as the holy fathers interpret is made by a private Spirit interpretation Thirdly I argue and by my argument I break the force of a pretended answer thus Not onely scriptures by themselves are not sufficient to prove what is Canonicall and what is not but also that scriptures helped by private mens interpretation are not sufficient to prove the same For they doe not onely allow of private learned mens interpretation but the poorest handycrafts man or the sillpest huswife that is they doc allow to interpret the hardest places of scripture to shoulder the vniforme consent of all the fathers Doctors and schoolemen with some fond toyes of their owne braine and invention yea to give their glosse of those places of S. Paul where he speakes of justification and predestination whereas they should â—â—y Oh altit ido sapientiae et scientiae Dei quaÌ„ incoÌ„prehensibilia sunt judicia ejus â— When as they should rather rely on the auncient Fathers exposition S. Hierome in his old yeares went as farre as Alâ—randria to heare Didimus S. Hier. ad Paul Epist 103. c. 5. 67. vsed such hard discipline retirement into the desert abstineÌ„ce for obteyâ—ing the tâ—ue interpretation of the holy scripture How should we beleeve each private handycrafts manns censure and his silly interpretation against the vniforme consent of the holy Fathers against the streâ—me of the learned of all ages But admit they should have iâ— warâ—ly that speaking spirit to satisfy themselves how should a man be perswaded they it to be a lanterne unto others stepps Nay how will they prove against their adversaries that they also have not that motion of the spirit and though we should graunt they be illuminated in the truth of oneâ—â—ysterie how shall we know with like certainty all other different mysteries But you will answer out of the 1. Cor. 2. Spiritualis autem homo judicat omnia ipse autem a neminejudicatur a spirituall man judgeth all things and he is judged of none To which I answer admit that a spirituall man knoweth something yet it doth not follow that his supernaturall insâ—â—â—â—ts extendeth it self to all things but onely to the knowledge of those for the obteyning of which that illumination was inspired For Deliseus that had a redoubled spirit of Elias sayth Domiâ—â— celavit hoc a me et non indicavit mihi Our Lord did hide this from me and did not shew it why then may not these simple soules rather feare that their private spirits defect in the declaration of some mysteries rather then the redoubled Prophet confesse â—â—s ignorance in some things Yet let us graunt that some few men should fully comprehend and penetrate the mysteries of our beleefe yet for a twofold reason we denâ— to give unto them a definitive sentence and censure of matters of faith First in that we are not so certified who these particular men be that have these especiall illuminations and illustrations and therefore we are to preferr the definitive assertion of the Popes holynesse and his counsell before uncertainty of mens inventions 2. Since that the effects of this particular illumination and assistance of the Holy Ghost is not manifested and warranted by any extraordinary workes or miracles or the like in the it were to make a desperate tender of Gods truth to point this or that man whole vinpâ—ore of any controversy in that many other men in the pretence of some few mens illuminatioÌ„s might challenge unto theÌ„selves the like prerogatives of interpretation Fourthly I argue that which by the â—ights and lanterns of your 〈◊〉 have ben wroÌ„ged in the highest degree to bolster vp heresies cannot be a true and indeficient rule of faith For what more frequeÌ„t with â—eretickes then at their fingers ends to â—ite places of scripture to back their heresies as the Arians Pelagians Luther aÌ„s and Sacramentaries The Lutherans and Calvinists both disagreeing in a maine point of the real presence the one holding Christs pretious havy and blood to be really and corporall in the Sacrament though with a certayn companation and the other holding Christ to be present with a signification onely and yet both cite scripture both of theÌ„ yet â—â—â—ing scripture for scripture John Knell of Kent led with this private spirit denyed Christ to have tooken flesh of our B. Lady William Cowbridge sayes Bishops have no more authority then Priests pag. â—70 and yet by and by ledâ— vp the selfe same spirit sayd that Christs name was a filthy name Alanus Copus Dialog 6 c. 17. John Mesel denyed the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father pag. 1151. Frith the excellent Martyr of John For pag. 942 943 944 affirmeth the reall presence to be no Article of beleefe affirmative or negative John of Teurbury that the Iewes of good zeale did put Christ to death pag. 9â—5 Fiftly and lastly Iargue many mysteries of our faith are beleeved that are not 〈◊〉 declared in the word of God nor so infalliblie prescinding from all traditions of the catholike church deduced thence so that they are sufficient to make one beleeve that witâ— so firme an act as our faith requireth therefore that which makes those mysteries worthy of constaÌ„t beleefe is a rule of faith as wel as the written word whither they be traditions Divine or Apostolicall My antecedent may castly without all just contradiction be proued in that till Moses the virtuous steps and perfect acts of Noe Abraham Melchisedech was guided without the helpe of any written word by the hand of tradition derived from mouth to mouth from man to man yea after the witteÌ„ word it appeares by Erod 14. Narrabis filio tuo in illa die dicens hoc est quod fecit Dominus c Deut. 32. Interroga patrem tuum et annuntiabit tibi majores et dicent tibi Iob. 8. Interroga generationem pristinam et diligenter investiga memoriam patrum And not onely they of the old law but also they of the newe even after the coÌ„ming of our Saviour were without a written word the Apostles and disciples being busied in preaching and instructing viva voce Besides many things we beleeve though we have not the warrant of a written word for it viz. that there was a remedie for women children as well as for men to purge them of originall sin and something to be used to men children if they were ready to â—y before the 8. day which was the prefixt time of circumcision and that such a parcell of writing was scripture and such not Moreover wee beleeve constantly against the condemned heresy of Delvidius yea and against as it were the seeming letter of the scripture where it is sayd that Joseph knew not our blessed Lady til she brought forth her first sonne Now every one knowes the phrase of the Hebrue word know as Abraham knew Sara and yet we fâ—â—â—nly beleeve according to the prescript of the church that she was a perpetual Oirgin ante partum in
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
spake otherweise as wanting light Our Saviours most holy doctrines vvere vvronged and depraved in the highest degree by Pharisees vvill you therfore conclude that his doctrine vvas not a true and indeficient rule of faith Bevvare of such pleading and learn rather of the Apostles vvho though men depraved the scriptures yet referred the Christians unto them as being able to make us vvise vnto salvation through the saith that is in Christ Iesus and to make the man of God absolute and perfect unto all good vvorks 2. Tim. 3 15. 1â— Fiftly and lastly you argue many mysteries of our faith 〈◊〉 beleeved that are not explicitly declared in the word of God 〈…〉 iâ—fallibly prescinding from al traditions of the catholik church 〈…〉 theÌ„ce so that they are sufficient to make one beleeve that 〈…〉 act as our faith requireth Therfore that which makes these mysteries worthy of constant beleef is a rule of faith as wel as the written word whither they be traditions divine or Apostelical The first part of this your argument I deney for neyther many nor any mysteries of our faith are without their due and sufficient proof from the holy scriptures You labour to confirm that you sayd thus because till Moses 〈…〉 word but men were taught by traditioÌ„ You allege also Exod. 14. thou shalt tel thy 〈…〉 Deut 〈◊〉 ask thy father and he wil shew thee c. Iob 8 ask the former generation c. Also how after our Saviours coÌ„ming the Apostles preached viva voce before they wrote c. Your first reason is altogither insufficient for though the scriptures could be no perfect rule of faith before they were written yet after the writing of them they mought be and so were You might as well say neyther tradition nor doctrine by lively voice could be a rule of faith before it was spoken You might also say the scriptures are not sufficient to make one beleeve any one mysterie of faith seing before Moses all mysteries were taught by voice The pattern of the Tabernacle shewed to Moses on the mount could be no perfect rule for him to build by before it was shewed Was it not therfore a perfect and sufficient pattern after it was exhibited Even so the scriptures now that they are written are a sufficient rule and assurance of our faith Ioh. 20. 31. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. Your other allegations out of Moses Iob wil serve much better for the Iewish traditions then for yours and confirm their Thalmud and Cabala rather then your papal decrees But the Apostles turned the Iewes from their vain conversation received by the tradition of the fathers and would not have them take heed to Iewish fables and coÌ„mandments of men that turn from the truth Our Lord also reproved the traditions of the Pharisees though received from their Elders Mat 1 2 3. c. by which you may learn God opening your hart that Israel was not left to unwritten verities for a ground of their faith but were to tel their children the works of God that they had seen and heard as we all are to doo ours and for a rule of their faith and life to teach them Gods written law This you may see by the 44. and 78. Psalms wher the fathers told their children such things as are written in the books of Moses Iosua c. which as they continued the rule ground of 〈◊〉 rough out the Prophets ages so Malachi the last Angel of the old Testament comendeth them to the memorie of the church even as from the first giving they were the inheritance of the same The power and authoritie of vvhich Lavv and Prophets vvas so great as our Saviour sayth hâ—â— that vvil not hear them neyther vvil they be persvvaded though 〈◊〉 from the dead agayn Bevvare therfore least vvhile you â—â—â—k to support traditions you supplant Christian faith for a levv vvil presse you by tradition to receive their Cabala as vvel as their prophets seing you have had these all from them cannot vvithout them by your ovvn grouÌ„ds tel vvhat is canonical scripture vvhat is not and they doâ— affirm that God gave to Moses a double lavv the one vvritten the other by vvoâ—d of mouth â—ambam 〈◊〉 Misnajoth Your particulars insisted upon for the equal 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 persons in the god hed the baptising of infant the proâ—… hâ—ly Ghost the keeping of the Lords day the lawfulnes to â—at blood c vvhich you think can not be proved by scripture without tradition shâ—w that you are too much a stranger in Gods book for it afffordeth us sufficient proof for all of thâ—se And 〈…〉 us if we 〈…〉 without sure grouÌ„ds froÌ„ scripture shame would cover our faces before Arrians Anabaptists other heretiks if we should leâ— goe our 〈◊〉 foundation to build upon your sands As for other points of Masse for the dead c vvhich you mention upon certayne fathers credit as it hath no ground in Gods book so by the same it may easilie be refuted and what God condemneth no man can justify Wheras you all 〈◊〉 2 Thes. 2. and other like testimonies for traditions I readily grant you to accept all traditions divine or Apostolical for they were the coÌ„mandements of God but your church traditions I refuse for they are the institutions of mâ—n I grant you also that Paul taught more things by word then were written in that his Epistle but that he taught any thing as needful for salvation without warrant from the scriptures I deney or that the suÌ„m and effect of all that he taught be not in the Prophets his own and other evangelical writings If you wil not beleeve me beleeve himself who testifieth that he sayd none other things then those which the Prophets Moses did say should come beleeve an other Apostle which sayth thâ—se things are written that ye might beleev c. that in beleeving ye might have life through Christs name And wheras you wonder how men should deney the necessary vse of traditions asking if we will beleeve the Apostles why then we wil not beleeve them that lived in the Apostles dayes and such holy fathers as flourished shortly of er you may stay your wonder if you consider how Paul teaâ—hâ—th that the scripture is able to make a man vvisâ— unto salvation absolute and perfect unto every good work for now there is no necessary vse of other traditions unlesse it be for works that are too good and they be I trow work of supâ—rerogation You may also answer your own question if you mind how there lived in the Apostles dayes many vain talkers and deceiveâ—s of minds many false prophets that were gone out into the world and many Antichrists and how after their departing there entred in grâ—â—vous wolves Now seing such weeds flourished shortly after in the garden of the Lord is it not more safe for us think
you to keep the foundation of the Apostles Prophets on which Christs church is builded then to build upon the boâ—â—s of after writers To conclude thâ—â—fore this point Christ sendeth us to serch the scriptures his Apostles doo the like the Prophets before spake also to like effect this counsel by Gods grace I shall folow 〈◊〉 these I wil exercise my self not doubting but I have chosen the better part which shall not be taken from me And unto you that â—…zelous for the traditions of your fathers I shew the counsel of the holâ— Châ—st walk not in the ordinances of your fathers transgresâ—e not the coÌ„maÌ„dements of God by your traditions and presume not above that which is written The second thing you take upon you to prove is That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the Church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith This position if you well understood it I would not strive against for the definitive sentence of that Papa or Father that is head of the church is I confesse such an indeficient rule But the Vicar of Rome is not this Pope it is Christ himself that is Father of eternitie and he is the head of his body the church and he hath forbidden us to call any man our Pope or Father upon the earth for thâ—r is but one our Father which is in heaven Mat. 23 9. But you understand it of an earthly Pope and head and would confirm it by this scripture Luk. 22 31. Simon Simon loe Satan hath desired you to winnow you as wheat c. but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not Here first I observe how you labour to confirm the Popes definitive power by the scriptures so that which before you pleaded against as an insufficient grouÌ„d now here you make a ground of grounds and so you are contrary to your self For before you taught me to beleeve this is Gods word because the Pope saith so here you will have me beleeve your Popes sentence to be a rule of faith because the scripture sayth something which you imagine makes for him Thus you would lead me as in a round and I cannot tel what you make the rock of your faith But I wil folow your argument Christ prayed for Simon that his faith upon Satans sifting mought not fayl I grant it neyther did it fayl though he fel greevously Yet this grace made not Simon Pope or Head of the church for it is a grace coÌ„mon to all the elect members of the bodie whom though Satan sifteth and they be often foyled yet rise they again by beleef in God and though their faith often fainteth yet it never faileth or is consumed And this by vertue of Christs prayer or mediation 1. Ioh. â— 1. 2. for Gods gracious gifts are without repentance and Christ giveth all his sheep eternall life and they shall never perish neyther shall any pluck them out of his hand You procede and say that this prayer was consequently for his successors If you mean successors in his office I know not who they be neyther shew you the Popes to be the men If you mean successors in his faith I grant it as before For Peter had the faith of Gods elect as true justifying faith is caled in which faith whosoever succeed or come after him as also they that then lived in like faith with him they were are and shal be by Christs mediation confirmed that their faith which is their life fayl not For example Christ chose 12. Apostles and one of them was a Divil Iscariot who was the Divil fell into syn and Christ prayed not for him so his faith fayled though he coÌ„fessed his syn and he dyed in dispeir hanging himself for he was the Son of losse or perdition and therfore was to be lost that the scripture mought be fulfilled Iohn 17. 12. Simon Cephas fell also into syn above the other ten but he was one of Christs sheep no child of perdition therfore he kept him from being lost praying that his faith mought not fayl And as for him for the rest at an other time he prayed to his father to keep them in his name and not for them alone but for those also which shall beleev in him through their word Wherfore Christ prayed not onely for SimoÌ„ but for all the Saincts though speciall need and use was for him at that time yet as Paul sayth of Abrahams justification it is not written for him onely but also for us so say I of Simons confirmation by the prayer of Christ for whatsoever is written is written for our learning RoÌ„ 15. 4. But you prosequute your argument thus that S. Peter was bidden coÌ„firm his brethren but onely S. Peter and not the church in generall hath brethren Wherupon you would have me gather that this was his special privilege and no mans ells save his successors in the headship Your assumption I withstand as a fallacie proving Peters popedome for confirming his brethren no better then as if you should reason thus Paul sayd to Barnabas let us return and visit our brethren in every citie c. but onely Paul and Barnabas not the church in general have brethreÌ„ therfore onely Paul and Barnabas are Popes of the catholik church and visiters of the same they and their successors If this be not a good reason to prove a supremacie of visitation the other is no better to prove a supremacie of Confirmation For the church in generall is a brotherhood as the Apostle Peter himself calleth it and of this brotherhood Peter was one Paul an other Iohn an other and so the rest not onely the Apostles but all beleevers Wherfore as Simon had brethren so hath every Christian and all are brethren ech to other and all brethren unto Christ. And Peter as he was a joynt elder with the other elders so was he also a joynt brother with the other brethreÌ„ or els he was none of Christs And as for confirming his brethren it is farr from proving a popedome for Paul an other Apostle confirmed his brethren and Timothee an Evangelist did the like and Iudas and Silas being Prophets did the same and all the Angels or ministers of churches are taught of Christ to doo likeweise Wherfore Simons coÌ„mission to confirm his brethren made him not Pope and consequently neyther his supposed successors But you presse the circumstances that our Saviour points out one particular man saying Simon Simon and after having spoken of al particularizeth the speech agayn saying for thee thy faith thy brethren c. I answer there was cause why our Saviour should speak to him thus because in his sifting he should shew more weaknes then the rest and a speciall fore needeth a special medicine But the fore being healed the recured person is as an other man of his
