aÌ„s and Sacramentaries The Lutherans and Calvinists both disagreeing in a maine point of the real presence the one holding Christs pretious havy and blood to be really and corporall in the Sacrament though with a certayn companation and the other holding Christ to be present with a signification onely and yet both cite scripture both of theÌ„ yet â—â—â—ing scripture for scripture John Knell of Kent led with this private spirit denyed Christ to have tooken flesh of our B. Lady William Cowbridge sayes Bishops have no more authority then Priests pag. â—70 and yet by and by ledâ— vp the selfe same spirit sayd that Christs name was a filthy name Alanus Copus Dialog 6 c. 17. John Mesel denyed the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father pag. 1151. Frith the excellent Martyr of John For pag. 942 943 944 affirmeth the reall presence to be no Article of beleefe affirmative or negative John of Teurbury that the Iewes of good zeale did put Christ to death pag. 9â—5 Fiftly and lastly Iargue many mysteries of our faith are beleeved that are not 〈◊〉 declared in the word of God nor so infalliblie prescinding from all traditions of the catholike church deduced thence so that they are sufficient to make one beleeve that witâ— so firme an act as our faith requireth therefore that which makes those mysteries worthy of constaÌ„t beleefe is a rule of faith as wel as the written word whither they be traditions Divine or Apostolicall My antecedent may castly without all just contradiction be proued in that till Moses the virtuous steps and perfect acts of Noe Abraham Melchisedech was guided without the helpe of any written word by the hand of tradition derived from mouth to mouth from man to man yea after the witteÌ„ word it appeares by Erod 14. Narrabis filio tuo in illa die dicens hoc est quod fecit Dominus c Deut. 32. Interroga patrem tuum et annuntiabit tibi majores et dicent tibi Iob. 8. Interroga generationem pristinam et diligenter investiga memoriam patrum And not onely they of the old law but also they of the newe even after the coÌ„ming of our Saviour were without a written word the Apostles and disciples being busied in preaching and instructing viva voce Besides many things we beleeve though we have not the warrant of a written word for it viz. that there was a remedie for women children as well as for men to purge them of originall sin and something to be used to men children if they were ready to â—y before the 8. day which was the prefixt time of circumcision and that such a parcell of writing was scripture and such not Moreover wee beleeve constantly against the condemned heresy of Delvidius yea and against as it were the seeming letter of the scripture where it is sayd that Joseph knew not our blessed Lady til she brought forth her first sonne Now every one knowes the phrase of the Hebrue word know as Abraham knew Sara and yet we fâ—â—â—nly beleeve according to the prescript of the church that she was a perpetual Oirgin ante partum in
church propoundeth vnto vâ— to be bâ—leeved so the church counsells holy fathers Doctors foâ—ders of all orders teacheth us so in that the death of so many thowsand Martyrs confirmes it so so many thowsand miracles wrought in the confirmation of it witneseth it so So that we may justly and confidently say with Richardâ— be sanetâ— Victore lib. 1. de â—riâ—â—tate Nam cum omni fiducia ideò dicere poterimus Domine si error est a teipso decepti sumus Nam ista taÌ„tis signis et prodigijs confirmata sunt et talibus quae non nisi per â—e fieri possunt Ponder and waigh well Mr. Ainsworth these few lines I send you for I wish froÌ„ the bottome of my hart your soules good and that your eyes were opened to see the errour wherein you have lived and the more earnestly I wish it vnto you for country name sake and alliaunce and that those good talents of naturall vnderstanding and learning God hath indowed you withall should not serve as heapers up of your greater condeÌ„natioÌ„ if you should dye out of the Romane catholick church which God of his infirâ—te mercy forbidd To whom I shall pray that he will of his free infusion of his holy grace inlighten your vnderstanding to see the truth and incline your will with all fervour and zeale to imbrace it From Justice hall in Newgate the 22. of September stilo veteri 1609. Your freind most desirous to give you satisfaction to work your conversion Iohn Aynsworth The answer to the former writing To Mr Iohn Aynsworth in Justice hall in Newgate Grace and understanding from God our Father and Lord Jesus Christ our Saviour I Perceive by your second writing Mr Ainsworth your readie inclination to controvert the differences between you and us about the grounds of our religions wherto as in my first I signified I also am willing for your or others good to condescend and prosequute as leysure â—erveth me God guide me in this my enterprise and blesse my labours unto you The first thing which both of us were to agree upon that we wrastled not in vain was how our differences shall be tried and composed whether by the verdict of God as I hold or of man Herevnto after you have set down certayn generall things required that a man may elicit a supernaturall act of faith which hereafter if need be may be seanned you returne me this word I answer you directly enough though with a distinction viz. that if you vnderstand by what formal motive we shal be tried in our beleefe I answer by the verdict of Gods written and unwritten word but if you asâ— who shall determine our faith after a propounding manner so we say the Church concurreth after the manner of an applying conditioÌ„ teaching what is canonicall and that which is not authentiâ— This answer which you think direct enough seemeth unto me very intricate and full of fear I had thought never to have meâ—t with a man professing the religion of God that would eyther deney the differences of religion to be tried composed by the verdict of God or that would doubt to answer such a demaund without a distinction when to a simple hart there is no doublenes or ambiguitie Again you distinguish with such terms as doo rather dimm the light then clear the same for these words formal motive to determine after a propounding manner to toucurr after the manner of an applying condition c. are more ambiguous â—hen the thing it self propounded and distinguished So were I disposed to folow this game we should hâ—re even at first fall into contention and strife of words which the holy Ghost hath forbidden with earnest protestation From this course I signified before that I would be farr and will therefore plainly confirm that I hold wishing you to weigh it in equitie That God onely is to be the umpier and arbiter of all questions and coÌ„troversies about religion is manifested thus 1. Because himself commaundeth us his people to take heed that we doo as the Lord our God hath commaunded us not turning aside to the right hand or to the left not putting any thing thereto nor taking ought therefrom 2. Because the corruption of man is so great as naturally he understandeth not the things of God neyther can he know them which lamentable experience dayly dooth confirm mans wisdom is foolishnes and enimitie against God Wherupon all voluntarie religion and humane precepts in divine worship are condemned as vain and fruitless 3 Because men being dead in trespasses and synns are quickned onely of God and doo live by faith without which we cannot please God and faith is by hearing hearing by the word of God Wherfore without Gods word we caÌ„not in faith assure our selves of any point of doctrine neither caÌ„ our questioÌ„s of religioÌ„ â—ouÌ„dly without it be determined 4. Because the Preists and Prophets of God were bound to heare the word froÌ„ Gods mouth and give the people warning froÌ„ him not for to prophesie out of their own hart or â—oâ—ow their own spirit Also in cases of controversie to teach them according to the law and judge according to the judgements of God Wherefore the verdict of God is the onely true triall and touchilone of religion all other are ballances of deceit The sonns of base-mâ—n are vanitie the sonns of noble men are falâ—itie in the ballances they are togither leighter then vanitie it self But the Lord giveth wisdom out of his mouth coÌ„meth knowledge understanding every good giving and every perfect gift is from above and cometh down from the father of lights Had I to deal with an Atheist or Paynim I would use other grounds but writing to you a professor of Christ it is enough to lay down such principles as all of Christian religion will confesse The second thing we were to accord of was where this verdict of God is to be found whether in the scriptures of the old and new testament which is my faith or in the writings and mouthes of other men To this I have not your direct answer as I expected yet you manifest your mind in that you take upon you to prove That onely the bare text of the scripture is not a sufficieÌ„t rule of our faith I wil first breifly confirm that which I set down and then I will answer your arguments In many parts and in many sorts sayth the holy Ghost God having spokeÌ„ of old time to the Fathers by the Prophets hath in these last daies spoken to us by the Son which Son having witnesse of the former prophets writings chose also special men to be witnesses of his doctrines and actions unto the world both by word and writing Who haue testified unto us that whatsoever God promised to the fathers he hath fulfilled unto us by the Son and have opened by the propheticall scriptures
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
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
