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
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
partu et post partuÌ„ Besides the equallitie of three persons and their processions to Nestorius will not easily be proved or to an Arian if you stand onely to a writteÌ„ word for he will cite scripture for himselfe Pater major est me and if you say that is to be vnderstood onely in regard of his humanity and not in regard of his divinity he will bid you prove that by the written word and what place of scripture soever you shal bring he wil answer it with an other to his own purpose The like will the Annabaâ—tist doe about the baptisting of infants How will you without tradition prove the procession of the holy Ghost from God the Father and the Sonne as from one onely fountayne How wil they justify the not keeping of the Sunday on Saturday with the Jewes the receiving of the sacraments fasting the eating of blood and strangled meat prohibited in the Actes of the Apostles How can they cat a black pudding without the help of tradition since they know it is forbidden by the written word and no writte word found plainely to license it Therefore S. Paul seing how necessarie the vse of traditions were in Gods church so ofteÌ„ coÌ„mendeth it unto vs. Therefore brethren stand and holdthe traditions which you have learnt whether it be by word or by our 〈◊〉 Th'â—fficacy ' and force of which is so necessary by experieÌ„ce and so coÌ„ve nâ—â—t by the judgmeÌ„t of coÌ„moÌ„ sense that I wonder how men should deny the necessary vse therof For I aske if the Apostles were alive and should by word of mouth tel us the contents of many things conteyned in the scripture without all doubt with all readynes we should beleeve them why then will they not beleeve them that lived in the Apostles dayes and such holy Fathers as flourished shortly after Dyâ—â—isnis Areopagita affirmeth the Liturgie of the Masse for the dead to be an Apostolicall tradition in fine eccles Hier. c. 7. parte 3. Tertull. de corona militis S. Aug. De cura pro mortuis c. 1. D Chrvs. homil 3. in epist. ad Philipp in Morali D. Damascen sermone de defunctis initio Also the â—rcede is affirmes to be an Apostolicaâ—l tradition sic Ruffinus in exposit symboli in principio D. Hier. epistol 61. c. 9. D. Ambros. sermone 38. D. Augustinus de Symbolo ad Catech lib. 3. c. 1. Yea that traditions wâ—re of this account we may gather out of the antient Fathers of the Church We may easily gather by the irreverend speaches which Doctor Whitaker vseth against S. Chrysostom for whereas he in the 2 of the Thess. 4 graunts that traditions are as wâ—ll to be beleeved as scripture he sayth his speach was irreverend and vnworthy of a Father And wheras Euseb. lib 1. De demonstrat Euangel c. 8. sayth the Apostles did publish and propagate the fayth of Christ partly by scriptures and partly by tradiâ—iâ—â—s he breifly rejects one of the famousest recorders of antiqâ—â—ty saying his authority is not to be received Raynolds also in his conclusions aâ—â—ered to his conference 1. conclus pag. 689. Cartwr â— 8. in his defense pag. 103. affirmes that the fathers did still allow of vâ—written traditions Wherefore I will breifly conclude this point showing that a man ruled by his private spirites direction can have no faith For since they beleeve scriptures only to be scriptures in that 〈◊〉 are delivered vp by the Church why should not they theÌ„ beleeve any thing that the Church with a generall consent propouâ—â—eth as ◠〈◊〉 of our beleefe For if I beleeve the relation of my freind because my freind tells me I must beleeve all that my freind relates with the like firme assertion and with the like reason or else I doe not beleeve my freind but my owne affection that is thereunto incliâ—ed to beleeve the one and not beleeve the other No more doth no protestaÌ„t or any other sect beleeve with a supernatural act of faith for then would â—e beleeve al that the scripture propoâ—â—â—eth to be beleeved aswell as beleeve the scripture by reason it is of her propounded else they beleeve onely their private spirits dictament and fanâ—ies that hath derived unto the knowledge of many other mysteries as well as of the truth of the scriptures The second thing I am to prove breefly is that the Popes definiâ—ive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficieÌ„r rule in matters of faith The which is proved out of Luc. 22. Simon ecce Sathan expetivit vos ut cribraret sicut triticuÌ„ ego auteÌ„ rogavi pro te ut â—ides tua non deficiat et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuo Where our Saviour that is the founteyne of all grace and goodnes sayth that he hath prayed for S Peter and so coÌ„sequently for his successors since Christ speaketh of the confirmation of the Church against hell gates not onely for a tyme but for ever promising that S Peter and their faith should not faile commaunding both him and them and therefore bidding theÌ„ coÌ„firm their brethreÌ„ And that this prayer was powred forth for S. Peter and his successors appeareth â—vidâ—tly First iâ— that our Saviour points forth one particular man saying Simon Simon particularizing the speech with a pronowne of the second person saying for thee thy fayth and thy brethren 2. Though our Saviour did begin to speake in the plurall number Sathan expetivit ut cribraret vos Sathan desired to sift you immediately changeth the maÌ„ner of speech I haue prayed for thee and not for yee 3. Our Saviour prayeth for him to whom he bidds thou being converted confirme thy brethren but onely S. Peter and not the Church in generall hath brethren Besides S. Math 16. He sayth he builds his church vpon S. Peter Tues Pâ—trus et super hanc Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam and therevpon he chaunged his name of Simon he makes him Peter and Petra and Cephas which name in the Spriaâ—k tong signifyes a rock thereby to prevent all fâ—â—volous answers to a point so clearly declared As appeareth first in that first he designes him first out by the name of his father Bar Jonas 2. by his own name Simon then doth he as it were seclude him from the rest saying super hanâ— Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam then by the authority and preheâ—inence given him showed by the delivery of the kepes All which the auncient Fathers doe affirme with an uniform consent as Tertull lib. dâ— praescript Orig. homil 5. in Exod. Sanctus Cypr de unitate Ecclesiae S. Hyll Cano 16. in Mat. S. Ambros. sermo 47. 68. lib. 6. in cap 9. Luc. D. Hier. lib 1. in lovini S. Epiph. in Anchor S. Chrysost. homil 55. in Mat. etc. every one of them affirming expressly that the Church of God was built on S. Peter as vpon a rock Besides this our Saviour in S. John 21. gives S.