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
But the Lordship which your Pope claimeth is to be a true ecelesiastical prince in the whol church of his own auctority without coÌ„sent of the people or counsel of the preists to make lawes which bind the conscience c. with other like exorbitant power which hath neyther proof nor colour of proof from this 15. of the Acts but the contrary is playn by the scripture as in my former writing I shewed and leav it to the judgment of the prudent Your 3. arguments force you would reinforce by a long speech of privat spirits interpretation of errors and heresies unfit translations manifold and ambiguous senses c. where I must acknowledge you have put to more strength but you have not whet the edge as I sayd unto you so that your purpose is not effected For al that you say may with as good if not better right be retorted upon your selves and the Pope himself who hath as private and erroneous a spirit as al other Byshops hath given as absurd and erroneous translations wrested the scriptures broched as deadly errors is as unable to prove his mission froÌ„ Christ as any prelatâ— or preist in Christendom So in al your discourse you have neyther proof from scripture nor argument upon ground of reason therfore I need not spend labour in vayn and the points some of them are before handled othersome belong not to the matter in hand With like successe you repete your 4. argument that the scriptures have been wronged by our men to bolster up heresies c. you say I grant your assumption but deceiv not your self or others I did leav to strive about it because it was personal touching Luther Calvin c. who when they lived were able yenough to mainteyn their cause against Rome gates though as men they had their infirmities I told you the like charge mought be returned upon your Popes and Prelats Your proposition I deneyed and shewed reasons of my denyal from the scriptures You replie as your manner is with your popular carnal reason that al sorts of hereticks alledge scriptures boast of the spirit unlesse there be a supreme judge strifes can have no end You have been answered that so it must be and so it was in the Apostles times who yet referred not Christians to the Pope as supreme judge but laboured to compose controversies and correct errors by the scriptures Strife wil continue without end til the world have an end then al warr shal cease in the mean while the church is militant under her head Christ. and no other He alone walketh amids the 7. golden candlesticks al churches have their several Bishops and Pastors and onely Christ is Archpastour at his appearing shal supreme judgement be In the mean time they be Antichrists that usurp his office and place But why alledge you this against the divine scriptures onely for doe you not think that men have wrested the late Fathers also to bolster up heresies yea and councils too yea and the Popes own decrees Now if whatsoever be wrested to bolâ—â—er up heresies can not be a true rule of faith then the world wil soon be without rule and so that Anomos that unruly and lawlesse fellow foretold of wil be fittest to be their captayn even as he hath been now too long a day sitting in that citie which in S Ioh is time reigned over the kings of the earth and fayn would mainteyn that regiment stil. Your 5. and last argument was for vnwritten traditions You affirmed that many mysteries of our faith are beleeved that are not explicitly declared nor infallibly deduced from the scriptures I deneyed that any mysterie of our faith was without due sufficient proof from the scripture Now you recken up divers matters as before and ask of me proof for them otherweise then by tradition My answer was and is that some are your own inveÌ„tioÌ„s I wil not undertake to approve but to reprove them by Gods word others that are truths I can prove by Gods word better then you can by mouth tradition But you find great fault think it goes hard with me since I prove not one particular of them all therfore desire me to answer distinctly to ech point as it lâ—es c. I marvel you would expect proofs of these points now Would you hav me enter into battel with Arrians Antitrinitarians Anabaptists other like hereticks and shâ—w how I can convince them by scripture I list not so to digresse When thâ—se matters in hand are ended if you wil take up their buklers I wil fight against you by the scriptures onely if you wil adventure the credit of your unwritte traditioÌ„s in the battel In the mean time make you proof as order requireth of your argument and seek not to turn it away by setting on foot new questions The scriptures that you brought to prove unvvritten traditions I answered In this your reply you say that I dispute as if you made traditions the total rule of faith whereas you would inferr onely that it was a partial togither with the word of God Then belike you graÌ„t some word of God without unvvritteÌ„ traditioÌ„ vvhere is that but in the scriptures If vve have Gods vvord in the scriptures vvithout unvvritten tradition hovv is it that vvhilear you reasoned vve could not knovv scriptures to be Gods vvord but by such tradition Doe not you make mouth traditioÌ„ the total ground of your faith For take avvay this tradition the scriptures you think are lost then Gods vvord is lost unlesse unvvritten tradition give it us So dead tradition is the ground of grounds that must tel us vvhat is scripture vvhat is the meaning of scripture vvhat is true beside scripture and so in effect is all in all Though yet to make it a partiall rule of faith as you speak is too much man may not think to part stakes vvith God his vvord is yenough if vve can be content You say I object that those traditions spoken of in Deuteronomis might make for the Iewish Cabalists which are reiected by S. Peter c Nay I knovv they make neyther for them nor you but as I sayd rather for them then for you I proved unto you out of the Psalmes that the Fathers taught their children vvritten traditions I proved by other divine testimonies that yenough is vvritten in the scriptures for faith all good vvorks As for Gods acts in al ages fathers are to tell them to their children such tradition I allovv We tel our posteritie novv by tradition the great vvork of God in confounding the Spanish armado that came against England in the yere 1588 If I in my dayes should see Rome â— become Rumee as Sibylla prophesied and the Pope like Nabuchodnoâ—or turnd out to graâ—â—e or like Pharao drovvned in the sea I vvould hold it my dutie to tel
it my child my childes child that it mought never be forgotten But yet for a ground of faith unto life I would vvarn my children to hold to the scriptures as the instrument of God able to make them vvise unto salvation through the faith vvhich is in Christ Iesus as Paul sayd to his son Timothee You say it is playn that the Apostle 2. Thes. 2. speaks of such traditions as I cal humane in you I deney it have plainly disproved it in my former vvriting by the same Apostles ovvn testimonie Act. 26. 22 1. Co. 14. 