should blush but lyes hid in silence First you gather a consequence which here I strowed not I spake of God and of his verdict and authoritie not of the scriptures as yet For whither it be by writing or by speaking or any other way that God manifesteth his will unto us it is to me all one and the authority of the scripture is a second point Thus your answer is not here to the purpose Your reason annexed is a fallacie concluding from a part against the whole unequally The scriptures cited speak of Gods commands in generall you take one in particular and because one is not all therfore all must not be all but more then all must be observed which what they wil be I cannot tel unlesse the commandements of men Mat. 15. 9. 2. You answer that all additions whatsoever are not here prohibited but onely such as ar contrary to the word of God for many other prophets as the penmen of the holy Ghost did add divers pea most part of the holy scriptures c. In deed this answer is your own none of Gods you shew no tittle of his word for that you speak But I will shew you the contrary Prov. 30 ◠Adde not unto his words least he reprehend thee and thou be a lyar Lo here all additions and not onely things contrary are forbidden Againe though it be but a mans testament sayth our Apostle when it is confirmed no man dooth abrogate it or addeth therto If you add to your naturall fathers testament civill lawes would count you an unnaturall son your distinction would not help yow much lesse can it help yow for doing such wrong to the will of our father which is in heaven Your reason is direct against yow for the Prophets being penmen of the holy ghost added nothing of their own the additions were Gods own If the Prophets Apostles mought add nothing of themselves much lesse may we Thus God yet reigneth alone And if yow vvould have mans oil to lighten your lamp hear what Chrisostom sayth for this point Every Doctor is a servāt of the law for neyther may he add unto the law any thing of his own sense neyther may he withdraw any thing according to his own understanding but preach that onely which is found in the law Whereas yow add that your traditions are also from the holy ghost for Luk. 10. it is sayd he that heareth yow heareth me and Mat. 18. If he hear not the church let him be to thee as an ethnik and a publican First these are spoken to all Christs ministers of al his churches and therefore make no more for Rome then for Corinth or Ephesus But yow stil keep from the point yeild the cause unawares For be it tradition definition or whatsoever by whomsoever if it be Gods not mans it is yenough al that I would prove in this first particular After it shal be scanned whither your traditions be of God or no. Wheras therfore in answering my secōd agrument yow wonder how I should be so deceived as to think the places that I cite make for me and against yow yow may wonder rather at your own mistakeing that I say no more who when I plead for God onely his alsufficiency by opposing as the scripture teacheth mans corruption folly yow will not yeild though yow have nothing to contradict And even thus yow turn over the 3. 4. reason by denying them to prove that thing which I there did not cite them for Such oversight hereafter I hope yow will amend that yow weary not both me your reader Now to your former ansvver which was with a distinctiō in this plain point whither God onely or some other should be judge lawgiver to his people for their religion controversies therabout the same distinction yow urge here agayn which whither it be a meet distinct answer or argues not rather fear let the prudent judge For yow yeild not plainly to the thing by me propounded which neyther religion nor reason vvould stick at onely atheisme vvil deny For if ther be a God he of man to be served man knovves not the things of God til by himself they be reveled neyther may doe more or lesse then by the Lord is cōmaunded as I have before proved hereupon it vvil folovv undenyably that in al doubts controversies of religion Gods voice verdict must decide vvhat is truth and vvhat pleaseth him Whither he show it by himself from heaven by Angels or by churches or by particular men by writing or by speaking it is ought to be all one to us But the more to convince yovv yovv shal have humane testimonie as of Ambrose vvho sayth The mysterie of heaven let God himself teach me which made heaven not man which knew not himself Whom should I rather beleev concerning God then God himself Or if yow be not moved by this Fathers judgment the hethen shal rise up and condemn yow vvho esteemed true lavv apt to command and to forbid to be the right reason of the great God that the divine mind to be the cheiflavv Cicero de Legib. lib. 2. The second point novv is Wher this verdict of God is to be found whither in the scriptures of the old and new Testamēt as I beleev or in the writings and mouthes of other men To this I had not before neyther yet have your dir 〈◊〉 answer What makes yow shun the light herein is easy to discern To confirm my faith that the verdict and wil of God is to be foūd in holy writt I alledged divine testimonies many to them yow answer not one word neyther yet doo yow yeild to the truth Beware yow wink not vvith your eyes that yow may not see But seeing the holy scriptures move yow not yow shal have candle light to see the sun shine C. Bellarmine to whom yow referr me twise in your last writing to whose learning yow acknowledge yourself a scholar ingeniously cōfesseth saying Neq n distputari potest c. Ther can be no disputing sayth he except we and our adversaries first doo agree in some cōmune principle now we al hereticks agree in this that the word of God is the rule of faith wherby men are to judge of points of doctrine is a commune principle granted of al men from whence arguments may be drawen is the spiritual sword which in this battel may not be refused Behold here the first point plainly yeilded by your champion vvhich you vvithout dark distinction could not be drawn unto The second concerning the scriptures is in effect also yeilded when he sayth That the Prophetical and Apostolical book◠according to the catholik churches mind explaned both by the 3. council of Carthage c. 47. and late council of Trent sess 4. is the true word of God and the certayn and stable rule of faith
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
having fayled in his fidelitie is in special excited unto duty diligence al the other should be excluded Doe you not see hovv after this Paul shevveth Eph. 4. not Peter onely but Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers to be given of Christ for the building up of his church Your conclusion to be inferred hereupon if you conclude the question wil be much more unreasonable The point you undertook to prove vvas that not Gods vvord in the Bible but the catholik churches yea the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith To confirm this haeresie you produce here Christs charge to Peter Freed my sheep Behold Novv the strength of your argument If Peter vvas to feed Christs sheep then not Gods vvord in the scriptures but Peters definitive sentence and consequently the Popes is an indeficient rule of faith But Peter vvas to feed Christs sheep Iohn 21. Frgo c. The unreasonablenes of vvhich consequence if the bare rehearsal of it doo not convince may be shewed by the like thus If the Bishops of Ephesus vvere to feed the church of God then not Gods vvord in the scripture but their definitive sentences vvere indeficient rules in matters of faith But the Bishops of Ephesus vvere to feed the church of God Act. 20. 28. Ergo. If the Elders of the churches of Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia were to feed the flocks of God then not Gods word in the Bible but their definitive sentences were indeficient rules in matters of faith But the Elders of those churches were to feed the flock of God 1 Pet. 5 â— 2. Ergo. Behold what deep waters you have digged out from the Rock of Rome their spring I trow comes from the bottomlesse pitt If you say those Elders were under Peter as a head therfore they were to feed with his definitive sentence not their own First I deny that so they were under him and you shal never prove it whiles Rome gates doo stand though I grant their office was inferiour to the Apostles Secondly if you could prove it yet would it make against you for if because Peter was their head therfore they must feed with his doctrine onely then because Christ was Peters head Peter was to feed with Christs doctrine onely But Christ was Peters head acknowledged by Peter himself to be Arch pastor so taught by Christ himself Iohn 10. Therfore Christ definitive sentence onely not Peters much lesse the Popes is the indeficient rule of our faith And thus my cause is confirmed and yours overturned by your own weapon Yet you procede and say besides Christ speaks to S. Peter that he should feed his general flock though he may speak unto the other Apostles that they should feed their particular charges I would we might once have an end of words of wind You say al things but prove nothing unlesse your definitive sentence also must be taken for a law But then I am sure it is against Christs law for as he neyther used the word general to Peter nor the word particular to the other Apostles so wheÌ„ he sent them with their charge al indifferently it was unto al nations yea into al the world to preach the gospel to every creature and as the Father sent him so sent he them And where now I pray you were their particular charges But let it be as you say let the Apostles and al Christian Bishops their successors have these precincts in al nations in al the world and what place is over and beside let your Peter the Pope have there to menage his supremacie But here you bring your S. Leo to speak for S. Peter and I know he was his freind for I shewed before how he placed Peter in the fellowship of the indivisible unitie so making him a God I know also have shewed that in the same 3. anniversarie sermon which you cite he speaketh more for S. Peter then you bring here how be it though the Lion roreth he hath got no prey For the headship hath been proved to be Christs not Peters the Apostleship to be Peters with the other Apoltles And though you again and again doe barely affirm S. Peter was head of al the rest of the Apostles yet I must tel you again again that I hold not your definitive sentence nor the Popes neyther to be a right rule of faith but if you can bring the word of God for you that thrâ—ugh his grace I wil gladly receive In the end of this your velitation you leav me to impuâ—ne â— B. â—armines doctrine as it heth c. But your captayn comes not into this feild he lyes intrenched within the walls of Rome and triumphes in the Vatican It is you that have bid me battel and as you entred not these lists without an alarme so you wil not depart I trow without an io triumphe Yet to say the truth in answering you I have answered your Cardinal for your reasons be his you have taken them out of his skoncâ— Onely you have culled them out here and there in other order have taken the most pregnant arguments that he hath Which being by him and by you propounded by me now answered you are to look whither the propugning of them shallye upon him or on you against this my impugnation Or if you wil let them dye you may sound the retrait The 3. and last thing which you promised to prove was that this rule the indeficient rule of faith is onely found in the Roman Catholik church sentence and not in privat mens illuminations or motions of a priâ—â—t and unseen spirit Both parts of this your divided proposition I disallow and mainteyn a third viz that this rule is to be found in the writings Prophetical and Apostolical because as your Cardinal hath wel sayd nothing is more known nothing more certeyn then the holy scriptures which are conteyned in them and this is a most certayn and a most safe rule of beleeving Before vvhen you came to shew your proof it was that your Roman church is the true and onely catholik church of God Which though I doo deney yet if I did grant it it would not prove your assertion For it is the voice of the bridegroom not of the bride which is the ground of mens faith the catholik church is to receiv lawes and rules from her head Christ not to prescribe lawes or rules to her members There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy But because your church must first be proved true catholik before her sentence can be approved therefore I was content to look into this first branch requiring proof that your Roman church is the true then the onely catholik for I deney both What proofs you brought before how I answered them I leav to indifferent consideration and wil now again take