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
the Martyrs of the primitive church yoâ— will allow of for your Martyrs whether of S. Laurence or â—o 7. Whether you allow of Constantius the first Christian Emperour to be of your religion 8. Whether you will allow of any of our three conversions of England to have been to this religion which you now professe 9 Whether you hold that those that have died or shall die resolved Romane Catholicks have bene or shal be saved 10. Whether you will graunt the Church of Christ or the synagogue of the Jewes to be more visible or less subject to ruin and subversion 11. Whether you allow of the last edition of the protestants Bible or else what edition you propound to your flock â—â—â—etest to be folowed 12 Whether sufficiencie onely since I take you hold ordering or imposition of hands not to be vsed is to be required to make one of your teaching Elders or if onely that sufficeth not to assigne what more is required To these questions I intreat you Mr Henry Aynsworth that earnestly to give an orderly breife and distinct answer to ech one of these questions for on the resolution of these many fruitfull consequences may be gathered to make easie any poinct hereafter to be controverted betweene vs. But now breifly to set downe my arguments which I maintain stil you have not satisfied in no one poinct I will therfore breifly set them downe in forme desiring an answer as breif yet as solid and as substancial as you can affoard onely graunting denying or distinguishing which in deed is to answer in forme like a scholler Your conclusion as I take was this The written word of God contained in the Bible is the onely sufficient rule of our faith My reasons were these in substance to prove the contrary though the same in word I can not affirme not having one line of yours or my conference That which is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the onely rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knowen for scriptures go the bare scriptures which is the written word of God can not be the onely rule of faith My Major is most certaine and evident My Minor I proved out of Dr. Whitaker Hooker Zanchius Brentius all holding traditioÌ„ necessarily to distinguish scriptures froÌ„ no scriptures Also I take I proved this out of the holy Councells out of S. Augustin contra epistolam fundamenti Manichaeic 9. Ego Euangelio non crederem c. I would not beleeve the Gospel except the authoritie of the church should move thervnto Neyther did you answer my Minor when you said scriptures â—r knowen by themselves For first you slight and let slip the authority of those that in common reason I should beleive assoâ—ne as your self 2. You doe not answer to the authoritie of S. Aug 3. your answer is against common sense Since if scriptures were as prime a principle as that the sun shines or that honie is sweet no man could beâ— ignorant thereof that had all his naturall faculties and if more then the natural faculties and the object disposed be required you eats your owne words For then it is not so knowen a truth And how shall I know I have this spirituall eye of discerning truth more theÌ„ my adversarie that accepts of some things for no scripture that I do allow of as scripture c. Why had not S. Aug this â—ie that with whole Councel of Carthage accpted of the bookes of Machabees as divine and Canoricall scripture why had not S. Hierom that translated the holy scriptures Another reason that I urged was thus Many things were beleeved before the written word of God many things are now beleeved that are not expressely taught in the written word of God go the written word of God is not onely the rule of faith The first part of my Antecedent is easily proved For the church of God till Moses tyme was well governed and yet had no written word My second part was proved I giving instance that the Sacrament in the old law for expâ—ating of original syâ— in women The mysterie of the B. Trinity that God the holy ghost did proceed froÌ„ God the father and God the sonne as from one beginning That Easter day should be celebrated on Sunday and not on Saturday That the Creede of the Apostles is to be beleeved and yet no one of these is expressely taught in holy scriptures you sayd yes but you cited no place of scripture for probation thereof Moreover you have not satisfyed the places of holy scripture I cited to prove traditions especially you have not answered to that place of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. v. 15. nor to the authoritie of S. Chrysost. homilie 4. iâ—â— Thes. 2. wherin Dr. Whitaker sayes he speaks unworthy of so holy a father nor to the place off Basil or S. Hierom or S. Aug. De Genesi ad literam lib. 10. c. 23. where he tearheth many fasts feasts solemnities to be kept and beleeved onely through tradition and he testifieth there that in no wise we could beleeve the baptising of childreÌ„ without vnwritten tradition Another which I vsed was this That which is most difficult hard and almost for occurring difficults inexplicable can not be to the unlearned at least a certaine and unfallible truth But the scriptures are thus as well witnesseth your own conscience and divers places I set downe that seem to contradist one another go Moreover how should an artificer know whether this Bible be well translated or no since he can neyther conferr it with the original or the vulgar Latin And I showed how these difficults are not trivial Amongst other places I cited that place of S. Peter the â— chapter v. 16. In which are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the unlearned and vnstable deprave as also the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition No doubt S Peter meanes of those things S. Paul delivered touching vocation grace justification and predestination In which I showed how parvus error in principio magnus est in sine to which the words of S. Peter alludes to as also the rest of the scriptures meaning that an error in some one transcendall poinct of these doe cause error in many other places that depend hereupon But is these and more plainly examplified I had nothing but quotations imâ—ertinently alleged and no determinate answer to the difficult That whose onely the hath been defective and erroneous yea to the greatest Elercks to every one howsoever unfâ—ilfull and unlearned can not be a certaine and unfallible rule of faith But that the bare scripture is so I showed by diverse seming plaine piares cited by the Arrians Pelagians Semipelagians Donatists EutheraÌ„s Anabaptists â—t All which vie scripture for scripture If you give an interpretation of their place of scripture that they bring to confirme their hereste they will give also an interpretation
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
faith if it be as it ought that is if it be accomodated proportioned vnto the object end of our faith as it is necessary vnto salvation deth eyther require a particular motion of the Holy Ghost or an infused habit of faith as it appeareth out of the 7. chapter of the Aransicanum Conc. and out of the Trident Sess 6. c. 5. et canone Where it is affirmed that without Gods preventing grace and the illuminatioÌ„ of the holy Ghost no man can beleeve things reveled as he ought that is that Gods justifying grace be given him 141. Fourthly I affirme that this certaine and inevident iudgment of the truth of our faith into these humain reasoÌ„s and motives as into the moving applying and impulsive cause but not as into the formal motive of beleeving And the selfe same judgment is resolved into the supernatural light as into the true efficieÌ„t cause of that certitude and proportioÌ„ which it hath with his adequate object and end both being supernatural 142 If I be demaunded therefore whie I beleeve â— persoÌ„s and one God or any other thing I answer if you aske of me the formal reason whie I assent I answer I beleeve because God hath revealed it If I be thenasâ—ed how I know God hath revealed it I answer I doe not evidently know this though certainly I know it for the same revelation and infalible authoritie which the church of God as an intrinsecal condition or application applies to me to be beleeved 143. But if I be further questioned since the revelation of God and the proposing are both obscure and inevident how cames it theÌ„ that I certainly and evidently doe beleeve 144. I answer then I returne vnto the motives of evident credibilitie that maie induce any prudent man to beleeve that saith and that church warranted by so many motives 145. Neither is here coÌ„mitted any vitious circle between the authoritie of God the church as I have before convinced you in your grounds to commit For first the authoritie of God revealing in vertue of which the infailibilitie of the proposition is beleeved and the selfe same infallible proposition in vertue of which we beleeve that God â—â—ies and reveales hath two diverse objects For the object of the infailible proposition is that God reveales And the object that God reveales or of the revelation of God is the veritie beleeves 146. â— I saie in that when out of the authoritie of God revealing is given the formal reason of our beleeving the motive is given by the formal cause But when out of the infallible proposing of the church a reason to given whie we beleeve the divine revelation If it be vnderstood aright it is not to be