37. and you have not a vvord to say against it but shun those ancient Apostolik records and betake you to later humane writers as Chrysostome But remember your ovvn vvords God is more ancient then the Divil truth then falshood The Apostle shevved his ovvn meaning long before Chrysostome had a mouth to speak But if you can better see by Chrysostoms candle then by Pauls bright sun behold vvhat the Doctor sayth Whatsoever is sought unto salvatioÌ„ all novv is fulfilled in the scriptures He that is ignorant may find there vvhat to learn he that is stubborn synful may find the scourges of the judgmeÌ„t to come vvhereof he may be afrayd he that laboureth may there find glorie and promises of eternal life This speech dooth farr better become his golden mouth then your plea for humane traditions The 2. thing vvhich you took upon you to prove or as novv you faintly say intended rather to propound then prove vvas That the scripture expounded by the catholik church is a true and indeficient rule of our faith I vvil ease you if I may of this labour if you understaÌ„d the position vvell I grant it to be true By the catholik church I trovv yovv mean not the multitude al beleevers but the head of the church So I vvillingly yield that the scriptures expounded by Christ the head of the catholik church are a true and indeficient rule of our faith But when you came to make proof of your positioÌ„ you set it dovvn thus that the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith Where all men may see your lode starr You pretend the scriptures and word of God but if a man deale vvith you by them as I novv have experience you flee to later humane vvriters If you be followed in them you retire to your Catholik church ask your meaning by the catholik church and it is the Pope with his definitive sentence as your self have expounded it to me He virtualiter as one of your side sayth is the whole church Al the other are but stales he alone is the man that must strike the stroke And if he give sentence against you I shal never trust him so you deal on the surest side for your selves You intended rather to propound then to prove this point as you say that we haue not at one time diverse proâ—s togither in the fyre and now agayn you handle it by way of velitation you say not of purpose to prove Wheras it is the mayn ground of al controversie between us For question being whither Gods written word or the Popes definitive sentence must judge rule our faith I cleav to the scriptures you to the Pope Now my ground is in part granted by your selves for the scriptures which I build upon your council of Trent hath allowed for canonical and come from God and whither you granted it or not I have given you reasons that are unanswered But your ground I utter ly deney and grant not your Popes definitive sentences to be canonical but haeretical and would have proof of that you say You lyst not yet to have this yron in the fyre belike least it burn your fingers Yet in this your velitation you bring most of your valiant men into the feild leaving out some few casshierd soldjers and brave me with a great many of S. Peters prerogatives which are indeed but a cold yron for the Pope For though al you say for Peter were granted yet nothing at al is sayd for the Bishop of Rome more then for the Bishop of Babylon You would hav men think that if you have so many men in a skirmish or velitation you have many moe against a day of battel But if these your velitaries be discomfited as some of them are already I suppose your armado wil never enter this feild Let us therfore try their strength 1. S. Peter you say is named first among the Apostles True he is so usually except in 3. or 4. places This may argue a primacie of order but of no auctoritie over his brethren The first foundation of the wall of the heavenly Ierusalem was a Iasper the stone of Benjamin th' Apostle Pauls tribe wil you grant me hence to conclude that S. Paul was head of the catholik church 2. S. Peter alone walked you say with our Saviour on the water True and there he shewed his weaknes more then others was reproved by our Saviour for his little faith Doth this deserve the headship of the church Elias and Eliseus walked through the water and Shadrach Meshach and Abednego-walked in the mids of the fyre and herein shewed their great faith yet vvere they not therfore heads of the catholik church 3. Our Saviour promised you say that hell gates should not prevail against him Our Saviour dooth say not against it that is the church of vvhich Peter vvas a principall member Hell gates shall not prevail against any true Christian are they all therfore headeâ— But hell gates if horrible synns be part of their strength have prevayled against sundry of your Popes by testimonie of your own records such I trow were not heads unlesse of the beast Apoc. 14. 17. 3. 4. He was to confirm his brethren So were all the other Apostles and Ministers as I proved at large in my former writing and marvel you bring this argumeÌ„t now again bleeding into the skirmish before you had cured any of his vvounds If you cannot heal him you should let him rest 5. Our Saviour you say washed S. Peters feet first It may be so though some Doctors doubt of it It is sure some was first for they could not all be at once It is sure also that Peter shewed then more weaknes then his brethren for which he mought well have need to be washed but not deserve to wear a triple crown as your Pope 6. S. Peter onely received a reveled promise of his particular martyrdom of the crosse Performance is more then promise Iames and Stephen suffred martyrdom before Peter And if the crosse be that vvhich must prove the headship the penitent theef may lay claim to the crown 7. He after infusion of the holy ghost first you say premulgates the gospel I would the Pope were his successor in
sufficient rule of our faith 2. That the scriptures expounded by the catholik church is a true and indeficient rule of our faith or as you set it dovvn vvhen you come to make proofe That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith 3. That this rule is onely found in the Romane Catholik church sentence and not in private mens illuminations and motions of a private unseen spirit Or as after you expresse it vvhen you labour to prove it That your Romane Church is the true onely catholik church of God Your arguments for these vvere long discourses I could not therfore ansvver but by refelling your treatises In these I folovv your footing still in my last vvriting novv againe sent unto you Hold I pray you to the points in hand and be as breif as you can I vvil labour to satisfy you in fevv vvords But if you make outrodes to long narrations blame not the length of my ansvvers vvhich are but according to your ovvn size eeke your arguments no more with humane testimonies til you have disproved the certainty and sufficiencie of the Divine oracles which if it were possible for you to doo you might colourably perswade fools unto Atheisme but no wife man would ever suffer affliction for your traditional and humane religion Be you warned yea intreated to save your sowl from eternal flames God hath offred more meanes of mercy unto yow then to many others if yow shut your eyes against the light which shineth in darknes though the darknes comprehends it not yow wil but heap up unto your self wrath against the day wrath but my prayer unto God is for your salvation in Christ to whose grace I coÌ„mend yow From Amsterdam this 28. of May 1613. Henr Ainsworth I. A. his answer to the former letter To his loving freind Mr Henry Aynsworth at Amsterdam deliver this SOme week agoe Mr Henry Aynsworth I received your letter and your last reply coppied out againe as you say to give me satisfaction An answer whereof some three yeres agoe I had returned if the papers then and I had not been severed And long ere this since the intended deliverie therof I had fully satisfied each point thereof if some three weekes after the notified aryvall thereof the deliverie had not been delayed For your paynes and good will I thank you But I wonder that through private affectation so much payns and good wil should be so far from being secundam scientiam that a man might doubt rather whether you writ not contra conscientiam since to any indiffereÌ„t judgement the motives for our catholik religion and for her doctrinal assertions are so cleare and therfore doubt not but that I shall answer you although her well grounded truth would defend it selfe though I were silent But God willing I wil shortly send you the answer to your large biscourse and to give you taâ—t of that which I wil prove in fully answering your replication though to write so large a coppie forth is more tedious theÌ„ difficult I wil prove these seven points at least First I will show the weaknes of your reasons 2. I will prove that not onely the written word of God but the unwritten word of God tradition and the authoritie of the Church is the rule of our faith 3. I wil show how my five Arguments for all your pretended answers remaine in ful force 4. I will prove how you walk in a circle proving the word of God by your private spirit and your privat spirit by the word of Gods 5. I wil defend our catholick opinion to be free from any circular or ridiculous proofe 6. I wil show the Popes definitive Sentence togither with a generall Councell at least to be an assured groundwork of faith 7. I will show to you or any indifferent judgment that your building is on sand and the resolution of your faith at the last day of judgement groundless and full of feare But now to show that you have in nothing answered my last letter I propounded certaine necessary questions breifly for the more clearing of this or any other disputation to be had between us of which though there were twelve in number yet you have not answered one word to any which eyther showes you glosed before wheÌ„ you sayd you writ all before for my good or else rather that you could not answer one which you might have doone in foure or 5. lines denying or granting So that I must needes inferr that you cannot show which of the Apostles did teach your doctrine that you now hold 2. that you can not show which are the essentiall poincts of your religion 3. that no ancient Doctor did maintayn the doctrine you now held 4. that you can not show who in what tyme and on what occasion did suppress that doctrine 5. that you can not show your church to have begun to be invisible in the time of persecution or in the time of peace 6 that S. Laurence nor any of the primitive martyrs were of your religion 7. that you approve of no ancient historie and that you must graunt Constantine our