novv stands charged to be a harlot vvilbe her ovvn judge and decide the controversie her self If you grant Mahomet but this one ground for himself I vvarrant you he vvil vvin the feild And if you can prove unto me but this one ground vvhich being the question is here begged by you I vvill soon receive alâ— doctrines traditions ceremonies that your mother church propoun â—eth But I have shevved you a more certaine playn and infallible vvay the old and good vvay vvherein our Fathers* vvalked to decide all controversies by vvhich is the holy oracles of God vvritten by his Prophets and Apostles vvhich if you vvil not yeeld to vvalk in but continue in your catholik aberrations you and your church shall perish in the hovvr appointed and then shal be sayd O heaven rejoyce of her and ye holy Apostles and Prophets for God hath given your judgement not her ovvn upon her 3. You have as you say Gods divine veracitâ—e speaking by the mouth of the church which formally makes you beleeve But vve say I to you have Gods divine veracitie speaking by the mouth of his holy Prophets vvhich have been since the vvorld began and also the comandements of the Apostles of our Lord and saviour vvhich effectually make us beleeve through the spirit God vvhich is given unto us That God speaks in them is pâ—ayn and your selves grant that undoubted veracitie is in his vvords is evident and your selves dare not deney by this divine veracitie vve submitt our selves our churches our faith our actions to be tried of all But your church lifteth up her self to be her ovvn judge and lavvgiver and vvil not suffer her self to be tried by the holy scriptures Thus glorifieth thâ— her self and liveth in pleasure and sayth in her hart I sit a Queen but strong is the Lord God vvhich vvill condemn her 4. You have as you say a supernatural judgement to beleeve in common at least in that all people all nations have so beleeved You need no supernaturall judgement for this for it is a popular carnal reasoÌ„ which the natural man easily receiveth But the spiritual man by supernatural light from the law of God beleeveth in particular though all people all nations should depart from Christ because he hath the sure word of God in the scriptures and the spirit of God by a covenant froÌ„ the Lord. Isa. 59 21. And by this means he discrieth in the wildernes that woman and her mysterie how she sitteth upon many waters or peoples of whose wine the nations having drunk therfore they rage Lastly through all these you have as you say a pious affection through the working of Gods holy grace to beleeve hir et 〈◊〉 hoc et illud and that without any difficultie since you first beleeve there to but one true church and that church cannot err c. I confesse in deed you have the broad and easy vvay wherin yow run on with great facilitie if God of his grace stay you not unto your perdition For by these false grounds your minds are so bewitched that with her great craft she hath caused you to yeild with her flattering lipps hath entised you and ye folow her straightway as oxen that goe to the slaughter and as fools to the stocks for correction til a dart strike through your liveâ— as birds hastâ—â—â— to the snare not knowing that it is for their lives For by beleeving this and that as your catholik mother dooth propound and not trying nor daring to trie her propositions by the book of God you have quite lost the ancient catholik and Apostolik faith vvhich was in the Churches of God in Rome Corinth Galatia throughout all nations as whensoever you bring your opinions to the trial by Gods authentik writings will appear And though you glorie of S. Peter for your Rock as your ancestors gloried of their Father Abraham yet wil you not folow his holy playn Apostolical counsels when he referrs you to the sure word of the Prophets and to the commandements of them the Apostles of the Lord giving you warning of false teachers to come after which privily should bring in heresies of perdition whose damnable wayes many should follow by whom the way of truth should be evil spoken of What remayneth then if you proceed in this evil course but as yow cleave to your late fathers synns so you be partaker of their plagues And if you will not hearken to that voice from heaven Goe out of her my people you shall hear and feel the effect of that voice which the Angel standing in the sun crieth so lowd to al fowles of the heaven to come unto the supper of the great God wher they shall eat the fleshes of Kings and high captayns and of mighty men and of horses and horsmen of freemen and bondmen of small and great when the beast and the false prophet which deceived with miracles them that received his mark shal be cast alive into the lake of fyre burning in brimstone To save you from this perdition loe how large a letter I have written unto you this second time testifying unto you the word of God and against the erroneous grounds or quicksands rather wheron you build your faith God offring me this occasion by your self I have out of the love of my hart endevoured to save your soule froÌ„ death by shewing you the way of life choose life therfore that you may live Look into the book of God wherin you seem to me to be a stranger and pray unto him for understanding in the same so shall you find more light to your eyes more coÌ„fort to your hart then the caâ—t lodes of later Doctors Fathers Councils c. can give unto you And if you will not be warned I shal lament your estate yet whiles I may I will doo you good and as for all reproches taunts vituperies which you hav already uttered or may yet further utter against me I shal willingly bear and bury them and use all good means I can to save you from the damnation of hel God open you eyes and perswade your hart unto the sight obedience of his most holy faith â— once given unto the saincts Amen From Amsterdam this 16. of April 1610. Yours if you wil be Christs Henr Ainsworth If you have sayd what you can against the scriptures of God their alsufficiencie for mans faith you may if you please shew your strongest argumets for your Roman catholik church as you cal her and her definitive sentences Or procede if you think good to some other grounds and mayn controversies between us Onely be advertised to folow the good counsel of him whom you count the Rock of your faith If any man speak let him speak as the words of God 1. Pet. 4. 11. There being no reply
of any place of scripture that you shall bring to refute them if your interpretation be a correspondencie to scripture theirs also shall be so The fift Argument of mine I framed thus God is as provideÌ„t for necessarie meanes to direct his church as he is provident to Empires kingdomes common wealthes and families But all these besides the written law have ever some one decyder vnweere or tribunall to â—hoke controversies or diffentions in the seed to mowe them downe in the flower to eâ—tirpate them in the verie roote go the word of God is not sufficient in it self to settle all controversies Thus as I remember ran the sum of my reasons which you has not answered in your last or in any other replie of yours Now since my reasons remaine in their ful force I can not see any reason why I should be bound to spend much tyme in answering fruitless and impertinent allegations But here as I remember transcending the boundes of this question now controverted though I confess the matter you proposed is in the confines of this present you brought a place out of S. Augustin that on S. Mathewes wordes c 16. sayes that Christ did build his church on the faith of Peter not of his person on Christ Jesus not on S. Peter First to this place I answer that in one sense S. Augustin sayes the first yet I denie that ever S. Augustine dooth deney that the church of Christ is built on the persoÌ„ of S. Peter And well map the Church be sayd to be built on the faith of S. Peter and yet also on his person because the person of S. Peter touching his faith is no fraile mortal creature but is a stroÌ„g unshaliable rock as the faith it self In that Luk. 22. It is sand I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith may not faile Since we beleeve that this prayer is obteyned we must beleev that by the warraÌ„t of Christs prayer the person of Peter his faith shal never be severed so S. Aug calling sometimes S. Peter the roch of the church and somtimes his faith doth mean one thing The which S. August himself testifieth for remembring that he had taught that in the person of Peter the Church was fouÌ„ded quod in eo tanquam in Petra â—â—â—data sit Ecclesia in which sense it was fong by many in the hymâ—â—s of S. Ambrose Hoc â—â—sa Petra Ecclesiae canente culpam dâ—â—uit At the crowing of the cock the rock of the churâ— Peter lamented his fault he concludeth the whole matter of these two expositions Harum duarum sententiarum quae sit probabâ—â—â—or eligat lector Of which two expositions which to the probabler I leave to the readers choice What have you not by this allegation of S. Augustine Nay what will you loose if you should come to answer the holy fathers that affirm the church to be founded on S. Peter That you write you are sorie for my error I wonder you should bee so carefull for my soules good that are so negligent of your own For as I take in the last of myne I showed how ful of feare the last resolution of your faith would be when you should give account at that eternal tribunal In that all you can answer for your self is that your owne phancie apprehended so your private spirit interpreted so Where my faith is warranted by Gods word driivered by the holy catholick church confirmed by General and Provinstall Councels sealed by thowsand of Martyrs blood authorisâ—d by antiguitie of Historie ratified by holy Fathers Doctors and instructors of holie orders in all ages having the profession of our religion inferted in our naturall â— language churches crosses buildings mony â— most ancient monuments al which motives warrant me that I shal render an answer without all feare or dread All these and 〈…〉 motives you may have to yeeld to us but you could never nâ—t â—â—â—we me the least semblance of reason why I should yeeld to you God send you make right use of them for the good of your soule that you man at length be reduced to the true church of Christ for which I shall heartily