given by a formal cause or motive but by an intrinsecall and requisite application of the motives whie we beleeve which is doone by the proposing of it by the church so that ther is no circle ab eodem in idem secundum idem which Aristotle only coÌ„demns 1. Post. text 5. as I have shewed before 147. Yet to goe one degree further in shewing how we are free in another regard from this mere circular and fruictless resolution of theirs I presuppose that then is coÌ„mitted a circle when the selfe same is proved by the selfe same to him that graunteth neither or doth aequallie deny both or doubteth of both For proofe of which we learne out of Aristotle that we ought to proceed from that which to knowen to that which is not knowen or at least from that which is graunted to that which is not graunted for so we shall proceed from that which is knowen after a manner to that which is not knowen 148. Whence I inferr that he should coÌ„mit this circuler discourse that to an Ethnick that equally should denie both scripture and the infallibilitie of the church should prove that the scripture were of divine authoritie in that the church teacheth vs it and the church of infallible authoritie in that the scripture teacheth vs it But to a protestant that admits of most of the scripture it is no circle to prove the infallibilitie of the church which he denies from the scripture which he admits of but first you do not give a resolutioÌ„ of your faith as I doe that is powerful against Ethnick or heretick 2. though wee admit of scripture yet wee cannot be vrged therevnto by you that receiving from the church the scripture will not beleeve all that she proposeth alike to be beleeved 149. The foresaid manner of proof is vsuall both in the scriptured and in ancient Fathers The Pharisees did admit of Moses and denie Christ. Therfore our Saviour convinced them with these words Joh. 5. 46. If you did beleeve Moses you would beleeve me for he gave testimonie of me Againe contrariwise the Manicheies did admit of Christ and the gospel did deny Moses and the Prophets therfore S. Aug. contra FaustuÌ„ ManichaeuÌ„ in his book lib. 1. de moribus Ecclesiae Catholicaec 1. et seq did convince the Manichees The like manner of proceeding wee take to instruct a Catholick that should denie any parcel of scripture wee convince him by the judgment of the church to whom he submits himselfe And Hereticks that denie tradition the church and the Popes authorâ—tie wee convince them out of scripture out of the writings vniform consent of the holy Fathers thowsands of whom M. â— A. saies he preferres for wisdom truth and holiness before himself whose vniversall consent of them living in all times being most expert in tongues neare our Saviours times many of them being the Apostles schollers not partiall to eyther of our causes writing so long before many delivering matters of facts that doth prove or coÌ„firme many poiâ—â—â— of our doctrine I cannot see how you can denie them especially since you saie you admit so farr of them as they agree with scripture For S. Hierom translated it S. Ambrose S. Aug. S. Greg. S. Barnard interpreted it and they all cite many places of scripture to prove fundamentall points of doctrine of our religion But I shewed how the holie Fathers agreed with scripture to which you are silent 150. But that you doe not proceed after the self same manner is plaine For though you abound with wrested places of scripture which we admit of all in their true sence Yet you denie the interpretation of the Fathers interpreting the scripture that by common consent and your owne graunt should better vnderstand them then you And wee doe not admit of scriptures as a sufficient proofe by themselves but togither with the interpretation of the holy Fathers of whom by your own words you should admit of since you prefer their wisdome truth and holynes before your selfe 151. Wherfore then M. H. A. would you have me beleeve you alleaging onely scripture for your self iâ— sense depraved before the holy Fathers that cite scriptures both for them and
other to the faithfull conscience you turne vvind because we caÌ„not perswade the Arians c. by conference of scriptures to beleeve aright It is not what vve can perswade others but our selves For there are many Arians and other heretikâ— vvhich you vvith your fathers councils Popes are not able to convert Yet you think your Popes decrees are Gods vvord and vve know that the holy scriptures are so indeed And the more to convince you look to your Mr. as you called him Cardinall Bellarmine and see a sound argument of his to prove the knowledge and assurance of the scriptures to be of God by the testimony of the scripture it selfe Bellar. de verb. dei I. 1. c. 2. argument 4. 6. You ask a question thinking to intangle me what the seal of the spirit is and you suppose divers answers Because you are so partial a judge of my spirit I pray aske your Pope what the seale of his spirit is and how he discerns scripture whither he build without ground as you say I doo Look what he can wel answer for himself to satisfy your conscience that think to be answered by me In the mean while mind that the seal of the spirit is for my own assurance and comfort which concerneth an other man nothing 2 Cor. 1. 22. 1 Cor. 2. 11. 7. You having my answer already doo refuse it saying it is most false that the scriptures are distinguished from other books by themselves as light from darknes For then say you every one that had but naturall perfection of the organ and free proposing of the object should distinguish this light This say I is most true for the law of God is a light Prov. 6. 23. which when it is by him free proposed and the organ that is the mind of man wich now is blinded recovereth naturall perfection that is to say is illuminated or renued in knowledge after the image of him that created it every such man with his perfect organ seeth the word of God to be in the scriptures as every man that hath a perfect naturall ey seeth the light of the sun and can assure himself hereof though he goe not to Rome to ask the Pope whither the sun gives light or no. But you are as a man without sense that though the sun shine at noon day yet if the Pope say it is midnight you will beleeve him so on the contrary For you profess to beleeve each part of scripture to be Gods holy word derived from the fulnes of truth Now this is because the Pope tells you so and he tells you also that the books of Tobit Iudith Maccabees c. are scripture canonicall although in them there be apparant lyes as you may see Tobit 12. 15. compared with Tob. 15. 18. Iudith 9. 2. compared with Gen. 49 5. 6. 1 Mac. 6 16. compared with 2. Mac. 1 16. 2 Mac. 1. 19. coÌ„pared with 2 King 25. 1. c. so 2. Mac. 1. 20. 21. 22. 31. many the like Now though the Apostle sayth no lye is of the truth 1 Ioh. 2. 21. yet you beleeve these lyes are derived from the fulnes of truth because the Pope will have it so to be Thus the blind lead the blind into the ditch So you doo not by your private spirit as you say distinguish heritiks from true beleevers but by the definitions and declarations of the church that is I trow of the Pope I shewed you a better way by the Apostle 1 Ioh. 4. 1. 4. but you love darknes better then light And by your grounds if you had lived in Christs dayes on earth you would have distinguished Christ as an heretick from true beleeving Iewes by the definitions of that church and Preisthood Vnto Iewes you confess you must shew other grounds then your Popes authority But if they retort vpon you your private spirit as you doo to me eyther your mouth is stopped or your conscience in pleading against me as you doo is corrupted Yea when you are driven about the high Preists that condemned Christ to say their ignorance was most vincible by their own law which was the scriptures your own mouth giveth sentence against you For by the same law say I the ignorance of your Romish Preisthood is most vincible also Your owne traditions are of no more force against us then the Iewes were against Christ. You charge me with racking many wrested places of scripture to prove the church of God invisible and you oppose many scriptures against it I answer eyther your care was litle or your conscience was large to write so vntruely The question was whither the church erred or no that I proved by many examples and testimonies of scripture as is to be seen in my former writing when your mouth is stopped her in you pass by all that I alleged and turne to another matter wherin you seem to say somewhat and answer vnto scriptures which I mentioned not I mean to hold to the point and not to follow your wandrings which are in the moveable pathes of that strange womaÌ„ Prâ— 5. 6 That which you answer to my demonstration of the Labâ—riâ—th of your religion leading to the Pope c. I shall not bestow labour to reply upon but leave it to judgment so for your answers to the scriptures by me alleged for I will not strive to have the last word Whither I answered nothing as you say to your reason let the reader see Your 2. Argument from the hardnes of the scriptures you agayn repete and dilate Seing you make no other proofe then was before I vvil not follow you to repete my answers but referr to my former writings To prov 8. 8. 9. you reply it is to be vnderstood eyther of generall doctrine or of precepts of manners and good life I answer you ought not so to restrayn it For wisdom there sayth al her words are righteous all are playn will you say nay generall doctrines are playn but not particular precepts of manners but not of faith Belike then the foolish woman that whore of Babylon Apo. 17. must explayn matters of faith and particular doctrines Well I shall content me with Wisdoms playn words and vvhat she teacheth not I regard not to learne if you vvill needs goe to the banket of stollen vvaters and hid bread know that the dead are there if you vvill take vvarning Where I shewed how your Popes determinations make Gods law more hard to simple men instancing the second commandement corrupted by your glosses and distinctions You take vpon you to defend your image-worship by the brazen Serpent and Cherubims And might not Ieroboam so have defended his golden calves Gods law sayth Thou shalt not make to thy self any similitudes thou shalt not bow down to them nor vvorship them you make many similitudes of God Christ