first Christian Emperour not to be of your religion 8 that no one of the 3. conversions of England was to your religion 9. that you must graunt the church of Christ to be more subject to invisibilitie ruin subversion then the synagogue of the Jewes 10. that you have no Bible or writen word of God that you allow of in all and so that you have no rule of faith for all To all these you answer with silence in your hart calling them carnall motives no doubt 3. I answer you that in putting downe breifly my 5. argumeÌ„ts in forme I show you have not answered But you in your silence to them showes that your answers consists onely in multiplicity of words that admitts no abbreviation 4. You then set downe your 2 conclusions and my 3. contrary assertions â—ou blame my tediousnes but I answer my outroades are to trace onely your wildgoose chase that is bounded in no circuit of a Methedicall discourse I shall be the longer in this present discourse to come so to avoide proliritie hereafter still referring my selfe to this to come how long so ever you shall dispute Desist then Mr Henry Ainsworth to follow your private spirits phancie hold your self by that three fold chaine â—inâ—â—ntius Lyrinensis prescribes that is antiquitie vniversalitie and consent so should you save your self froÌ„ that headlong precipitium that the authour of evil the Divil tempts you to when by the privat interpretation of scriptures he instâ—uates to a man Mitte deorsum S. Math â— for it is written Psal. 90. cast thy self from the rock of the church scriptum est froÌ„ the trabition and authoritie of the church from the consent of holy Councels and fathers for scriptum est your private spirit must be your tower God send you
writing yea you might better have scaÌ„ned first and answered that place cited by me out of hâ—lâ— S. Chrysost on the 2. of the Thess. oratione 4. Stand and keep your traditions where the holy Father sayes it is plain the holie Fathers did not deliver all things vp â—â—istle but many things without writing and those things also are worthâ— of faith and S. Chrysost sayes Est traditio nihil quâ—ras ampâ—ius which wordes are so playn that they made Or Iâ—wâ—l to say they were words unworthy so hâ—lp a father And that S. Ambrose did approve of tradition is plain out of his 34 sermon on Lent where he reproving those that would keep certaine dayes after Lent when this after fâ—st was neither as the feast of Lent neither delivered by the authoritie of our antestors So that we see if wee should but give Mr. H. A. the Sâ—â—cons place but to put oile into our lampes he would adde his dust and askes to quench it rather 〈◊〉 contemning still as he doth the authoritie of the holy Fathers in terming their authoritie produceâ— against him dust and ashes 17. Mr. Henry Aynsworth objects against me that I have turned over his third and fourth Arguments oâ— reasons denying them to prove that which they were cited for I answer I possed them over But see here Mr â— A. hath turned them off the ladder to their last dâ—steniâ— not showing that they proved ought what he intended by them we may suppose his reasons were wounded to death in the answerâ—â— the former oâ— like runaâ—ates have forsaken their armes that of â—â—â—ted barely before but one appeareth in his likeness I hope ouâ— adversarie will acknowledge or amend his slight dealing herein 18. The second part that Iam to prove is that the rule of our faith is not onely the written word but joyntly the unwritteÌ„ word of God tradition and the authoritie of the church councells and Fathers is the ultimate decyder of all matters of controveâ—ste This I prove first thus That which was the totall rule of our faith before the written word of God may be well the partiall rule of our faith after where the written word of God doth not sufficiently eâ—â—ressâ— divers mysteries of us to be beleeved But traditioÌ„ was a sufficient yea and the total rule of our faith til Moses tyme the first 〈◊〉 in of the holy ghost go tradition now togither with the written word is a sufficieÌ„t rule of our faith My major through out this whole tract shal be proved My minor is graunted by Mr H. A. 20. Secondly Not onely before the law of Moses men weâ—â— wholly directed by the month of tradition but after also as it appeares in Deut. 3â— verse 7. Ask thy fatners and they shall annantiate unto thee ask thy auncestors and they shall tell thee showing that of many thinges that were to be beleeved wee should depend of the instruction of our auncestors for in the wordes young 〈◊〉 diatâ—â—y before that is implied coâ—â—ra generationes singulas and Psal. 43 1. Oh Lord we have heard with our eares our fathers have 〈◊〉 unto us that which thou hast wrought in their dayes and in the ancients dayes Prov 8 1. Heare oh sonne the discipline of thy father and doe not leave the law of thy mother Isa. 38 19. The father shall make knowen to his sonne this truth where truth discipline showes rather matters of discipline and doctrine then matters of fact as Mr H. A. would interpret and Jere. 6 16. Stand upon the wayes and see ask of the ancient pathes what is the right way and walk in it and ye shall find rest unto your souls which is playne there that the Prophet doth not onely speak of matter of faith but to prevent error and 〈◊〉 of doctrine also see Eccles 8 11. 4 Esdr. 14 3. 2 Tim. 2 15. 1 Tim. 6 20 2. Tim. 2 1. what can be hence inferrâ—d but that the Israâ—lites and Christians were to be directed by the help of traditions See the holy fathers so firme and so frequent for this great truth that falshood it self of our adversaries cannot tell how to oppose see 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 cited before number 16. 〈◊〉 in the â—ere of our Lord 80 lib. 3. â— 4. calles tradition dives deposicoâ—um a rich treasurie or â—usrodie Eâ—emens 〈◊〉 lib. â— Strema â— 4 in the yeare 200 say is that the knowledge of traditisÌ„ by succession is come from the Apostles et lib. 7 Stromat â— 9. he calls unwritten tradition the 〈◊〉 of truth Origenes in the yeare 240 in his 5. 〈◊〉 in Numeros et trâ—â—t 29 in Math teacheth that wee beleeve and doe many things by tradition S. Athanasius in his epistle ad Epiâ—tâ—te tuâ— sayes That it is sufficient to answer to his adversaries that it is not the doctrine of the Catholick church that the holy fathers have not thought so S. Basil also sayes he can beleeve many things by the unwritten witness of the Apostles the 2. Councel of 〈◊〉 in actione 7. approves the authoritie of unwritten traditions D. â—ier in the yeare 390 in his dialogue contra Lucifer affirmes that for his part if ther were no scripture yet the consent of the whole church were sufficient And S. August De baptismo contra Donatistas lib. 7. c. 53 affirmes that which the universal church holdes neyther is it instituted but was ever reteyned we may judge most rightly to be delivered by the Apostles idem epist. 86. ad â—asul Yea if our adversaries testimonie is availeable in confirming a truth against themselves for us See how Martin Luther in his Lypsick disp submits himself to the judgment and determination of the holy church and in his epist. ad Marchionâ—â— Brandeburg which is to be found in his second in Germane language folio 2 3. He is not ashamed to say it is an horrible thing to heare or say that which is contrarie to the uniforme testimonie of faith and the doctrine of the holy Catholick church that from above a thowsand with uniform consent she had kept John Calvin in his book against Pigâ—â—ius bragâ—ingly but with dissimulation affirms that he would not refuse the triall of the universall Church and warrant of tradition Phil. Melancthon in his epist. ad Frâ—der Myream De locis veteris Theol de caena Domini affirmes that it is not safe to depart from the consent of the ancient church and in his epistle ad Iohannem Cratonem vâ—â—tatista he confesseth that doubt in a mans conscience is a tortuâ—er and that the vniversall consent of doctrine must prevaile for confirming of a truth and he graunts that the best Masters are Irenae us Tertullian and S. Augustin that have left many monuments of truth for us to whom they did adjoyne the rule of faith the suffrages of the learned the consent of the Apostolicall churches and this is that which he affirms they deduced from the