pray Iohn Aynsworth I received yours dated the 12. of April the 20. of the same and I end this the 29. of Aprill stylo veteri Justice Hall in Newgate H. A. his answer to the former letter To his loving frâ—ind Mr. Iohn Aynsworth prisoner in Justice hall in Newgate be these in London GRace and mercy from God the father of our Lord Iesus Christ â—e vouch safed unto you 1. Wheras you gâ—ve me to vnderâ—tand Mr. Aynsworth that my writings among others were taken from you so that you could not answer them as you promised and that if yow had my last papers in a few lines you could answer any thing that urgeth you therin c. I have out of my love towards you and in compassion of your estate sent you a copie of my last writing not urging you to answer unless you think the goodness of your cause will bear you out but desiring you to yeild unto the truth there shewed you You brought for your defense C. Bellarmines reasons I have manifested the weaknes of them If you can fortifie them or your cause by any other I am willing as I have begunn to take notice thereof eyther to refute them or yeeld you the Victory If you leave off I also will rest and let the prudent judge what we both have sayd 2. You as if you would beginn a new combate propound 12. questions for me to answer I told you before I would not digresse to by matters for so we might run into confusion fruitlesse and endless Also your questions most of them are of Fathers Doctors c. since th'Apostles times by whom I shewed you that I neyther might nor would trye any religion til the Divine scriptures be proved insufficient which will never be 3. You then propound the controversie a new as if we were now again to beginn when we are almost at an yssue so might both of us weary our selves in vayn Your first long writing to me hath made my answers the longer for I desired and stil doo brevity with perspicuitie Least through want of your papers you should swarve from the questions in hand I wil set them down in the words that they have passed My assertions were question weise when I should enter into dispute vvith you to see if you vvould grant 1. That our differences in religion should be tryed and composed by the verdict or vvord of God not of men 2. That Gods vvord is to be found in the scriptures of the Prophets Apostles vvho vvrote originally in Hebrevv and Greek By these I offred my faith to be tryed and to make trial of other faith proposed Yours were vvhich you sayd you vvould prove and so indevoured 1. That onely the bare text of the scripture is not a
may recover your self from your imnâ—nent precipitium that dying out of the church of God you doe not eternally burne in the quenchless flames from Justice hall Julie 24 1613. Iohn Aynsworth To this letter H. A. gave no answer but exspected the promised large reply from I. A. which now followeth as the third in defense of the Church of Rome To Mr Henry Aynsworth at Amsterdam 6. 16. Ierem. State super vias et videte et interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona et ambulate in eâ et invenietis refrigerium animabus vestris ALthough your replie was slight and wilie rather seeking to transfer the questioÌ„ then to examin it to the true ground bespangling the rough rugge of your doctrine with multiplicitie of wrested places of holy scripture which makes me fitly resemble you to some AEthiopian behanged all over eares â—yes nose lippes and armes with Jewels and pearles that by their lustre beautie and misplacing makes the Nigroes fowllness the uglier Yet of such importance is the decision of this question being the keye and Master-spring to all the other doctrinall and controversall questions of religioÌ„ That howsoever your exploded doctrine and shuffling replication needes no answer being like a Comet that consumeth it self yet to complie with the worth of the question and to satisfy your followers desires I have once agayne returned you an answer In which I will showe that your reasons being rather seming reflections then true beames as you say of the word of God doe vanish of themselves 2. I wil prove that the true indeficient rule of our faith is not onely the written word of God but also the unwritten word of God traditioÌ„ the authoritie of the church of God in Councels â— Fathers is the ultimate decyder of all matters of controversie 3. I will show how my reasons for all your pretended answers remaine in full force 4 I wil prove that in your opinion you walk in a virious circle proâ—â— iâ— the self same by the 〈◊〉 the word of God by the privat spirit and the private spirit by the word of God 5 I wilâ— defend our Catholick opinion to be free from any such circular and râ—diculous proof 6 I 〈◊〉 show the Popes definitive sentence togither with a generall Court 〈◊〉 atleast to be a firme and an assured groundwork rock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7 And lastly I wil demonstrate to you or to any indifferent judgment that your building is on sands or spâ—ders â—â—ks your arcâ—uÌ„â—â— and resâ—â—uâ—â—oÌ„ of your faith at the last day of judgment to be groundless and fuâ—l of feare 8 First then to begin with your reasons which 〈◊〉 I maintâ—yne to be nothing els but aâ—â—er aâ—â—ous of scripture fâ—â—sty applyed I do think it 〈◊〉 before I answere your reasons grounded on the bareterts of scripture to signifie what a worthy most reverend esâ—eme we have of the scriptures and of each part of them We reverence them as Gods holy word derived from the fulness of truth â—â—e hold this volume worâ—â—â— to be meditated on day and night Jos. 1 8 Psalm 1 2 〈◊〉 hold it as seven times refined sâ—â—ver Psal. 11 7. A most cleare light illuminating our eyes Psal. 8 8 that it is a light 〈◊〉 our steppes Psal. 1. 8. â—2 v 105 130. 140. Wee hold all the holy scriptures to be most just 8. 8. Prov. to be a frerie speech and buckler of defense We also defend that the holy scriptures are diligently to be searched unto Joh. 5 39. â—â—om 1. 1. â—â—om 15 4. that whatsoever is writt in them is writ to our edificatioÌ„ that all the scriptures are profitable unto us 2 â—un 3 16 2. Pet. 1 21. that men delivered this scripture inspired by the holy Ghost Yet wee hold also though we worthâ—ly esteeme of them yet wee can not â—â—clude the eâ—plications of the holy church in the holy Fathers and Councels guided and directed by the self same truth And S. Augustin did oppose by the authoritie of the holy fathers his predecessors against Pe lagius and other â—ereticks saying â—ragâ—lis â—t arguta eorum novitas eâ—c The weake and wâ—â—â— noveltiâ— of hereticks is to be coâ—fâ—nÌ„ded by the authoritie of holy Fathers and a little after this great Doctor and holy Fatherâ— acknowledged by Calvin himself to be the faithful wriness of antiquitiâ— 4. 〈◊〉 stitut â— 14 sess 25 and Bâ—za calls him the Prince of aâ— Divines concerning dogmaticall poâ—â—cis in c. 3. â—â—om v. 12 as if on purpose he did answer your barbarous contempt of them calling them dust and athes â—et onely in regard of their mortaliâ—e as the scriptures calles them but when the vniforme consent of the Fathers Greek and Latin was objected against â—â—u What saâ—es D. Augustin shall light be darkness and darkness light that 〈◊〉 aclestius Julia should on ly see and that Hyllarie Greg. Ambâ—â—se â—ier August should bâ— blyndâ— So wee see how two worthy champions of yours hath raised S. August a Samnâ—l 〈◊〉 confound a 〈◊〉 not at Endor but at Amsterdam â— But wheras by your submission you would seemâ— to 〈◊〉 amâ—nd 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 that you 〈◊〉 thâ—re be a thoâ—â—aâ—d of theÌ„ that I sa◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you preâ—â—â— for 〈◊〉 trutâ— and holyness before 〈◊〉 For if you understand this of the 〈◊〉 fathers before 〈◊〉 I proâ—â— that you cannot 〈◊〉 that without â— visard to 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 since I wil prove that in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dogmatical 〈◊〉 they differ from you and so by your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—inpeere except you will be wilfully blind they 〈…〉 before you If you understand Jewel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the Protestant Doctors these in truth by your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neyther doe or can prefer before your self since by your 〈…〉 have no true church as I heare you teach against Mr. 〈◊〉 and so there difference must rather be hereticall then 〈◊〉 and if it be a true church why make you a schâ—mâ— in dâ—parting from them Now to come to the solution of your arguments if there were any There be 4 â—n number cited as you saye grounded on the holy scriptures but not one appearing in substance or in the true sense of the scriptures First you object out of Deut. â— 32. Keep and doe that 〈…〉 God commanded you â—e shall neyther 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 but by that our Lord God commaunded you 〈◊〉 you 〈…〉 What can you inferr hence but that the lawe ought strictly to be kept and that we â—ught neyther to adde or to take from the 10 commandements that is to make the 10. commandements 〈◊〉 oâ— superaâ—undant what is this to your purpose to prove that the written word alone is sufficient to decyde all controversâ—es For as here 〈◊〉 testification of the law or â—rpâ—icatiâ—n of the law was 〈◊〉 And that it was the office of the Preists to explicate the 〈◊〉 of the law appâ—ares Deut. 1â— v. 8 2 Paral. 19 1â— 2