invincible as my rule is uncorrigible Now vnto the point to be decided I breifly answer That a man may eliciâ—t a supâ—rnaturall act of faith many things are required first there must be motiva evidentis credibilitatis prudential motives of evident credibilitie viz. that all nations and men of principall giftes zeal and sanctity and â—â—dowments have beleeved so that it hath stood inviolable against so many and infinite heresies and persecutioÌ„s that it is so ancient so visible so constant and vniforme in all essentiall poincts of doctrine That it hath been sealed and confirmed with the blood of so many glorious Martyrs c. Secondly There must be Ecclesia proponens the Church propounding what is scripture and what is not scripture what is unwritten word viz. tradition and what is not Thirdly there must be prima veritas the first verity â—r Gods veracity that must be ratio formalis the formal reasoÌ„ why we doe beleeve Fourthly There must be a supernatural judgment dictâ—ting that now it is good at least generally to beleeve Fiftly there must be a supernaturall concourâ—â— of Gods holy illumination and a concourse of his infused habit of faith to determinate the indifferent power of our understanding to beleeve or not to beleeve Out of the progresse of which act an answer to your question may easily be deduced For when you ask whither our faith shal be tryed by the verdict of God or of man I answer you directly enough though with a â—â—stinction viz. That if you vnderstand by what formall motive we shall be tryed in our beleefe I answer by the verdict of Gods written and unwritten word But if you aske who shall determine our faith after a propounding manner so we say the Church concurreth after the maner of an applying conditioÌ„ teaching what is Canonicall and that which is not autentike And therefore I will prove first That onely the bare text of the scripture is not a sufficient rule of our faith 2. I will prove that the scriptures expounded by the Catholike Church is a true and indeficient rule of our faith 3. That this rule is onely found in the Romane Catholike church sentence and not in private mens illuminations and motions of a private and unseen spirit First then to prove that the bare scripture is not a sufficient rule of our beleife and that many mysteries and points are to be beleeved that are not expressely taught or evidently deduced out of the holy scriptures I frame this Argument Nothing is to be beleeved that is not taught or gathered out of the written word but that the Bible is Canonicall is neyther directly taught nor by evident consequence deduced out of the same therefore it is not to be beleeved that the Bible is Canonicall scripture The Major is the coÌ„mon assertion of protestants but especially I take it a cheife ground and principle of your sect vide Calvi de vera Ecclesia reformata pag. 473. and the Apologie of the Church of England pag 58. The Minor is approved by Hooker a principall protestaÌ„t in his treatise of Ecclesiast lawes lib. 1. pag. 84. lib. 2. S. 4. pag. 100. 102 who there writeth thus Of things necessary the very cheifest thing is to know what bookes wee are bound to beleive holy which thing is confessed as a thing impossible for the scriptures to teach And afterwardes he confirmeth thus For saith he if any one book did give testimony of all the rest yet the scripture that gives credit to all the rest would require another scripture to be credited neyther could we come to any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way So that we see eyther that he holds scripture is not to be beleived and authenticke or else he requireth the authority of somthing besides scripture to make it authentical The force of this Argument did drive Hooker lib. 3. paragraph the 8. pag. 1â—6 Zanchius in his confess â— â— Brentius in prologo Kemnitij in examine Conc. Trident Doct. Whitak contra Stapletonum lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 298 30â— to flie unto the authority of traditions to prove scripture to be scripture Which if once they graunt that traditions are sufficient to prove and try the groundwork of our beleife viz. scripture to be scripture why can they not ground other poâ—its of faith of lesser consequence 2. I prove that the bare and naked word of God cannot be an infallible rule or square of truth I prove it thus That which is difficult and includeth many senses at least to the ignoraÌ„t cannot be a certayne rule of faith But the scriptures are thus My Anteced Luther in his preface to the Psalmes acknowledgeth Tertull. in lib. De praescripti sayth Nec periclitor dicere ipsas quoque scripturas esse et voluntate dei dispositas ut haereticis materias subministrarunt cum legaÌ„ opportet haereses esse quae sine scripturis esse non possunt Where he confesseth that misinterpreting of scripture set the doore open to heresies S. Peter also sayeth that in S. Pauls Epistles there be many things hard to be vnderstood which the unlearned and unstable deprave as al the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition And the difficultie thereof made S. Augustin though a Doctor of incomparable wit and learning in his 12. conf c. 14. break out in the height of adâ—iâ—ation and say oh wonderfull profoundness of thy words c. Idem to 3. lib. 2. De doctrina Christ c. 6. confess that there was more in the scriptures that he understood not then of that which he understood The â—unuch of the Queen of Aâ—thiopia was dayly conversâ—â—t in the scriptures yet he confesseth that he could not vnderstand them without a master The second part of my Antecedent viz. that the scripture hath many senses litterall many senses spirituall of whose manifold deepe and mysticall sense the ignorant reader cannot be possest And therefore since in the old law when any difficulty happened the Preist was to decyde it and therefore with a farre greater interest is the Preist of the new law that hath that spirit of interpretation redoubled and ratification of his doctrine assigned and confirmed by Christ Jesus himselfe is to expound the hidden senses of scripture And therefore S. John vltim◠〈◊〉 bids S. Peter and his successors feed his flock with the spirit of interpretation which is the food to a reasonable flock and fold This made the Apostles when they were to decyde the controversies about the cessatioÌ„ of the ceremonies of the old law not to repaire vnto their private spirits interpretation but to a counsell gathered in Hierusalem where S. Peter was head where all was concluded with Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis It seemes good vnto the holy ghost and vnto vs. And therefore let S. Peter himself conclude That no propheâ—iâ— of scripture that is no interpretation
and the Preists did passe togither Wherefore I may conclude with S. Peter this poinâ—t as I did before That no prophesie of scripture is made by a private spirits interpretation and so consequently not by the naked word And therefore S. John also bidds them trie their spirits whether they be of God 1. Joh. 4. v 20. And as for your distinction of private spirits it liâ—le availâ—th you For though the Pope be also a private man yet he is the head of the Church and hath the promise of our Saviour that his faith should not fayle him and though he may eâ—â— in matter of fact or sinn as well as an other man yet in matter of doctrine when as the head of the Church he is to give his definitive sentence he can not err in that he is directed as Christs Dicar in earth by the holy Ghost Yet for all this he dooth not neglect naturall meanes for the decision of any waighty cause But useth all vsuall serutiuie of causes and circumstances takes advice of the learned councells But you though you be also a private man yet you can not showe me any promise of the holy Ghost made rather to you theÌ„ to any other of your adversaries neyther have you greater signes to manifest the truth then the Protestants have Nay every one of your profession thinks he hath that spirit of interpreting which spirit often times proves no other then the spirit of Aâ—niball a merrie companion who when he had deceived poore Bullbrooke the interpreter of the word by casting out thrice Bullbrooke as from God at the mouth of a cave whither his reformed brethren resorted to heare froÌ„ lum delivered the word of the Lord afterward showed unto the whole campany that flocked more and more to this their