Apostles or from Apostolicall men 23. And not without great reasoÌ„ doth God use that means both to ad estimatioÌ„ to his holy mysteries to preserve these pretious stones for the Jewellers that did know how to prise theÌ„ that even natural reason hath taught and that the very Heathen Philosophers have used therby to adde prise and to distinguish the fitness of the auditor Pythagoras therfore taught his schollars rather by word of mouth relation of others then by Dictats or writing Gallen also lib. 2. de Anatomicis Adminiculis declares how the auncient Physitians did preserve and teach their medicines and receipts onely by verball relation froÌ„ one from another Cicero 1. De legibus affirms that it is a great error in a well governed coÌ„mon wealth to have all governed by written lawes And therfore the most ancientest and famous Rabbines and not onely they but our Hyllarius and Origen doe teach that Moses had not onely delivered him the tables of the law in the mountaigne but also most secret and hidden mysteries and explication of the law which truth the author of the first book of Esdras doth not obscurely testifie c. 14 5. I have declared to Moises many miracles and I sayd vnto him saying these wordes thow shalt speake openly and these wordes thow shalt hide and of such secret mysteries that of the Psal. 43. psal 77. Deutr 32. is to bee understood And in regard of these hidden mysteries Dyonis Areopag lib. de caelest Hierarchia â— 1. most diligently warnes Timothie That he should not disclose these things to the rude people So that we see God writ in Moyses heart many thinges that he did not write in the tables of stone This made St. Paul to speake the bidden mysteries in secrett and to give the little ones milk in that their weake stomackes could not brooke other meate And yet by pour rule Mr. H. Ainsw new borne babes like Ostreches should devour proÌ„ in freclie reading applying and epplicating the difficult places of scripture 24. Now since the second and third question are so neerely confined that the ending of the one is the begining of the other the ending of my reasons the begining of your answers and so requiring a resutation of them I thought good having in generall proved the necessitie of tradition besâ—des the written word to end my second part and with my particular proofes to begin the third poinct in interlacing the reasons answers replications together in order but both as breifly as I can 25. My first Reason to prove that the written word of God without the vâ—written word of God Tradition and the definition of the â—h is not the rule of faith in summe is this 26. That which is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knowen for Gods word go scriptures by themâ—â—lves are not the rule of faith 27 My Major is most certaine since nothing can be the indeficient rulâ— of all truth revealed and to bee revealed but the word of the first veritie God which is eyther the writteÌ„ word of God conteyned in the Prophets and the Apostlâ—s or the unwritten word of God coÌ„tained in Apostolical traditions definitions of the church and the uniforme consent of holie Councels and Fathers For still it is Gods or a Kings word whether it be immediately spoke by himself or by the mouth of another whom he authoriseth to speak or whither it be in writing And nothing else caÌ„ be unto us the rule to direct our faith except it first be knowen to be the word of God 28 My Minor is also true proved out of S. Augustine contra epistolam fundament Manich c. 5 Ego Euangelio non crederem nisi me ad haee commoveret Ecclesiae authoritas I should not beleeve the gospel except the authoritie of the church should move me thervnto Lanchius in his confess c. 1. and Brentius in his Prologo Kemnitij in examine CoÌ„cil Trident. Whitak contra Stapl. lib. 2. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policie lib. 1 pag. 84. et lib. pag. 200. et 142. doe all affirme that tradition of the church is necessarie to distinguish what bookes of scripture be scripture and what not And reason it self teacheth us since we doe not heare or see God or his knowen Prophets to write or speak this that is proposed unto us for the word of God most coÌ„venient it is least we wander in infinituÌ„ in proving the word of God by the private spirit and the private spirit by the word of God that there must be one certaine rule or depositum fidei and therfore St. Paul to Timothie â— 6. ch 20. Oh Timothee keep the depositum avoiding the prophane noveltie of voices and avoiding the opposition of falsly called knowledge which certain promising have eâ—red about faith and what that depositum is S Paul in his 2. to Tim 1. v. 13 â— 14 showes Have thou a forme oâ— sound of words which thou hast hâ—aâ—d of me in faith and in the love in Iesus Christ. Keep the good depositum by the holy ghost which dwelleth in us showing that Timothie and Christians ought to keep a certain platform of words delivered to them over and above his epistles which rule of words appropriated to high mysteries and matters of our religion as Trinitie Person Essence Consubstantial TransubstantiatioÌ„ froÌ„ one beginning Sacrament which the Apostle calls soâ—â—â—d words verba sana â— 29 You in 〈…〉 this my first a gâ—â—neÌ„t say that things may be belâ—â—ved though not gathred out of â—he written word understaâ—â—â—ng thâ—rby a humane and a common beleefe I know not what you mean by this except you would have Gods written word onely to be bâ—leâ—ved by a humane faith And therfore when I took you at your word and â—athered thâ—nce that some tradition or as you will terme it traditum is necessarily beleeved besides the written word For whâ— wee speak absolutely of beleefe in divinitie it is to be understood of a divine and not of a humane beleefe and when you speak of the cheef rule you say it may be bâ—leeved without the written word I might inferr that necessarilie it was to bâ— beleeved since you hold that the word of God is the word of God and that necessarily and so to be beleeved So that you may see that your water hath rather wet your shoes thâ—n that myne was spilt on the ground 30. 2. Wheras you say I doe vnjâ—stly condemn your assertioÌ„ that nothing to be beleeved is necessarie for salvatioÌ„ that is not taught by the written word I say most justly and I convinced you of falshood sufficiently when I sayd nothing is so necessarie to salvation by you as the written word which word is not proved by another written word of God To infirme which proofe of mine you produce two texts of scripture John 20 30 31. That
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
Now to folow your waÌ„dringes What dooth Gal 1. 8. say against that I set down The word besides meaneth as you think contrary to and not more then they had receaved because he forbidds not any explication or true gloss c. I answer you weary your selfe and others to prove that which none denyeth Explications of Gods law by the mouth of his ministers are allowed of God Nehem. 8. 8. these are not additions such as God forbiddes Galat. 3. 15. Our question is of other or moe lawes or doctrines then God hath taught And vnto those which the Prophets had writteÌ„ and Paul with the other Apostles taught none might be added For he kept back nothing that was profitable but taught the whole counsel of God Act. 20. 20. 27. so then whatsoever men could add more or besides was not profitable neyther any of Gods counsel therefore it was contrary and so may be put among Popes traditions For their doctrines and traditions are as evidently contrary to Gods word as darknes is to light Such be your image worship contrary to Exo. 20. 4. your praying to creatures contrary to Mat 4. 10. Rom. 1. 25. service in a barbarous vnknowen tongue contrary to 1 Cor. 14. 11 16. 28. robbing the people of the chalice in the sacrament contrary to Mat. 26. 27. justification by mens works contrary to Rom. 3. 20. 22. 24. and 4. 2 3 c. and many other idolatrous observations as plainly contrary to Gods law ever vvere the abominations of the heathen Finally Chrysostome a Doctor whome you rely vpon sayth that Paul preferreth the scriptures before Angels from heaven Here then if you wil beleeve him is no place at al for vnwritteÌ„ traditions Whereas you bring Rom. 16. 17. to shew that para meaneth contrary no man denyeth it but that it signifieth no more then contrary in your sense you prove not In Rom. 1. 25. you may see parâ— ton ktisantâ— meaneth any thing â—â—sides the creator onely But our strife was not about para or Gal. â— You 〈◊〉 as the Prophets additions to Moses law were Gods so the churches definitions are Gods not mans I deny your 〈◊〉 the churches additionâ— which you call definitions are not Gods as the Prophets writings 〈◊〉 were added to Moses books you are not farr froÌ„ blasphemie in making such a comparison If that were true you might read and expound as authentick scriptures your churches additions and Popes traditions as Christ read Esaias the Prophet and expounded hiâ— in the synagogue Luk. 4. 1â— 21. The proofs you would bring are Luk. 10. 16. he that heareth you heareth me c. Mat. 18. 1â— 18. tel the church c. Deut. â—9 15. or 〈◊〉 they shall stand before the Lord before the Preists c. I answer these scriptures shewe not that they might add any thing to the word of God but they prove the coÌ„trary For they were sent to preach the Gospel Mark 16. 15. that was Gods word not any creatures Thes 2 2. 4. 13. So they were not additions not definitions of their own such as your church makes Also the Preists were bound to teach Gods lawes not their owne Ezek. 44. 24. And so the hearing of them that teach Gods word is the hearing of God himself in his ministers But the contrary to hear the churches traditions is not to hear God for they were many against God as you may see Mark â— 3. 4. 9. 10. c. For els behold what strange doctrine you wil bring in viz. that everie church yea every preist and minister may make additions to Gods law and the people must be bound so to receive them as Gods word Here to helpe your selfe you retire to your old skonce saying it is true of particular churches but so farr as their doctrine accordeth with the Somane catholick church A meer fiction of your own head what one title of Gods word doo you or can you bring for this stuft did Christin Luk. 10. 