Pâ—â— 26 16 〈…〉 Deut 32. v. 7. Psal. 43 1. Prov. 3 8 〈◊〉 6 â—6 〈◊〉 8 1◠〈◊〉 4 4 3. 2 Thes. 2 15. 2 〈◊〉 2 1. so we saâ— the proposing of the word of God by the church and the 〈◊〉 of the Church bâ— hâ—r hâ—ad councells and hâ—lfe ancient faâ—â—â—â—◠〈◊〉 not resist but rather help the scriptures And aâ— to â—â—plicate the law 〈◊〉 neither 〈◊〉 deâ—itâ—e to tâ—e right hand or to the lâ—ft no more 〈◊〉 â—â— to 〈◊〉 the scripture according to vâ—â—â—ersalitie antiquitiâ— and consâ—nt And here 〈◊〉 â—â— to be understood that such an addition is prohibited that to 〈◊〉 to the law of God as appeareth vp 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 chap. v. 3. where he brings in before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how he did 〈◊〉 Bâ—al phâ—gor for 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 for adding or 〈◊〉 as the teâ—t â—â—pâ—ies v 2 â— 4 Deut. Againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Deut. 12. â—2 That 〈◊〉 I coâ—â—aund thee that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 Lord thou 〈◊〉 â—â—t adde o◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is here 〈◊〉 but an heath 〈◊〉 and an 〈◊〉 of their children to God as they did to their idols as appeareth out of the 30 verse of the same chapter Is here any prohibition of câ—nsicating the true sense of the law And in the self â—â—me sense â— prohibition of an idolatrous or falâ—â—fying addition is prohibited Deut. 4 v. 2. â—â—u shall not adde unto the word I speak unto you and in this sense that of the â—poâ— the last chap. v. 18 et â—9 and first of S. Paul to the Gal. chap. 1 v 8 as S. Aug teacheth vs in tract 98. in Johannem 10. Now wheras you retort my reasoÌ„ vrged against you showes you have good will to maintayn the tennis plaie how unpractised soever you are therein For as I remember I reasoned thus taking occasion out of Deu. 5 v. 32. no man may ad unto the fourth coÌ„maÌ„demeÌ„t it is to be kept therfore the 4 coÌ„mandemeÌ„t is to be kept onely to be kept As it should follow by the selfe same reason No man may adde in that â—â—â—â—d to any particular scripture and this or each parcel of scripture is the word of God therfore this or each parcell of scripture is onely scripture or the word of God Or thus the scripture is a sufficient rule in that kind for that which it teacheth therfore it is the onely sufficient rule where you may plainly see if you will not blinâ—â— that I conclude sufficiently against you But you complayn that my redditum or conclusion doth not showe his head I answer we doe not use ever in the schooles the premises being presupposed veâ—â—â—lliâ— to inferr the conclusion which followes necessarily As if I should argue thus Whosoever builds his religion onely on the privat spirit is a flat hereriche But Mr. Henry Ayns worth doth this the go without any more I know will excuse me from inferring a lame conclusion in that every one that hath common sense wil see what followes 11. Now to answer to that of the Gal. 1. v. 8. But though we or an Angel from heaven should euangelise to you besides that I have euangelised un to you be he an anathema which text makes much against you dooth nothing prove that which you would inferr viz. that the written word of God is sole sufficient For first there it is sayd besydes that which I euangelize that is eyther in writing or word of mouth so that you see tradition is not obscurely implied 2. we may note out of these words that the text doth not prohibit any explicatioÌ„ or true glosse on the text but onely that which is contrarie for verse 6. he marvails that they should be transported to another gospel So that you see all additions not contrary additions are forbidden in this and the like place But first here your gospelling is against S. August lib. 17. contra FaustuÌ„ where he teacheth that the Apostle saies not more theÌ„ you have received but besides that you have received or else S. Aug saies he should have prejudicated himself that did desire to come to preâ—ch to the Thessalonians and he concludes he that supplies that which was too litle doth not take away that which was too litle or wâ—nting 12. And S. Augustin in his 98 tract notes that the word besides doth not prohibit more or other preaching or teaching as the trabitioâ—â— and explications of the church bee but such as are contrarie or disagreeing to the rule of faith and S. Augustine notes that the Apostle both not say if any doe euangelize to you more theÌ„ you have received but besides For if he had forbidden any more S. John had synned that wrote after the Apocalyps 13. You upbraide me in saying this answ is none of the word of God but my owne saying that I have not a tittle of the word of God to prove it which you have and for to prove pour purpose you â—â—te the 30 of the Proverbs the 6. v adde nothing unto his wordes least he reproove thee which text proves no more theÌ„ the other text explicated that coÌ„rrarie doctrine â— not explicatioÌ„s aâ— here prohibited so that we see our archer hath lost another bolt shot at randâ—Ì„ to seek his brother 14. But wheras you say my answer is not warranted of God is not true For read RoÌ„ the last v. 17. Observe diligeÌ„tly those that cause division and diffention besides the doctrine you have learned where Erasâ—us turnes it in his translation contra against and your Bezaes translation reades so if contrarie S. Ambrose also reades si contra so that we see repugnant and not explicating doctrine contrarie and not more doctrine of the self same kind is prohibited 15. Wheras you say my reasoÌ„ is against myself in that the Prophets did not adde of their own but of Gods no more I say the definitions of the church be mans own but Gods ther being one self samâ—… of Christ and hiâ— Church He that heareth you heareth me and he that contemneth you contemneth me S. Luke 10 16. which is true also of particular churches but so fart forth as their doctrine accordeth with the Romane catholik church 16 But where you say you will inlighten my eyes with the lamp oil that stincketh by your false interpretation of the holy fathers sense I am litle beholden to you For S Chrysost and S. Ambrose in those places cited by you wil have nothing else understood but that the expositors must applie theÌ„selves to the true sense of the scripture the law â— not to corrupt the sense though on good pretences But you 〈◊〉 H. A. if you would haâ— the dust wiped of your spectacles might have seen Dyonisius Areopagita in the yeare of our Lord 100 and the Apostles schollar in his first chapter of his celestial Hierarchie show how the Apostles did declare their doctrin partly by writing partly not by
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
the signes which Iesus did which signes are written that we may beleeve And the 1. of Timothie â— 16. 17 Where all scripture is inspired of God etc. is said to be profitable for doctrine for reprehension for correction for instruction c. These places prove nothing for your purpose The first proves not that all things or sayings of our Saviour that he did or said are written though those signes were for all the signes the whole world could not contayn see a little after S. John 21. v. 25. 31. And the second place proves no more but that the scripture is good for these ends but it proves not that scripture is sufficient without tradition etc. and ecclesiastical lawes to all these ends And one might deduce out of these wordes to better reason then you each parcel of scripture in the old and new testament were sufficient for al this without any other So that you see I doe not fight with the holie ghost but with the perverter of the holy ghost 32. 3. You desire me to deale distinctly and plainly with your words I answer I hope I doe Then you beginne to answere distinctly to my wordes vidz the written word is not proved by another written word You answer first that the scriptures of God doe approve and confirme one another and his spirit that is in them and in all people doth seale that they are true For proof wherof you cite the first of S. John 5 9. The witness of God is greater and John 8 13. 14 I answer that Christ needed no testimonie for himself John 5 33. But I receive no testimonie of man meaning that he is greater then man that his divinitie doth not depend of mans witness yet for the benefit of others S. John is sayd to give testimonie of him 1. John through the whole chapter almost Acts 1 8. Christ say unto his Apostles that they shall be witness unto him in Jerusalem and in all Jewrie and in Samaria also Martyrs are sayd to be witnesses But now we doe not say that scriptures in themselves needs any witness for in actu 1. and in regard of themselves they are scripture by themselves proceeding from God but as they be in act 1 secundo and to be beleeved of others so they need testimonie of others 33. After he sees this dâ—fective he flies unto the privat spirit though he sayes it is in all people to unseale the authoritie of his word For if he understand by that spirit in all people that is of all ages times persons then must he accept of those bookes of holie scripture and of that sense and explication that by consent of holie Councills Fathers Doctors and expositors haith bene received 34. If he vnderstand this spirit in all people virtuallie and actuallie if they doe applie themselves to the right vnderstanding thereof This spirit by just reason they can not vnderstand since then wee must rather beleive St. Hierome that spent all his tyme and labor retyring himself to the desert for the vnderstaÌ„ding of the scriptures 35. What must Mr. H. A. understand else then that this spirit is in all the illuminated brethren of the church of Amsterdamâ— and yet this can not bee well understood since I heare Mr. H. A. stiffly maintains by the word of God with his coÌ„panie against Mr. Johnson there and his that this present church of England is not a scismaticall but an haeretical church What is then one of these cleare Eagle sight teachers blinded so in spirit that he can not discerne by the word of God what makes a church or a man haereticall 36. But now to prove that the comparing of one place with another which is your other refuge is not sufficient to distinguish what is true scripture or the true sence therof For if it bee so to bee vnderstood that after the collation of one place to another that by the nature of the scripture compared so the true sence shall bee vnderstood I inferr no but rather by this comparison the difficultie is often increased by a seeming contradiction If it bee vnderstood that by comparing of one that by a little and a little If it bee vnderstood that vy comparing one place with another by a little discourse the true sence and the scripture will be discerned I saie mens discourses are verie erroneous without the especiall assistance of gods holie grace which the church of God hath promised in her defining yea the verie selfe same man in divers times out of the self same confereÌ„ces of places of scripture hath inferred divers conclusions If you say the spirit to distinguish this is to be had by prayer I demand where these infallible promises are to be had for these infallible illuminations and what more certaine whether wee praie as wee ought And since Novatus Donatus Sabellius Arrius Cunomius Macedo Jovinianus Pelag Caelest Nestorius have had for their heresies diverse texts and coÌ„ferences with others to grownde heresies how should one vnfallibly to their judgments overthrow them in this For if you obiect to the Arian I and my Father am one he will object out of the selfe same St. John My father is greater then I If you saiâ— this by â—â—llation of scripture is to be vnderstood in regard of his humanâ—â—â—â— and not of his divinitâ—e He will 〈◊〉 likewise that vnitie signified in the other place is to bee vnderstood by references of other places of scripture in regard of consent and vniâ—y of wilâ— and not of nature 37. 2 And that the seale of your spirit can not distinguish this truth 〈◊〉 yea not so much as probablie I move For frist I aske what this seale of the spirit is Doth iâ— coâ—â—â—st onely of Gods perticular illumination that yee should have this touchstone to discerne scripture If so you contradict your selfe Mr. H A for so you grant that a man hath a divine faith and the spirit of discerning all before he readâ—s the scriptures for this spirit must distinguish them and so you have built without your grounde and guided your faith without your ruler the written word of God 38. If you answer this spirit consists in the evidence of the thing reaveled as you seeme to graâ—nt When you bidd me aske your proof that ther is a light in the same seeming so with Calvin to graunt that the scriptures are distinguished by themselves as light from darkness sweetness from sowrness this is most false for then everie one that had but natural perfection of the organ and free proposing of the object should distinguish this light and sweetness 39. If yee answer this spirit consists in the authoritie of God how will you prove this in particular to bee revealed of God and not the other part of scripture If you replie you can prove it by the Majestie of the writing How will you answer and show to everie particular mans cie