illumâ—nated prophet the man of God so strangely called how he alone had deceived the poore man saying hang me if any other spirit but the spirit of Aâ—â—â—iball called thrife upoÌ„ Bulbrook Yet admit you should have a spirite to distinguish the truth of one mistery as I sayd yet you have not the spirit to distinguish the truth of all But that you might câ—y out with the true illuminated prophet now and then Dominus celavit hoc a me Our Lord hath hidden this from me that is in not revealing it Besides you see that every false prophet brags of his spiritt how then can a private spirit decide any controversie And for that you bring of the Israelites it were wel if you with them from the mouth of the Preist would learne wisdome And if you had that visible coming downe of the holy Ghost that the Apostles had if you had the giftes of tongues the power to worke miracles if you were taught with them all truth if your followers though illiterated were indowed with all these priviledges of the Apostles then might they with them take upon theÌ„ to interpret the scriptures For S. Luke recordeth That our Saviour opened his Apostles vnderstanding in all truth that they might vnderstand the scriptures but you can not show that our Saviour hath done more to you then to other men You now proceed and begin to ponder my third argument by which I did occure a future answer Not onely scriptures by themselves but scriptures by a privat mans interpretation or comparing one place with an other are not sufficient to be a rule of faith Which you say I dor not prove here to this I answer I did prove it there but the more sparingly in that this point seemes to be partly proved in that which goes before Yet to give you ful satisfactioÌ„ I wil a litle reinforce the force therof For since the scriptures hath diverse senses or as you say diverse references to sundry places persons and tymes how can a private spirit of a man assure one that this and no other is the true sense of this place Or how can you discern that the true spirit interprets this vnto you For the communication of this infused spirit must eyther be by a publick message bee delivered you so that those that are your adherents and followers may be assured by some visible signe that the holy ghost dictates unto you and I think by these visible apparitions and communication of the holy Ghost you wil not mainteyn your spirits interpretation Or else the holy ghost secretly instilâ—eth into you what is the true sense But here I demand of you how you are assured of this working of the holy ghost since there was never yet hereâ—ick so senseless or error so grosse but would tell vs of this private assuraÌ„ce of the holy Ghost And though the communication of the true spirit should be manifest to your self yet you could give no warrant or assurance thereof to vs to the Protestant adversaries or to your own followers How would you be able to convince an AriaÌ„ that wil thwart you with that of S. John my father is greater then I If you say this place is to be vnderstood in regard of his humanitie and not in regard of his divinitie he will bid you show scripture plainly to affirme that How wil you answer an Anabaptist that will have no man to be baptized before they come to the yeares of discretion to give a reason of their faith How will you answer us Catholiks or the Protestants when we demaund of you why you follow the vulgar translation in saying Elder when the originall and all other languages almost hath stil the word Presbyter which signifies Preist to all Nay since the holy scriptures admitteth divers senses and doe not explaine themselves how should a poore artificer perswade himself that this sense which he apprehends is onely the true sense Nay that he is easily deceided herein by a pâ—…dicated opinion I will show For when he comes to read that S. Peter in his first epistle salutes them from BabyloÌ„ he in that he may not admit S. Peter to have bene at Rome will not have Babylon there to be Rome but he will have S. Peter to salute them from that Babylon in Assyria But when he comes to â—â—ad Apoc. 1â— 18. Babylon againe in that he hath rooted mallice against Rome he will have her alone to be that Babylon he will applie all these mischeifs and deformities to the church of Rome Now if you object that comparing one place with another will afford the right sense I ask you how you are certayne of that since that place with whome you are to compare it hath divers senses or references how are you assured to compare it to the right in regard of each circumstance Nay if these spiritual men be the onely decidants why doe they when the word signifies an evil sense translate traditions though it be the self same Greek word Col. 2. v. 20. Why are you ledd with traditions And when in divers places the self same word imports Apostolicall traditions in stedd thereof they read ordinances
horrible errors go the scriptures though directed by the private spirits interpretatioÌ„ cannot be a rule of faith My major is most certaine My Minor is also certainely knowen since ther was never yet any heresie so absurd or monstrous that did not pretend to vse for his weapon cited places of scripture and their collations as the Arrians Pelagians Semipelagians Lutheranists Calvinists go that private spirits interpretation cannot be a certain rule to all 90 To this Argument you saie I have put to much strength but you say I have not whet the edge All that you can bring against me is that you saie you can retort it on the private spirit of the Popes determinations and definitions but you can not deme but that the churâ—h hath more promises and so consequently her visible head as I shall prove And so I see howsoever you would not be cut with the edge you care not much to admit a fore bruife by the blowes And it is the greatest disgrace a man can have still to be drie beaten as you confesse you are and are sure to be But for your virtuall retorsion I shall actually answer you in his due place 91. That you object out of the 1. Cor. 11 19. Act. 15. 1 2. Act. 15 15 16. etc. proves rather that there must be one visible supreme judge to decide controversies As for your calumniations they are most proper to men of your coat and ranck and when time place and paper wil scarse give sufficieÌ„t vent to our reasons I wonder you should blow abroad these glassy bubbles breathed against the Sea Apostolick But the best that you can answer is that they will serv your children of Amsterdam to run after I never return your jests but provoked by you Where you say that counsels and Fathers may be racked to favour heresie as well as the scriptures I deney that they can be but that the vniforme and generall consent of the church may easily distinguish them 92. My Fourth Argument as I take was this THere be many things we beleeve by a divine and not by a humaine art of faith which are not revealed in holy scripture nor with such evideÌ„ce deduced out of holy scriptures if you exempt the authoritie of the church My antecedent I proved by instances that we beleeve against Helvidius our Ladies perpetuall virginitie that God the holy Ghost proceedes from God the Father and the sonne as from one beginning the twelve articles of our beleefe as they â—â—e the abstayning from strangled meat baptising of infants relebration of the Sabaoth on Sunday and not on Satterday the receiving fasting and kneeling â—c All which I did urge against you You answer you have sufficient proof of these things that ar of faith but you show neither scripture or denie them to be beleeved with a divine aâ—t of faith or give reason why we practise other things out of scripture contrarie to the practise of the primitive church 93. And when I have twice or thrise desired a distinct answer â—o eaâ—â— particular you would satisfiâ—â—â—e with your marvaile that I would have you enter battaile with the Arrians Anti-Trinitarians 〈◊〉 and have you convince them by scriptures And with great reason I prove I urge this For since you adventure to assigne an adâ—quate rule of faith you are bound to show me how this rule of yours is able to mainteyne it self against whosoever and to distinguish truth from falshood as I offer to doe by my assigned rule So that this is not to put on foot new questions but it is properly 〈◊〉 presse the footing of our cheife questions answer 94. You proceed and would have me to mainteyne Tradition to be the totall and not the partial rule of faith togither with the written word of God Hence you inferr that I graunt some word of God without tradition to be knowen I answer the word of God as it is extrinsecall the word of God and to be knowen of vs depends of tradition and the authoritie of the church Though intrinsecallie and in it self it is the word of God though it be knowen to none so that you may see in what sense I make tradition to be the rule of faith and apostolicall tradition also I affirme to be also the word of God though unwritten 95. Here make you a long digression and you show what acts kept by tradition are to be kept and to be remembred to children after ages as you say to see the destruction of Rome but we knowe certainly the opposers by their oppositioÌ„ will work themselves their destruction and confusion of their Babylon And we know that Balaam in stedd of cursing Gods people did blesse them John Fox was your Nabucodonosor turned so out to grasse that he