16. speak to the church of Rome more then to the Church of Corinch Ephesus or any other you make your Roman Church an idol by putting her in Gods place to give lawes you make her a monster whiles being a particular Church you proclaym her for the catholik that is vniversal Church And her doctrine if it accord not with Christs as it dooth not is with her to be abhorred and accursed Gal. 1. 8. By this which hath bene sayd let the prudent judge how soundly you haue proved that any other word or doctrine then Gods may be brought into the Church for a ground of our faith which was the first thing in controversie The 2. part that you are to prove as you say is that the rule of our faith is not onely the written word but jointly the unwritten word of God tradition and the authority of the Church councils fathers is the ultimate decider of all matters of controversie In this assertion you confasedly shuffle togither for your advantage the church councels fathers By the Church you mean your Romish Church which is none of Christs and therefore can judge no Christian controversie Councils and fathers are named but for a show For â—oâ— regard nothing that Councils or Fathers say vnless your Pope approve it On the contrary I hold that Gods written word is to be the rule of our faith and by it all churches Councils Fathers are to be tried whether they be of God or no. But let us heaâ— your proofe That which was say youâ— the total rule of our faith before the written word of God man be wel the partial rule of our faith after where the written word of God dooth not sufficiently cruâ—â—ss diverse mysteries of us to ve beleeved But tradition was a sufficient and total rule of our faith till Moyses time the first 〈◊〉 of the holy Ghost Therfore traditioÌ„ now together with the written word is a sufficient rule of our faith The firâ— prop. you say 〈◊〉 proved the second you â—aâ— is graunted by me I answer If the writings of God were as dark and deceitfull as is this your writing it were woe with vs all In the first proposition you say it may well be the partiall rule of our faith in the conclusion you say it to so If I should say It may wâ—ll be your argument is deceytfull and conclude therefore it is deceâ—tfull would you graunt the conclusion yet is it truer then yours For that which was a rule before may be a rule still if it please God so to continue it this you need not labour to prove But that which was a râ—â—â— before neyther may nor can be a rule still when God hath taken it away put another in the sted And this is the very truth if you would receive it For before Gods law was written it was spoken and by speech from the mouth of holy persons it was to be learned But now it is written oâ—
Gods commandment Exod. 34. 27. so sufficiently written as Paâ—…th it is able to make us wise vnto salvation even perfect and perfectly furnished vnto every good work 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. away therfore with your partiall rule oâ— vnwritten traditions they may not be neyther are they any rule for our faith for noâ—e must prefume above that which is written 1 Cor. 4. 6. But you ad a clawse to your proposition thâ—s where the written word dooth not sufficiently erpress divers mysteries of vs to be beleeved And where is that trow we I your assumption this clawse dares not shew his face for there it would conâ—â—nce you of falseshood If you affirme it not how frivolous deceytfull is your argumet If you intend to assume it though you express it not for so elsewhere you blame me for not vnderstanding your reasoning then say â— by your assumption you intend a lye against the truth and a stander against me It is a ly against the truth to say that the holy bible which we have written dooth not sufficiently express diverse mysteries of â—s to be beleeveâ— If have before disproved this by evident testimonies from heaven which you cannot withstand Ioh. 20. 31 2 Tim. 3. 1â— 17. Rom. 1â— 25. 26. 1 Cor. 15 3. 4. Aâ—â— 26. 22 Ioh. 5. 39. It is aslander against me when you say I grant your Minor for if this clause be there intended I did and doo disâ—â—aym it Your conclusion can be no better then your premisses even false and fraudulent Which that you or others at least may the better espye I wil shew how you wrap vp things in confusion and darknes First Tradition which title you claym for your vnwritten mysteries is as well the word of God written as vnwritten 2. Thes. 2. 15. but you doo oppose it to the written word Secondly holy Tradition or Doctrine by word of mouth was delivered alwayes by holy persons even as holy Tradition or doctrine by writing was delivered alwayes by holy scriptures The holy persons that spake were eyther God himselfe as to Moses in the Mount to Iob in the whirlwind or some Angel as to Abraham Iaakob c. or some holy man of God as Peter sayth spake being moved by the holy Ghost So Abraham is called a Prophet and so vvas Iaakob and all the holy patriarches from Adam to Moses The manner of speaking the vvord vvas also diverse as by visions or by dreames or by playn speech mouth to mouth or by secret motion of the holy Ghost Novv you shevv not vvhich of these vvayes your traditions come onely you give vs a generall paralogisme vvhich vvill serve as vvel to maynteyn H. N. or Mahomet vvith their nevv Gospel and Alkoran as the Pope vvith his nevv Canon lavv For thus may Mahomet or the Familist reason that vvhich vvas a rule heretofore may be a rule stil but the vvord of God given by visions revelations and instinct of the spirit vvas a rule heretofore therefore it is so still at least in part Here is as good and true an argument as yours that your Logik vvill persvvade as soone to Mahometisme or Familisine as vnto Popery Novv as for the persons there vvil be no disparagement For Mahomet himselfe or H. N. vvill as easily be proved to be holy men of God as Pope Iohn the 23. vvho vvas judged by the Council of Constance to be a divil incarnate and as other your reprobate Popes that vvere monsters among men for their beastly life til their dying day as your ovvn vvriters doo record and your selfe in this your vvriting deny it not nor defend them herein And novv I pray you tel me vvhy men may not be induced by your manner of reasoning as vvel to receive the Turks Alkoran and H. N. his Evangelium regni as your Popish decretals I find no more mention in Gods book that the Pope of Rome in the vvest churches should be a divine person to give heavenly traditions then that Mahomet in the East should be the man of God You find not so much as the Popes name much less his provvd office spoken of for good in the Bible You tel us of the promise to Peter Mat. 16. and Mahomet telleth us of the promise of the comforter Ioh. 16 7. That the Pope is head of the church is as vnpossible for you to prove by Gods lavv as it is for the Turks to prove that Mahomet is that Comforter You vvould have vs take the Popes ovvn vvord for a vvarrant the Turks vvould have us take Mahomets vvord for a vvarrant The truth is these both vvith their new doctrines and traditions are the curse and scourge of God vpon the world because they received not the love of the truth therefore God hath sent them strong delusion to beleeve lyes as th' Apostle prophesied 2 Thes. 2. 10. 11. You proceed for vnwritten tradition cite some scriptures Deu. 32 â— Ps. 43. 1. Ps. 77. Pro. 1. 8. Esa. 38. 19. Ier. 6. 16. Ecclus. 8. 11. 4. Esd. 14. â— 2. Thes. 2. 15. 1. Tim. 6. 20 2. Tim. 2. 1 from all which you inferr that Israelites and Christians were to be directed by the help of traditios I answer your reasons from most of these and the like places I have taken away in my former writings Here you repete the same scriptures againe but ansvver not vvhat I sayd you may thus doo a 100. times and vveary men vvith your tautologies Vnto the things vvhich heretofore I vvrote and vvhereto I referr you I novv add All parents vvere bound to teach Gods lavv to their children and children to heare obey their parents in the Lord. Deut. 6. 7. Eph. 6. 1. 4. If this serves for traditions then vnvvritten verities from all parents mouths vvere to be received as oracles of God If you hold thus I pray you tel it plainly If not then shevv vvhich parents had the facultie to teach traditions and vvhich had not 2. The traditions vvhich those scriptures speak of being novv vvritten are a part of the canonicall bible to be read and expounded in the church as being inspired of God profitable to teach c. if such be the traditions of your fathers Councils Popes which the vvorld seeth now vvritten then are they to be acknowledged also scripture inspired of God as Paul speaketh and so to be read and expounded in churches as other books of the Prophets and Apostles For all Gods divine oracles and traditions are of equall authority If you esteem your decretals of this vvorth I pray you tel me in your next If not then the scriptures by you cited vvill justify your Popes traditions no more then the Pharisees Mar. 7 3 6. 7. 8 9. 13. That the Doctrines taught by the fathers in Psal. 44. and 78. vvere vvritteÌ„ traditions the particulars in the Psalms doo evince against your too bold asseveratioÌ„s For the casting out