that there is more Majestie in Ecclesiastes then in the Ecclesiasticus How will Luther demonstrate against the whole church that S. James epistle is strawie the epistle to the Hebrewes Apocalyps etc. to be doubted of 40. When I object against you that the Maniâ—hâ—i Montanist Arrian Peâ—agian and all other hereticks will boast of this private spirit Nou answer that I have a mist before my eyes or else I would discerne them I answer I doe distinguish them and leave them 〈◊〉 by the church of God to the pit of hell but not by my private spirit but by the ordinarie meanes the definitions and declarations of the church whose office is to distinguish these spirits infalliblie whose doctrine wee are punctuallie to follow if wee will have in all things this spirit of truth and with one answer I satisfie the multiplicitie of places of scripture he apâ—d vp to no purpose 41. Wheras you would whet the edge of the Jewes sword against mâ— in that they may object against Christians the lawe and the Prophets yea and antiquitie I answer the lawe and Prophets yea antiquitie it self promising our Saviours coÌ„â—ing and fulfilled by his coÌ„ming in each particular cirstumstance prophâ—â—ied and promised doth rebat the edge And I could show out of the 〈◊〉 â—abbines themselves Sâ—hillaes prophecies preaching of S. John Baptist conversion of S Paul the destruction of Jerusalem their â—â—rse and continued dispersion onely to be justly inflicted on them for truâ—â—fying of our Saviour I could shew strange motives of their 〈◊〉 errouâ— Neither can the Jew as you object as we against the â—urk or and Hâ—râ—sie our beginâ—er beginning increase and declyning estate For the Jewes can show our beginner their Messias our beginning he buriall of the cerâ—monial law propheâ—ied and performed by all titles of truth but who can justly shew our declining estate 42. Neyther is the objection of a Jew against a new Christian because he went out of them of such force as our is against Julâ—an or any other Apostata For they cannot defend themselves with any show of truth as we can defend our cause with evident motives of â—râ—dibilitie as I shall hereafter show And Julian might object that Paganismâ— is more ancient then Christianitiâ— but not then the 〈◊〉 law which was compleat and â—erfected as it was prophecied and promised by the coming of the new lawe Where you say Gods word and spirit in the scriptures must be the bulwark I answer a bulwark but not able to defend you from gun shot and a sâ—onse onely for your selves For as yet there was never any of your sects protestant or any other heretitâ— that was able to convert any nation to their religion But men of our religion haue converted all nations doe still convert as well witnesseth both the Judges Japonia yea and Câ—ina it self 43. I showed you one way how the high preisthood did not erre in the condâ—mnation of our Saviour in that the Preisthood was â—â—served in Christ Jesus person True it is the Hipghpreists Scribes Rulers questioned this but their ignorance was most viâ—â—ible by their own lawe and by that lawe he should live since that law declared him to be the sonne of God 44. Against your forced rock and running over many wrâ—sted places of scripture to prove the church of God invisible it were sufficient for me to oppose many evident and clear places of scripture interpreted by the holy fathers Greek and Latin for the pepetuall visibilitie of the church 2. 〈◊〉 â— v 13. 1. Paâ—â—l 22 10. Psal 4â— 17 Psal. 45 5. Psal. 47. 9. Psal. 86. 1. Psal. 88 29 Psal. 101 17. Ps. 128 1. Psal. 131 14. Cant. 3 4. Isa. 9 7. Isa. 33 20. where the perpetual flourishing of the church of God is described Isa. 40 8. Isa. 59 21. Isa. 60 â—9 where it is said the Sun and Moon of the church shall not cease Jer. 6 16. Dan. 2 44. Ose. 2 19. where God is described to espouse eternally his espouse unto him Mich 4 1. wher the church is described to be a high seated mountain to whom all people have recourse Mat. 5 15. where the citie seated on a hil can not be obscured Math 26. 18. where the church is described to be built upon a rock against which hell gates shall not prevaile 28. Math. 2. Our Saviour sayes he will be with his disciples to the end of the world Luâ— 1 32. Luâ— 21. 32. Luk. 22 31. Where Christ sayes he prayed for S Peter that his faith should not fail him Joh. 14. 1â— He sayes the father shall give them another spirit which shall remaine with them eternally John 17 11. Act. 5 38. Ephe. 4 11. yea and the Creed made by the Apostles doth acknowledge the perpetuall flourishing of the church of God I beleeve the catholick church whose generalitie can not stand without visibilitie 45 I answer to your contrarie doctrine that the church of God never since it was a church hath erred If Genes 6. ther was then a church AdaÌ„ the head did err in fact not in doctrine if we should graunt that he did err our adversaries are bound as wel as wee to answer since not onely the visible church then with us but the invisible church with them should have erred But true it is that thers was then no perfect church but onely a materiall and a formall beginning of a church 46. To that of Gen. 6. where all their harts are described to be set on mischeef is not to be understood that all then were naught For not long before Mâ—â—husalem and divers holy men died Sem Jâ—phet also were zealous of Gods honour and their wives also most religious in whom the church of God might be preserved 47. I answer also In the time of Moses Aaron and the people did commit idolatrie in worshipping the golden â—alfe yet Moses the head of all and all the Levites were free from that sinne So that wee read Erod 32. If there be any of God sayes Moses let him joâ—ne with mee and all the sonnes of Levi were gathered vnto him 48. I answer In the time of Judges after Josh. The Israelites are described as though they had sinned al which is an usual figurative speech of Syâ—echdoche of the whole for the part as Exod. 9 6. wher it is sayd all the beasts of Egypt are dead Isa. 2. v. All nations shal flow unto him Phil. 2 21. All men seek their own Ioh. 3. v. 33. And no man did receive his testimonie 49. To that of the Prophet Elias 3. Reg. 19. where Elias complaines that he is left alone I answer that then the people were divided into two kingdomes the one of the Jewes and the other of the Israelites Aâ—hab did govern the Israelites but holy Josaphat did govern the Jewes the one did destroy altars and kill Prophets the other did heare Prophets erect altars And
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
he is the eight and is one of the seaven meaning the Popes vvho by an Ecclesiasticall goverment differ from the civil Emperors and so are an eight yet because they reign togither vvith the Emperours they make as it were one regiment and so the eight is one of the seven as the scripture sayth And that the word King dooth signify a kingdome or regiment appeareth by Dan. 7. 17. where the 4. beasts are sayd to be 4. kings meaning kingdomes as is explayned in v. 23. the fourth beast is the fourth kingdome So this exposition is playn and according to truth And thus notwithstanding all that you have brought the Pope remayneth Antichrist And think it not much that Antichrist is so ancient The Iewes look for Christ and he is come 1600. yeres agoe but they know him not You looke for Antichrist and he hath been wel nigh so many yeres in the vvorld and you are not aware If you read the book of the Revelation judicially God opening your hart you may discern that mysterie of Babylon which yet is hidden from your eyes And for preeminence forbidden to Christs ministers see Mat. 20. 25. 26. Luk. 22. 25. 26. That which you allege of Tit. 2. 15. showes the power authoritie of the word duly preached and applyed to mens consciences and is not peculiar to the head of the church the Pope for you see Titus there had it but it is common to all Christs ministers You turne back to your general argument vvhich I had confuted How good a defense you have brought I am content to let the prudent reader judge Onely where you charge me vvith falshood for saying the Pope with you is above the law which you deny in my sense I answer my sense is according to your own explication that extrinsecally and as it is to be knowen of us Gods word depends on the churches that is the Popes authority He putteth Apocryphal lying books in to the holy canon his interpretation though absurd and hereticall must stand for authentick and a definition of his ex cathedra you reverence as an oracle And he dispenseth against Gods law Is not he now above yea he sitteth as God in the Temple of God as Paul prophesied 2 Thes. 2. 4. The third thing which heretofore the seventh thing which now you should prove is that the indeficieÌ„t rule of our fayth is onely to be found in the â—â—man catholick church sentence and not in private mens illuminatioÌ„s c. I hold neyther of these as I told you before You labour agayn to mainteyn the former First you prove this in that the RomaÌ„ church you say is the onely true catholick church I answer You fayrly beg the question and would prove it is so because it is so You speak vntruely in calling her the true church proudly in caling her the onely true church absurdly in caling her the catholick that is the vniversal church None of all these can you make any proof of you referr in the margin to S. 123. and let men look what proof they can find there I for the present referr you and all to your own Cardinal Baronius testimonie of your holy church as he found it in his ancient records and put it in his Chronicles thus What was then the face of the holy Roman church how filthy was it when most mighty and eke most filthy whores ruled at Rome at whose pleasure seats were changed Bishops were given which is horrible and vile to heare false-Popes their paramours were intruded into Peters seat c. Loe here the bewty of that Catholick church whose sentence you say is the indeficient rule of your faith You are glad that I refuse the name Catholik and I am glad of and content me with that ancient name of a Christian given of God Act. 11 26 keep you your new fangled name of your own divising to be called a catholik that is an Universal I envie you not You are very angrie that I proved unto you the marks of your Roman church by the word of God which you had set down without proof You had cause rather to be thankfull But now the reader may see how having nothing soundly to reply you wilfully persist in your error for which I am sory Your reproches I bear with patience Leaving your former reasons helpless you conclude with a coÌ„mon argumeÌ„t for your church religioÌ„ That seing your faith is coÌ„fessed to be so ancient if it be not froÌ„ God it must be grounded on carnal motives viz the profit of the spiritual or the temporall But it is not you say for the profit or pleasure of the clergie as appeares by their cha â—â—ity vowes fasting praying c. Nor of temporal Princes for how should so many Emperors Kings c. be brought to confess their syns fast c. I answer first your religioÌ„ in som points of it is ancient I coÌ„fess eveÌ„ as ancienâ— as the Apostles daies vvhen the mystery of iniquity begaÌ„ to work 2. Thes. 2. 