durst not come neare the wall by reason of a deep mellancholie apprehension for feare of being crased like an vrinall As for the spanish Armadoe whatsoever the Spaniards intended to doe here in England our Countrymen did performe much at Cales howsoever they ded speed at Lisborne before I answer onely this God and St. George for my religion King and Countreymen I would doe that which befitted a good subject but these your instances are malitious and odious 96. To that plaine place 2. Thes 2. v. 15. Therefore brethren stand and hold the traditions which you have learned whether it be by word of mouth or by epistle This place is so playne that S. Chrysost affirms S. Paul herein to have meant of unwritten traditions that Doct. Whitaker sayes his speech is herein very unworthy so holy a father And that which you bring out of S Chrysostom against me showes that all sufficient precepts of manners and good life are set down in scripture That which you bring out of the 26. of the Acts 22 we say that in tradition nothing is spoken besides that is contrarie to the Apostles speeches As for that which you bring the 1. of the Cor. 14 37. is nothing to the purpose For we doe not deny but those things that are written are true But if you would have more plain places of scripture in defense of tradition â—â—s the 15. of the Acts 41. Where he in confirming of the church commands them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and what precepts S Paul meanes he explaines himself chap. 16. v. 4. He delivered unto them to keep the decrees that were decreed of the Apostles and auncients that were at Hierusalem which deliverie without question were by word of mouth what these decrees were it is uncertain by scriptura though they may be kept by the help of tradition 98. The fourth thing that I am to show is to prove how you walk in a vitious circle proving the selfe same by the selfe same as the authoritie of the scripture by your private spirit and your privat spirit by the authority of the scripture by which manner of proof you may prove any thing 99
authoritie of all the Fathers which could not chuse but puffe up men with pride 108. Against which men I reason thus Eyther the holie Fathers had this spirit of God or else they had not If they had as surely they should have if Mr H. A. did not feynedly preferr them before him then they infalliblie were instructed by his spirit in matters of faith why are their authorities rejected by Mr Henry Aynsworth as earth and ashes If they had not then this spirit is a new and so not a true spiritt since it differrs from that spirit that ruled the auncient fathers many whereof were the Apostles schollers 109. But that the holy Fathers had this spirit I prove since you cannot deny but that they were of the elect the sonnes of God but they can not be of the elect and of the sonns of God without his spirit John 10 27. My sheep heare my voice 6. Joh. 45. erunt omnes docibiles Dei 1. Joh. 2 27. You have no need that any teach you of ought And here by better reason the places that you cited before for the proving of your privat spirit return on your own head Joh. 14. 17. vers 26. Joh. 15 26. John 16 14. Rom. 8 9 1. Joh. â— 27. Joh. 3 9. v. 11. â— 8 Joh. 1 5. 1. John 4 1. there is no triall of the spirits then to trie whether it be of God but these menâ—s spirit were of God since they were of the elect And if you prescribe the tree of the spirit by the fruit Gal. â— 22 25 these mens virtues learning pietie as you confesse are to be preferred before your self 109. Againe I will not onely prove your spirit to be dissonant frâ— the holie fathers but that it is not Apostolical For if the Apostles had been inspired with this spirit every one had â—â—ayed it so that by himself without the help of another he could have distinguished of truth from falshood what needed then a Conneâ—l to be held at Hierusalem since every one could sufficiently distinguish of this truth 110. And to show further how your spirit is incompassed with difficults I argue thus This spirits testification is ever infallible or not If it doe deceive them it is not of God If it be still infallible how can ther come such various coÌ„troversies in the Church of God 111. If you answer this is ever infallible when it agrees with the word of God to which it is to be compared But then I argue if this spirit doth never testifie but when it is read what will they doe then if they were to dispute with a Turke if he should deny the whole Bible or about a controversie of the whole Bible whether it be Canonical or noâ— But admit that the testification of the spirit were onely to be tried by the written word of God How comes it then that the Lutherans and Calvinists are at such an unreconcïlable diffentien in comparing the scriptures This is my body and this is my blood by their private spirits interpretation every one contends to have this spirit to have the true sense of the word How will you then be able to settle these variances by the bare word to the liking of both 112. And to answer the placrs that you doe or may be produced for the mainteyning of the privat spirit I wil give generall grounds to answer all answering some in particular First then to that of John 10 27. My sheep heare my voice you must mark what sheep he meanes viz. the sheep that he committed to S. Peter as Pastor John 2â— 17. feed mysheep And not content with this he showes how these sheep should hear his voice Luc. 10. 6. He that heares you hears me and he that contemns you contemns me The other place is of Esaie the Prophet 54. 13. I will give all my sonns learned c. Jer. 31. 34. Herafter the man shall not teach his neighbour all shall know me from the least to the greatest Joh. 6. 45. out of which and such like places they falsly gather they have testificatioÌ„ of the spirit 113. But these men abuse scripture drawing it to their own sence For these places and the like doth not prove that which they seeke but onely show a threefold difference between the old testament and the new First in that the Prophets did teach in the old testameÌ„t but Christ Jesus himselfe did teach in the new â—cv 1. 1. Where our Saviour is said to have spoke to the Fathers in the Prophets but to vs in his Sonn 2. Moses and the Prophets did propound to the people what they were to beleeve but Christ Jesus vy his inward prace given them did help them to beleeve he not only teaching them by his voice but also helping them by his grace 3. that Moyses and the Prophets did preach Christ onely to the Jewes but Christ and his Apostles to all nations â—oÌ„ 10. 18. in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum so that interpreting what places soever you have or shal produce for the establishing of this privat spirit shall easily be answered by referring them to these places THE 5. PART 114. That I am to prove is to defend our Catholiche opinion from such an idle proofe or circular resolution of our faith The which that I may better performe some coÌ„mon grounds are to be handled before that being presupposed the difficults that oppose our opinion may be the better cleared 115. First then we must 〈◊〉 suppose that since every Heathen or Jew doth know by the light of nature that their is one God the author of all things and that wee are created to serve and honor him and that God is the rewarder of vertue and punisher of vice And since by discourse he may naturally reach vnto this that although it was most free for God to create any thing or to will any thing ad extra yet supposing that he hath created and so if not necessarily yet infaliblie by the excessive propension of his goodnesse he doth propose to men the best and fittest meanes for his honor and divine service And since the Monarchical government is best as appeareth by necessary subordination of creatures elements nations causes beasts vnto one supreme Mr. spring of all So since God having created man would be worshipped of him It is most readie to any mans discourse that he hath ordained one vniform kind of church or service to al people The which as it cannot chuse but seem most probable to a man through the great conveniencie and congruitie Yet if we shall suppose that the multiplicitie of religious and ceremonious services should as coÌ„tradictories or contraries thwart one another so their supreme end It would necessarily be gathered out of the coÌ„pass of any reasonable reaching brain that al these religioÌ„s were not instituted of God and that everie man was bound to weigh ponder the