7. men loved preeminence 3. Iohn 9. many Antichrists vvent abroad 1 Ioh. 2. 18. vvhich vvere foretunners of the great Antichrist folowing Who vvas to be reveled vvhen he that theÌ„ letted viz. the heathen Empire vvas taken out of the vvay 2. Thes. 2. 7. 8. But yet the truth of the Gospel preached by the Apostles vvas more ancient 1 Ioh. 2. 24. which therefore is to be our rule and stay not humane doctrines that came up after Secondly I answer the ambition profit and pleasure of the Bishops and Preists vvere the motives unto this height of evil For histories record the contentions that vvere in churches and among Bishops especially of Rome and of Constantinople vvho should be greatest This made P. Gregory to say the King of pride is at haud and quod dici quoque nefas est an arwie of Preists is ready for him I wish you vvould beleeve this Popes tradition here As for Profits and pleasures vvho seeth not that Christ and his Apostles being poor and Peter himself having neyther silver nor gold to give a needy man Act. 3. 6. Your clergy have gotten such patrimonies falsly purloyned in S. Peters name as they are of the richest in the vvorld their treasures infinite their palaces like Kings their apparel prince like their Kitchins ful of the finest fare the plesantest fertilest lands in all countries being ingrossed for the clergie for church livings Their doctrines of Purgatory and pardons being onely to pick mens purfes Their vowes of chastitie being to desile themselves in filthy Sodonne adulterie and fornication vvitness the 6000. childrens heads that vvere found murdered in P. Gregories fishpond which moved him to reverse his own wicked decree that restreyned the Clergie froÌ„ their wives besides infinite other testimonies of these evils in other places Their fasting being a mere mockery to absteyn superstitiously
eâ—r deceiv you You dare not say this nay in deed you deny it whiles you refuse any doctrine or expositioÌ„ give by Doctor Father or Council vvhich the Pope approves not of and this is ordinary to be seen in yourbooks Follow you now still vpoÌ„ vvhat assurance you stay it is your Pope is Christs vicar caÌ„not err ex cathedra because himself sayth so And this is to make him a God For onely God is the ground of truth on whose word al creatures should rest And so by this argumeÌ„t alone if there were no more your Pope is proved to be that maÌ„ of syn which exalreth himself above al that is caled God you are of those upoÌ„ vvhom God hath sent strong delusioÌ„ to beleeve lyes as the Apostle prophesied 2. Thes. 2. 4. 11. Besides it is against al reasoÌ„ to take a mans witness of himself The law of God and Christ is against it the law of maÌ„ coÌ„demns it Nemo in sua causa testis esse vel jus sibi dicere possit l Generali C. Ne quis 2. q. 1. C. de manifesta Behold M. I. A. this third time I have vvritten unto you God by me warning you of your fearfull estate Take heed and despise not the mercy of the Lord calling you to repentance Be not unsensible of your calamity extreme peril as he that sleepeth in the midds of the sea on the top of the mast and sayth they have striken me but I vvas not sick they have beaten me but I felt it not To day if ye vvil hear the voice of God harden not your hart least he swear in his anger that you shall never enter into his rest My prayer shal be against your evil and that you may finde mercy unto life if such be the vvil of God Amen From Amsterdam the 6. of November 1613. Your freind that vvisheth your vvelfare Henr. Ainsw I. A. his 4. and last writing to H. A. To his loving friend Mr Henry Aynsworth these At Amsterdam Mr H. Ainsworth AS small hope have you in deed of the former viz. the defense of the truth as you graunt you have of the second â—â—tendement of yours viz. my conversion For trust me your allegations your prooses are so weak though many in 〈◊〉 ber that I wonder that he that professeth himself to hunt after the light onely should content himself so in the dark like Senecaes poore blind woman who accounted all others to be blinde and that onely she did see But if you would as well have taken paines but even to have summed my reasons and proofes faithfully as you vainely repeate so often your owne Mine and yours indifferently paralleld would have manifested long ere this the truth But you conceale so my proofes and so magnifie your own that it is no wonder your seâ—tarâ—â—s prifeth yours as things of worth when in deed they are but gaâ—die glasse and plaine Bristowes stones in sted of Diamonds And therefore as I remit you for all your slight replie to my former answer in so many sheates of paper delivered so I remitt your auditorie but to compare both for their satisfaction and manifestation of the truth if they bee intelligible It being a tedious thing to take so often such fruictless paine as to plough 〈◊〉 so many sheetes the barraine sands A short answer especially being not compatible to many vnjoincted and scattered citations were not your vanitie therin sufficiently vâ—â—asked in the former And since you doe confess to bee tyred as indeed I profess I am but to reade your slight stuff I shall content my selfe to poinct out how you have satisfied me in no one poinct referring my selfe to my former defence which doth and shall stand in force for ought therin that you can justly oppugne To the first of mine wherein as I showe that your reasons vanish of themselves you keepe a greate pudder to no purpose Naie you overthrow your selfe graunting the vnwritten word of God to deepde controversies that the law must bee explicated by Preists For as traditions the vnwritten word are included and implied in the written word or belonge to the explication or performance of the same so also fasts feasts and ceremonies of the Church are virtuallie included in those generall precepts and prerogatives of the Church as I expressed in my former Now to add that which is gathered thence or to explicate that which is included is not contrarie as you doe in your replie not obscurely confess as I show in my 12. parag as also the 16. 17. parag is to answer Where as you charge me that you have often answered that which I object parag 20. I referr to the indifferent reader But verily I maie speake and not from my own judgment that your writings deserve no answer I answer Apostollicall traditions are to bee taught as the word of God and to bee expounded what then In answering my first reason faine you would reâ—aiâ— we with a spllogisme of your owne seing that which is known for Gods word is the rule of faith which I denie not But holie scriptures are knowne for Gods word which in your sense I denie For they are not knowen by themselves but by tradition and the authoritie of the church For many paâ—â—ells of scripture have bene doubted of by those that bragged of the spirit of God to discerne scripture And you neyther save your self from an infinite process in that kind if you could doe that how can you prove the whole Bible to be canonicall as I have proked In my 32 parag I fullie satisfied your tortured places and if I doe leave out som places it is in that they are virtuallie answered in other places expounded For if a man should examine each place you bring wee should never have an end And if the scriptures bee as cleare as the Sunne to be distinguished it followes that they must bee knowne of all if you saie of all his you doe petere principium since everie one will pretend to bee his I proved also by the authoritie of S. Aug that scriptures in Actu 2 to bee knowne to others requireth necessarily the authoritie of the Church to which as to verie manie places more you never answer You wrong your self and not I you since you giue just occasion to me to terme the guide of your religioÌ„ your privat spirit for the word â—pâ—ly befitts your grounds as I prove effectuallie and I doe convince that our faith is not subject to any such circular vagarie I resolving my religion into no other grounds then St. Cypr did his S. 55. And you might see if you would that the Pope doth not make what he wil a matter of faith but onely doth declare it parag 69. And to what end should I answer him that never answered me as I did procede but onely by snatches which is not to answer me but his owne phancie and
to fight with his owne shaddow that vilefies the holie Fathers as earth and ashes that allowes of no rule of scripturs but what his private spirit preferrs That condemns and contemnes the name Catholicke as a new idle upstart phrase What shall I deem of him but as one that sittes in cathedra pestilentiae readie to avoide or denie any thing and willing to pervert others As for your motives to propose which onely is not to answer mine I referr my selfe to the judiciall and indifferent reader to compare both together see par 109 120. 121. 122. 153. where I show how you build on sands and spyders webbes and how we ground our selves one the firme rocke and of those true notes of the ancient Fathers did defend themselves from hereticks see from 115 to 135. c. Therefore since ther is nothing in your present that is not abuÌ„dantly cleared in my former I desire you if you will further procede that some waie my last answer and yours maie be set downe word for word Or if you think not convenient to avoide prolixitie hereafter I desire you set downe al that shal bee spoken or answered in forme onely which proceding will cleare more the question in one quarter of an hower and in a quarter of paper then this kind of discourse and dilating will doe in a quarter of a yeare and in a quire of paper And thus having answered yours received about the beginning of June 1614 I end desiring God to give you true humilitie to imbrace the truth no doubt in your vnderstanding seen June 18 1614. Your well wishing freind John Aynsworth And that many things to bee beleeved are not taught expresly in the written word I have ofteÌ„ instanced as the Sabâ—oth on Sunday the Apostles Creede the receiving fasting kneeling and not sitting eating of strangâ—ed meates see parag 92. The Conclusion BEcause I am not vvilling to strive for the last vvord I cease further writing about these matters having nothing of weight left for to refute any more seing my opposite thus giveth over I am content that not onely Mr. Iohn Aynsworthes last answer as he desireth and mine but also that all the passages between us be set down word for word for any that please to see and compare Am willing also to answer as God shall give me means unto whatsoever Mr. Ioh. Aynsw. shall further set down in form onely as he speaketh leaving the things that have passed between us to the indifferent censure of the judicious reader Henry Ainsworth Faults escaped in the printing Pag. 5. line 3. for master spings read master springs Pag. 65. line 8. before the end read Prov. 8. 8. 9. Pag. 68. line 22. for or Christs read of Christs Pag. 108. line 17 for in the same read in the Sun Pag. 139. line 2. for if it be proved read if it proved Pag. 142. line 4. before the end for before their as there read before them as their Pag. 151. line 6. before the end for law ever read law as ever Pag. 181. line 6. for Gods words wrath read Gods wrath The end 1. Ioh. 4. Spiritualls aedificij fudamentâ— Ps. 〈◊〉 testimonia 〈◊〉 a credibilia facta sunt 〈◊〉 II. III. IIII. V. I. II. III. Calvin The Apol. Hooker Hooker Zanchius Brentius Whitak M. Luther Tertull. 2. Pet. 3. D. Aug. vide Vincent Lyranâ—nâ— lib. 1. â—â—prophaâ—as haerâ—sâ—s D Hâ—â—r in cap. 5. ad Galatas Acts 8. Deâ—t 17. â— Iohn â—ltimo Act. 15. 2. Pet 1. D. Aug. l. 1. de doctr Christi c. 21. et lib 1 c. 10. â—â—l 12. c. 18. c. 12. 〈◊〉 Cor. 2. 4. Râ—g 4. Fox Acts p. 398. V. Exod. 14. 2. Mat. D. Hyllar in l. contra Constant. introducit Aria sic loquenteÌ„ Noâ— verba quae â—â—â—â—pta non â—unt â— Thess. 2. â—6 â— Tim. 2. Tim 1. 1 Cor. 11. â— Thes. 3. II. III. Psal. 18. Siâ— Metaph de Petro et paâ—lo apud Lippo Beatus Beda l. 1. c. 4. * Me Logomachem 2 Tim. 2. 1◠†Deut. 5 32 ‡ Deut 12. 32. Rom. 3 10 11. 19. 1 Cor. 2 14. * 1. Cor. 1. 20. †RoÌ„ 8. 7. ‡ Col. 2. 22. 23. Mat 15. â— Eph. 2. 1. 5 * Gal. 3. 11. Ebâ— 11. 6. †RoÌ„ 10 17. ‡ Eze. 3 17. Eze. 13. 2. â— Deu. 17. 11. Eze. 44. 〈◊〉 †Psal. 62 9. secunduÌ„ Hebr. ‡ Prov. 2 6. â—aÌ„ 1. 17. * Hebr 1. 1. †Ioh. 5 39. ‡ Act 10. 40. 41. 42. 5. 32. 2. Cor. 1. 20. * Rom. 16 25 26. †Rom. 10 6. 7 8. ‡ 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. Ioh. 20 31 * 1 Ioh. 1 4. †1 Cor. 4 6. phronein 1. Argum. Answer * 1. Cor. 12 3. †Ioh. 12 37 38. 39 40. Act 16 14. “ Mat. 16 17. ‡ Ioh. â— 44. 2. Cor. 4 13 * â—sa 59 21. Ioh. 6. 45. “ Heb. 4 12 ‡ Iob. 12 11 1 Cor. â— 15. * Iude 19. ‡ Rev. 13 13. ‡ Ephes. 3 6 †Eph. 4 4 5 * Mat. 15 3. * Ier. 17. â— Mat. â— 9. Isa. 29. 13. ‡ Pâ— 73 26. 2. Argum. aâ—â—vvered 2 pet 3. * 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Rom. â— 3. ‡ Mat. 12 13. 14. Luk. 8. 10. Pro. 1. 4. Deut. 17. †〈◊〉 * 1 Cor. ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 8 ◠†2. Cor. 1 2â— 2. Cor. 4 â— * Deu â— â—◠†Heb. 9. 1◠‡ Mat. 17. 5. 1 Pet. 5. 7. 2. * Act. 20 28. * 1 Pet. 1. 23 25. †1 Pet. 2 2. ‡ 1 Pet. 4 â—1 â— Pet. 1 19 * 1 Cor 2. 10. 11. †Mat. 18 20 Eph. 1. 22. ‡ Act. 15. 28 vers 13. 14 c. * vers 19. crâ—â—o †vers 6 c ‡ vers 23. * vers 28. 2 Petr. 1. * â—dias epi 〈◊〉 propria interpretatione sayth your authentik â—aâ—in †1. Cor 14. 1. ‡ vers 31. Ioh 3 * Ioh â— 15. †Luk. â— 16 17. c. ‡ Act. â— 13. 3. Argum. ansvvered * Eccles. 10. 10. 4. Argum. ansvvered †Zoph 3 4. ‡ Isa. 8. 20. 2. Pet. 3 16 * 2. Pet. 1. 19. 5 Argum. â—â—â—v â—â—â—d * Exo 25 40 †1 Peâ— 1. 1◠†Tit. 1. 14. Deut 6 7. * In your Latin the 43. 77. †Mal. 4 4. ‡ Deu. 33. 4 Luk. 16 3â— 1. Cor. 14 37. †Act. 26. 22 ‡ Ioh. 20. 31 2 Tim. 3. 16 17. Tit. 1. 10 〈◊〉 â— Ioh. 4. 1 2 18. †Act. 20 29 Eph 2. 20 * Ioh 5 39. †2 Pet. 1. 19 ‡ Isa. 34 16. Psal. 4. 4. Eâ—â— 20. 18 Mat. 15. 3. * 1. Cor. 4 6 II. †Isai. 9. 6. ‡ Col â— 18. RoÌ„ 11 2â— Ioh. 10. 2â— * Titus 1. 2. †Abak 2. 4 Ioh. 6. 70. * Ioh. 17. 11 †vers 20. ‡ Rom. 4 23 24. Act. 15 36 1. Pet. 5 9. * â— Pet. 1. 1 10. †Heb. 2 11 12. 1. Pet. 5 1 * Act. 14. 22 15 41. †1 Thes. 3 2 ‡ Act 15. 32 Apoc. 3 2 * â—aute †Deu. 32
besides prohibits onely that which is contrarie S. Iohn himself otherwise by M. H. A. should sin The like showed My doctrin warranted by Gods own word The desinatioÌ„s of the church are Gods Mat. 18 17. et 1â— Deâ— 19 15. In opere imperfecto c. 7. Math. D. Ambrose lib. de Paâ—adiso c. 12. Nihil igitur l. quod bonum videtur Mark vvel Deut. 32. vers 7. Psal. 43 1. Prov. 1 8. Esa. 38. 19. Ier. 6 16. Eccle. 8 11. 4. Esdr. 14. 3. 2. Thes. 2 15. 1. Tim. 6 20. 2 Tim 2 1. and see whether unvvritten traditions are not to be observed seen 〈◊〉 S. Chrys. plaine vvords for tradition See 〈◊〉 lib. 3. c. 4. Clemens Alexand lib. 5. Streat c. 2. Orig. lib. 5. super numeros Athanas. epistolâ ad Epictetum D. Ambrosius lib. de â—ide 3. c. 7. epistola 83. D. Aug lib. contra Cresco Grammat c. 33 lib contra epistolam Manich quaÌ„ vocant fundamentum c. 5. et epistola â—6 ad Casul vide n. â—1 THE II. PART The rule of our faith the writteÌ„ vnwritteÌ„ word jointly Traâ—it was once the total rule therfore it may be thâ— partial The â—h of God taught onely by tradition 2470 yeres Tradition directed men after writteÌ„ law vide n. 16. Many places of the old testamâ— for tradit 2â— S Dyon Arâ—opag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clâ—meas Alex. Thâ—ancâ—â—â— fathers most plain for the allowing of tradition Origen S. Athanasius S. Basil. The 2. coâ—cel of Nice S. Hierom â— S. August 22. yea our â—aâ— adversarâ—oâ— confirm this M. Luther Iohn Calv. Ph MeliÌ„c Diverse reasons whiâ— God vseth traditions D. Hyll supra 2. Psal. Orig. homil 5. Num lib. 4. Esdras c. 14. v. 5 Dyonis Areopag 1. Cor. 3. 2 Hebr 5. 1â— The secoÌ„d third parts conâ—ined THE 3. PART 1. Ratio Major Minor Conclusio My Major proved 27. Stil it is Gods word whether it be mediat or immediat spokeÌ„ or written My Miner proved S. August saying Pâ—oved also by Protestants What S. Pa meanâ— by his â—epositum Platform of words phrase over above the scripture to be observed D. Aug l. 10. de â—iv Dâ—i c â—3 His ans to my â—â—st aâ—â— I did rightly infer out of his wordes The writte word not proved by another written word go by traditioÌ„ A place of script produced ans Another answered Mr H A. his first answ how the word of God is known so to be How Christ both hath no need hath need of mans testimoniâ— Scriptures in actu 2. not in 1. needs witness His 2. answer What he means by the 〈…〉 in all people That this spirit is not in the church of Amsterda His third Answer What is to be understood by comparing one place with another Collatione in diverse times in the self maÌ„ often causeth divers judgments Hereticks have had stil this coÌ„parison oâ— places Your grouÌ„d not able to coÌ„fute an Arâ—an What the seale of your pâ—it is His ground tâ—achâ—th â— mâ—â— beleâ—ves before he reades the scripture Another aâ—s of his Calv. â— inst c. 7. S. â— 2. 4 〈◊〉 â— Al heretiks doe bâ—ag of their private spirit How I distinguish hereticks The Iewes cannot object against us the law and the Prophets Generall motives to conâ—â—nce a Iew. How the high preist hood did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many places oâ—â—olâ— scripture to prove the visibilitie of the church That the church of God hath never erred AdaÌ„ did not err in doctrine if he did against our adversaries owne grounds Moses al the Levites free froÌ„â—dolatrie Iudg. 2. How the word all is to be understood In what sense Elias was said to be left alone A breif râ—â— so that the ch of God is and hath been stilâ— visible The resolution of my religioÌ„ the same with S. Cypr. How the word of God the Church may depâ—â— I doe not deny for my witness the spirit of God The difficultie and hardness of thâ— scriptures in principal matters Parvus error in principio magnus est in fine His answer refuted Not onely the matter but the manner of proving is difficult The brasen serpent before an image became an idol a. Cor. 6 16 Our adversaries ignorance like that of the Moabites 〈◊〉 Latria Dulia All the Apostles alike in power of order but not in jurisdictioÌ„ The Popes confirmation of the CouÌ„cel of Châ—lc required contra hereticum Eutich This was a judicial coÌ„firmation Diverse Councelâ—s confirmed by Popes Act. 15. against M. H A. Note The 19 v. examined S. Hieron Also v. 15. 16. Act. 15. The reason why S. Iames did speak S. Peter did not speak risen but rising Why Gamaliel rose up Gamaliel spoke rather as a â—â—â—ind then as a judge Gamaliel did use rather a favorable perswasion then a definitive sentence Act. 17 16. makes against him His similitude against him self The First of Pope Stephen examined Pope Formosus witnessed for a holy man Decret 40 examined Boniface no flattâ—â—er of the Pope ad â— 6. distinct 〈◊〉 How the P. dispenseth against the law of nature in som sense â—â— My third Argumenâ— M. H. A. contented to be drie beaten The uniform consent of the church may easilie distinguish whether scriptures 〈◊〉 â—acked Many thinges beleeved not expressed in the 〈…〉 Thatâ—… Intriâ—secal he the word of God is so of it self but to bee knowen of us it depends of the tradition of the Church THE FOVRTH PART Mr. M. A. walkes in a circle Ioh. 15 16. Ioh. 16. 14. Ioh. 3. 9. 11 Here it is proved that he doth petere principium Mr H. A. walkes in a circle Jo. 10. 27. His discourse is unprofitable Mr H. A. to solution circular fruitless endlesse He cannot tell what this inward testificatioÌ„ is Mr H. A. resolution uncertain Many absurdities sequeles of his doctrin No parcel of scripture affirms the whole scripture to be scripture What should authorise that scripture that should give autheÌ„tickness to all the rest By his opinion Gods providâ—ce is weakned Whether the holie fathers had this spirit or not makes against him That the auncient fathers had this spirit Mr H. A. places of scripture retorted on himself His spirit not Apostolical His answ pretended General groundes reselling the privat spirits proofe A threefold difference between the old and new testament The Catholicke opinion defended from such a idle proofe A general doctrine first to be presupposed The motives of our religioÌ„ of evident credibility The author of our religion the first motive This argument S. Chrysost orat 2 et 3. contra Iâ—â— a os et D. Augustin lib. decaâ—â—chisandis rudibus The second motive The third motive antiquitie Our Antiquitie in cluded in the name Catholick Beza in praefatione novi testa printed 1565. calls the name catholick a vaine word Humfrei in vita Iuelli a vaine terme pag 113. Sutlcif in his chalenge pag 1. fruictless name the like did Gaudentius as appeareth out of S. Aug. lib. 2 contra Gaud. c. 25. Muscul in