is against S. Joh. the 17. 11. Vt sint vâ—um St. et nos 213. I prove this in that the Romaine church is the onely true and Catholicke church this you sate if you should admit of yet it proves nothing in that the voice of the bridegroome and not of the bride is that you say wee must beleeve Joh. 3. 29. 36. Ephes. 2. 24. 4. 5 16. As though that were false of Christ he that heared you heares me Luc. 10. 16. 18. Mat. 17. S. Joh. 14. 16. 26. Joh. 16. 19. 1 Tun. 3. 15 The church of the living God is said to bee the pillar and sir â—amâ—t of truth 214. I am gladd to heare you dente your selfe as in truth you are knowen to bee no Catholicke That you will not challenge your Mothers name showes your degenerating spirit For well might you bee a Catholicke member of a Catholike church but as others have been ashamed of that name so also you but the truth is your church is not Catholicke in that it hath neyther vniversallitie of time place or person 215. That the whole world is replenished with our doctrine you slight over with most impertinent places of scripture to inferr the Pope to bee Antichrist and you graunt that the synagogue of the Jewes in her flourishing â— visibilitie hath excelled Christs church which is contrarie to the predictions of the Prophets and Apostles 216. To the motives of evident credibilitie that maie induce any man to beleeve as the Romaine church teacheth I proposed many motives as her antiquitie vnitie vniversallitie visibilitie that her doctrine was confirmed by the doctors by the institution and institutors of most holie orders by the conversion of nations by the power of myracles infinit number of Martyrs All which notes and motives the ancient Doctors have taken out of scripture to distinguish the true church most of which you graunt we have Onely with your wrested places paralleld herevnto you seâ—k to coÌ„fute theÌ„ but so lamely that any maÌ„ may see your answers are suddaine snatches then true bitings or wounds according to the nature of a madd dogge that runne headlonge and immediately snatcheth at any thing that opposeth him 217. That which you bring else where is to small purpose or abundantly satisfied elsewhere 218. Now to conclude I prove by a common Argument in refuting your answer in calling our motives carnall that wee maie bringe to prove the Catholicke church the true church 219. If our faith bee so ancient as you confess and allowed so long of all sorts and conditions if it bee not from God it must bee grounded on carnall motives viz. the profitt of the spiritual or temporall But it smoothes neither And that it is not grounded on the inventioÌ„ of the clergie for there profitt or pleasure is plaine since they so strictly binde themselves to chastitie vowes fasting praying so longe everie daie and all these vnder mortall sinne with all which burdeÌ„s they would not have loaden themselves if onely pollicie had beene their loadstone Neither is it governed by the pollicie of temporall Princes For it cannot bee immagined howe â—o many Empeperors Kings Queenes Princes would have teddered themselves vnder mortal sinne as to confesse their sinns to fast to restore etc. go the religion warranted by all the foresaid notes and so against the haire of humane affection must needes bee true that hath 〈…〉 inviolable so long against so many assaultes of enimies and heresies For according to that before cited of Gamaliel if it bee not of God it will bee dissolved 220. Thus having proved and confirmed my doctrine and refuted your grounds and sacked the castel builded and raised by your owne phancie and having destroied the golden caife of your selfe liking conceipt to which you sacrifize I am to conclude admiring any one can bee so fonde as to follow you against the course of all tymes the recordes of Historie consent of Fathers etc. And I bewaile the fearfull resolution you shal make to Christ Jesus when he shal aske you whie you beleeve against the holie scriptures explicated and warranted by all the motives and onely because you perswade your selfe so 221 Whereas our resolution at the eternall tribunall shall bee full of comfort since wee beleeve Gods word allowed by all those notes and warrants â— by the interpretation of the holie Fathers Your plea shall not bee like the plea of that sonne that pretendes to bee heire of all saving of one pennie In that his father made his brother haeredem ex asse heire of one penie as he interpretts When as the grave tribunal judge learned Doctors lawes showes against him that to bee made haeredem ex asse is to bee possessed and invested in all and not to have one penie and no more 222. So you saie the sense of this or that parcell of scripture is as you conceive though against the letter as Hoc est corpus meum etc. and against all Doctors and expositors and records of tyme shâ—wing the practise of the church As that Clients cause shall bee full of feare his plea ridiculous the sentence sure to passe against him with a hisse and contempt of the whole bench So shall that irrevocable sentence of God passe against you in following your owne phancie against his word the holie Catholicke church the expounder thereof I praie God to averte his judgment and to wipe of the scailes of your eies that you maie see and imbrace the true church that with the blasphemous breath of your nostrilles you have persecuted From Justice hall in Newgate the 13. of September siple veteri 1613. 3 Esdrae 4. Magna est veritas et praevalet Great is truth and prevaileth Iohn Aynsworth Ad post script What I have said before or heare have delivered I have brought out of the scriptures and their interpretation and not against the scriptures as you object except you would have that onely to bee scriptures that in sense fittes the last of your owne phancie To conunence new disputes you know would be endless If you have nothing more to object against this maine truth begin what you will and I shal answer but onely be advertised here that I make a great impression of those wordes of S. John 2. x. 10. Si quis venit ad vos et hanc doctrinam non affert nolite recipere eum in domum nec Ave dixeritis Quie dixerit illi Ave communicat operibus ejus malignis ercuse me then if in salutation or freindly complement of grace mercie 〈◊〉 I doe not comply with you it proceeds not froÌ„ the hatred of your person whose conversion and salvation I desire but of your heresies and error but to answer your grounds and Argumâ—â—â—â— I shall ever be readie The answer to I. A. his third large writing To Mr Iohn Aynsworth prisoner in Iustice hall in Newgate grace mercie from God to find repentance unto salvation TWo things
Iam. 2. 14. 17. 20. from that men fall and there is the faith of Gods elect Tit. 1. 1. and this faith justifieth Rom. 4. 3. 5. 5. 1. and from it men never fall finally They may fall into syn by infirmity but shall not be cast off for the Lord putteth under his hand Psal. 37. 24. yea though they fall seven times yet they rise agayn but the vvicked fall into mischief Prov. 24. 16. This is my faith and your contrary Popish heresies I abhorr You deny not but your Popes may be reprobates and damned in hel I trow then hel gates doo prevayl against them and so the promise in Mat. 16. 18. perteyns not vnto them You except the Divil prevayls not against the Pope as he is head of the church as he defines e◠cathedra Yes doubtless therein he most prevayls against him because he allures him into Christs place and so makes him Antichrist And if you had the mind of Christ you would no more regard vvhat Apolluon the P. of Rome defineth ex cathedra unless he could prove it by the holy scriptures then what Apollo the D. of Delphos divined ex tripode 4. Your fourth shew from Peters confirming his brethren being confuted by scriptures Act. 14. 22. and 15. 41. 32. c. you now say the other Apostles confirmed not as the supreme pastor not as the head of the church by office I answer neyther did Peter so if you add that to your wrested text God will reprove you Prov. 30. 6. and your humane testimonies vvhich you abuse also shall not save you You digress to entwite me with gross corruption of the text for Englishing presbyteros an Elder I am loth to folow your outroades onely let me tel you that you check herein your authentik Latin translation which turneth it Senior and Major nat◠and in your divinitie Englishing both Cohen Hiereus a Preist and Zaken Presbuteros a Preist as if these were one you deceiv the simple with a sophistical aequivocatiō And you may as wel say the Apostles were idiots because they are caled idiotai Act. 4. 13. as say Christs ministers are Preists vnderstanding sacrificing Preists because they are caled Presbyteri 5. You daily agayn about Peters feet first washed as some suppose I let you alone vvith your fansie let the reader judge whither it be a fit proof for his headship 6. So for Peters martyrdome vvhence you conclude it was promised to Peter to be head of the church It is a bold untruth the text sayth no such words proveth no such thing 7. Your 7. show was gathered also from a false translation restrayning they began Act. 2. 4. to Peter as if he began which being but a guess you now shrink from that to the next passage in v. 14 c. where from Peters sermon you would prove him head of the church It is a vvorld to see vvhat shifts you are driven to the very naming of them is to all wise men ridiculous But if Peter for first preaching was head of the church that Pope vvhich first left preaching was the head of the Beast and so all your unpreaching Popes at least are Antichrists You graunt agayn that the first miracle which you uncertainly supposed S. Peter vvrought Act. 2. 11. dooth not solely convince what you would herein I beleeve you But I marvel at your discretion that think a number of futilous and vvorthless arguments being heaped togither would perswade any vnto popery unless they be such as are spoken of Prov. 9. 16. who so is simple let him come hither And here you are too lavish of your tongue in saying I cannot deny but our Saviour caleth Peter the rock first washeth his feet that Peter booth the first miracles c. I denyed the first and you cannot prove the latter Though were they al granted for Peter yet your applying them to your Pope is altogither groundless The first excommunication by Peter inferrs you think that he was head Before you urged the act which being proved insufficient now yee flee to the first doing of the act At the most this sheweth but primacie in order which I graunted seing Paul and others did the like But by your manner of reasoning vvhosoever dooth any thing first shall be head of the church And why I pray you by like reason should not those Popes that first practised Simony sorcerie and hypocrisie be heads of the man of syn You leav it for the reader to judge whither all these reasons togither shew not that Peter was rock and head of the church I also referr it to judgment And if your vayn shewes for Peter be not sound proofs for your Pope then he is left naked as the heath in the wildernes Ier. 17. 6. I proved by the scriptures Mat. 28. 18. 19. 20. Ioh. 20. 21. 22. 23. Act. 2. 4. that the other Apostles had equal office charge and power vvith Peter himself you answer the places prove nothing and if ought it is equality of order not of jurisdiction Thus you resist the truth vvithout reason it vvere vvell if you would add doctrine to your lips When all the Apostles are sent by the power of Christ vvith like vvords and authority vvhen the rest as Paul doo whatsoever Peter himself did in word prayer Sacraments censures miracles c. you barely say they vvere not equall in jurisdiction You vveary me vvith your own words and repetitions without proof Seing Gods vvord moves you not let me trie vvhat man 's will doo The rest of the Apostles sayth one of your Doctors vvere verily the same that Peter vvas indued vvith equal participation of honor and of power Being blamed for your making Peter head and rock of the church vvhich are Christs peculiar titles You answer he is the ministerial subordinat head to Christ as Christ is the foundation 1 Cor. 3. 11. yet the Apostles are foundations Eph 2. 20. I answer first Gods word no where caleth Peter the head and vvhy will you be vviser then God Secondly the Apostles because they layd the foundation vvhich vvas Christ as Paul sheweth 1. Cor. 3 10. 11. therfore the Church is sayd to be built upon their foundation Eph. 2. 20. And in this they vvere equal if any excelled it vvas Paul who laboured in laying the foundation more then the rest 2 Cor. 12. 11. 1 Cor. 15. 10. In this sense if you speak of ministerial head that by the ministery of the word Peter preached the head Christ the thing is true but the phrase is not good it vvas true in Paul also as much as Peter yea in all the Apostles and thus all Christs ministers at this day minister and preach him the head vvhich the Pope dooth not But you feign a thing which never vvas that Christ should substitute Peter for head in his place absence no scripture tells
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
vs and whose judgment you saie you preferr before your selfe For first you intangle your selfe in an endless circle For you prove the privat spirit to be true in that the written word saies as interpreted by you that it is true and you prove the writteÌ„ word to bee true by the private spirit both which wee denie since we will have neither the writteÌ„ word alone or privat spirit to be the rule of our faith And you doe not only coÌ„mit a circle but perswade against your owne perswasion since you would have me to beleeve you onely citing scriptures before thowsand Fathers citing scriptures also whose worth by so many titles you preferr before your selfe suerly suerly you have no guift in perswasion 152. And not onely thus vnreasonablie doe you proceed but as the Manichies to S. August you object many places of scripture whose infereÌ„ces still â—re Nolâ— Catholicis credere doe not beleeve the Catholicks I can then returne you this answer with St. Aug. noÌ„ rectè facies per EuaÌ„geliuÌ„ me cogere ad Manichaei fidem q. ipsi EvaÌ„gelio Catholicis praedicantibus credidi You doe not wel by scriptures cited from the gospel to vrge me to beleeve your Brownisme against the Catholick faith For this Gospel out of which you cite these wordes and wrested places I received froÌ„â—he Catholick church from whence you would diâ—â—wade me 153. The â— thing that I am to shew is that the Popes definiâ—tive sentence at least with a generall counsel is sufficient to determine all controversies and is a sufficient groundworke of faith This you saie I propound faintly in that I did alleage I did not of purpose dispute it though as you object it was the maine question 154. I answer most true it is according to my answer wherin I did voluntarily yeild to this to which by force of argument I was never vrged so it is the maine drift of the question But in regard of the satisfaction of you or your arguments it is not the maine question For when I saie there is something els required besides the writteÌ„ word to make it a compleat rule of faith I did not answer faintly when I graunted more then that to which I was vrged For your Argument required to know how the judgment of the church and in what sence might be infallible might have a manifold sence For if you take the definition of the church for the consent of all the fathers doctors of the church so it is infallible If you take it for a general CouÌ„cel coÌ„firmed by the Pope so it is also of infallible authoritie If you take it for the definition of the Pope with the councel of Cardinals defining ex cathedra so it is of infallible authoritie And since in all these sences the Catholick church is an indeficient rule to determine a matter of faith and to interpret the scriptures I did not therefore faintly answer when I insisted on the last 155 As for your rhethoricall flourish and forged resolution of my faith I have sufficiently excluded our opinion from that circle in which you stick fast Nervaeus wheÌ„ he saies the Pope is virtualy the whole church meanes nothing else but that he is the spiritual head to direct the whole church by the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost 156. As for my vellitation those few that I brought were sufficient to overthrow your groundles opinioÌ„ As for my reasons in the armadoe of mine as you terme theÌ„ that you saie wil never enter the feild It may be well they scorn to oppose one that lies at their fellowes mercie already 157. Now you come to examin the prerogatives of S. Peter Out of the whole series of which the circuÌ„stances therof not onely out-of each particular I drawe an infallible Argument but you in an swering them rather seeke to shun or avoid a blow then to give any 158. First you graunt that ever almost S. Peter is named first of the Apostles you except some 3. or 4. places but you cite none though otherwise most frequent in multiplicitie of cited places to no purpose Hence you graunt that primacie of order and not of authoritie maie be gathered You saie this gratis But since the holy Ghost both not repeat this prunacie to no purpose surely there his authoritie above his other brethreÌ„ is argued thence And since to be named still first through the whol scripture rather argues primacie of autority then of order Why should not wee rather iâ—ferâ— the vsual then the vnusual significatioÌ„ especiallie since in all records wee see the prioritie of the place is given to the preheminencie of the person 159. But let us examin one place the 10. of Mat 2. And the names of the 12. Apostles be thâ—se The first Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother and so Marci 3. Luc. 6. he is still named first Which cannot bee vnderstood of prioritie of your order you vnderstaÌ„ding therby prioritie of yeares or vocatioÌ„ Since S. Andrew that is named next excelled S. Peter in yeares was first called As S. Ambr. witnesseth on the 2. of the Cor. 12. and he inferreth then that although S. Andrew was his elder yet S. Peter was his superior This place made so much for this that Theodorus Beza although he coÌ„fessed all copies agreed herein yet he would have this word first to be â—oisted in see Beza in the annotations of the new testameÌ„t 556. As for that of the Galatians where S. Paul not numbring or reckoning the Apostles of set purpose as the 3. Euangelists doe meÌ„tioneth first S. James Bishop of Jerusalem whom first he met and who led him vnto the other Apostles as it appeareth Act 21. I. Calvin seing in his conscience the force of this Argument at which you wink grants that hence may be gathered that he was first of the 12. Apostles but not the head of the whole world 160. As for that which you object the 21. of the Apocalyps 19. where the foundation of the wall of the citie is described to be adorned with pretious stones And then you inferr in that in the Preists habit or ornament the Jasper which is as you say the stone of Benjamin by his place makes against you if I would plaie the part of a Cabbalist or naturalist But the scripture it self Exod. 28 v. 18 19. confutes you For there in the first place is said to be placed the stone Sardius Topazius and Smaragdus In the second the Carbunâ—â—â— the Saphyrus and the Jaspis So that we see the Jaspis or the stone Benjamin by your doctrine should not have the first place 161. Secondly against my congruitie alleaged for S. Peters primacie Math. 14. 29. where S. Peter walkes vpon the water Out of which place S. Chrysostom homil 57. and S. Bernard lib. 2. de consider ad EugeniuÌ„ doth inferr S. Peters prerogative above the other Apostles you saie rather argues his