of the hethens planting Israel spoken of in Ps. 44. was largely vvritten in the book of Iosua The things rehearsed throughout Psa. 78. are writteÌ„ in Exo. Num. Ios. Sam. c. So the evident scriptures doo coÌ„vince you The old good vvay Ier. 6. 16 vvas the law taught by Moses and the Prophets Psa. 103 7. Deut. 8. 6. 9. 12. and 11. 22. 28 and 31. 29. Iudg. 2. 17. this law vvas vvritten and to this did the Prophets call the people Isa. 8. 20. Mal. 4. 4. and from the other ordinances of their fathers Ezek. 20. 18. And this vvith the accomplishment of the promises vpon them that vvalked therin vvas the truth vvhich the fathers should tel their children Isa. 38. 19. as appeareth Deu. 6 6 7. Ioh. 17 17. And the things vvhich Solomon teacheth as a father Prov. 1. 8. c. are vvritten in that other his books Prov. 22. 20. Eccl. 12. 10. and of other things he vvilleth us to take heed Eccle. 12. 12. That strange it is any man reading the scriptures should plead against them as insufficient to teach us all doctrines needfull for salvation Vnto Ecclus. 8. 11. I think you meane v. 8. 9. I answer the book is not authentik and so proves nothing yet if the author mean the Elders doctrine agreeable to the law his counsel is good If he mean other humane traditions of the Iewes then I answer the vvisdome of Iesus the soon of Sirach herein is proved to be foolishnes by the doctrine of Iesus the Sonn of God Mark 7. 7. 8. 13. Vnto 4. Esdr. 14. 5. 6. I answer the author is a fit man to bolster vp popish traditions by signes and lying vvonders He telleth as you allege of doctrines that Moses vvas not to teach but to hide These then apperteyned neyther to law nor gospel Deu. 32. 4. Rom 10 5. 6. 8. I am content therfore that they go among the Popes decrees He telleth that Gods law vvas burnt and that he vvould vvrite agayn all that had been doon in the vvorld since the beginning This lye is vvorthy to be put into your Legendaurie But what forgeries vvill not you bring to help your Pope withal To this also you may ad if you please your tale fathered vpon Dyonysius Areop with the vvriter thereof as vnlike that Dionyse in Act. 17. as Esâ—ras the 2. vvas to Ezra the first Vnto 2. Thes. 2 15. I answer all Pauls traditions I vvill gladly admitt of but not of the Popes therefore any more then of Mahomets Besides Paul taught nothing but from the vvritteÌ„ law Act. 26. 22. yea that which he taught by word to these Thessalonians was from the scriptures as you may see Act. 17. 1. 2. 3. Vnto 1 Tim. 6. 20 and 2. Tim. 2. 1. I answer as to the former whatsoever doctrine is Apostolik is also authenticall and I imbrace it The thing committed first from God to Paul from Paul to Timothie from Timothie to others vvas the sound doctrine of the Gospel 1. Tim. 1. 11. â— Tim. 1. 10. 11. All vvhich is written in the bible sufficient for faith for all good workes and for vvisdom vnto salvation 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. So that vnwritten traditions are needless for the gospel of life though necessary I graunt for the stablishment of Poperie Besides you mark not that this committing of the vvord to Timothie and by him to others will cary the crown away froÌ„ Peters feighned successor the Pope That Timothies successors at Ephesus have more â—o shew for themselves theÌ„ the Byshops of Rome for authority of vnwritten traditions if any there be Whereas you say S. Paul spake the hidden mysteries in secret I know not vvhere you learned this vnless by some secret tradition at Rome For if they vvere the hidden mysteries of the Gospell Christ willed them to be preached openly and Paul himselfe testifieth that they vvere published among all nations even to every creature vnder heaven and he vvrote his Epistles which conteyn the hidden mysteries of the wisdome of God to vvhole churches to be read to all the brethren True it is he taught them orderly first the rudiments of religion or doctrines of the beginning of Christ vvhich he calleth milli then the higher mysteries which he caleth strong meat Which order of his all good Byshops and ministers of Christ should follow stil in feeding their flocks But that the mysteries of Christ should be spokeÌ„ by him in secret so as the yonger Christians might not freely hear or read them as you gather is a tradition of your own There is none of his Epistles vvherein you may not find both milk and strong meat and as he vvrote so he spake in his sermons It may be you have reference to 1 Cor. 2. 7. we speak the wisdom of God in a mysterie even the hidden wisdom c. If so then you corrupt both Pauls vvords meaning The mysteries were not hidden or conceled from any Christian but from the princes of the world and naturall man as the words following manifest 1 Cor. 3. 8. 14. and hidden not as vnlawfull for them to heare but as vnpossible for them to vnderstand though they heard because in their vvorldly wisdome they despised God 1 Cor. 1 18 20 21. c. Thus men may see into vvhat strayts you are driven to find out your traditions which cannot be mainteyned but by wresting the texts The 3. thing which you vndertake to shew is that your reasons for all my answers remayn in full force you repete your â— reason thus That which is not known for Gods word cannot be the rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knoweÌ„ for Gods word go Scriptures by themselves are not the rule of faith I answer first by imitating your argument thus That vvhich is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the rule of faith But Popes traditions are not knowen for Gods word Therefore Popes traditions are not the rule of faith On the contrary I reason thus That vvhich is known for Gods word is to be the rule of faith The holy scripture is known for Gods word Therefore it is to be the rule of faith The first proposition is by your selfe here proved The second was also by your selfe graunced S. 3. where you said of the scriptures thus we reverence them as Gods holy word derived from the fulnes of truth c. The conclusion must follow of the premisses so the truth hath wonne for the book of God your error for vnwritten traditions must give place or ells your owne mouth shall condemn you Secondly I answer your argument is deceytfull as your former vvas For to omitt that it is all of negatives vvhich in strict reasoning should not be you add a term in the 2. proposition vvhich vvas not in the first viz by themselves vvhich also you put in the conclusion This is no right nor
compared vvith Tob. 15. 18. 1. Maccab. 6. 16. vvith 2. Mac. 1. 16. 2. Macc. 1. 19. vvith 2. King 25. Iudith 9. 2. 3. vvith Gen. 49. 5. 6. Esth. apopcryph 12. 5. 6. vvith Esth. can 6. 3. and 3. 2. Esth. apoc 11. 2. vvith Esth. can 2. 16. besides their Popes determinations for making and vvorshiping of similitudes or images of silver and gold wood and stone hethenlike for having the vvorship of God and scriptures in a barbarous tongue vvhich the people understand not and many the like are expressly contrary to the commandements of God as any man of common judgment may evidently preceive yea some of their Popes have repeled the decrees one of another as before hath been manifested Eightly The summ of our faith learned from holy scriptures is to trust on God and Christ alone for mercy and salvation not on creatures as Angels and souls of men nor on our selves or humane merits vvhereby vve resting on God have and doo profess to have ful assurance of our salvation and so have peace of conscience in life and death But Popish faith learned by tradition teacheth men not to trust on God and Christ alone but on the intercession of creatures and Pardons of Popes and on their own merits also for salvatioÌ„ vvhereby their coÌ„sciences accusing them they neyther have nor profess to have such peace by full assurance that they are heyres of God unto salvation as vve nay they rage against this truth as against an heresie Ninthly The holy scriptures vvhich vve rest vpon are of such power and authority that many thowsands in their ages have given their lives for the defense of them and of the things taught onely in them yea even hereticks have dyed for things vvhich they have erroneously thought to be in the scriptures reveled But for Papists they cannot shew many if any that have vvillingly given their lives for such doctrines as have onely bene taught by men by unwritten popish tradition and not in their judgment by the prophetical and Apostolical scriptures Tenthly the Holy scriptures vvhich are the rule of our faith have prophesies of things to come and due accomplishments of the prophesies as they vvere foretold vvhereby vve are confirmed of the truth and infallibility of those vvritings But the vvritings of Doctors Councils Popes on vvhich Papists rely are destitute of this confirmation Neyther dooth the Pope use to prophesie though it vvere necessary if he vvould as Christs vicar obtrude his ovvn decrees for divine oracles seing the testimony of Iesus is the spirit of prophesie as the Angel sayd Rev. 19. 10. Nay rather the prophesies of scripture plainly foreshew the Church of Rome to be the whore of Babylon and her Lord the Pope to be Antichrist Which he fearing it wil come to light forbiddeth therfore his subjects the reading of Gods book Eleventhly Papists themselves are forced in disputing against Iewes which were once Gods church and from which they themselves with us received the books of Moses and the Prophets to use onely the holy scriptures and prophesies to convince them for their Romish church traditions the Iewes doo not regard With these scriptures the Papists doo rightly think the Iewes are sufficiently convicted Even so doo we much more having the scriptures of the new Testament added to the old rightly hold it sufficient to convince the Papists by the written vvord vvhich they acknowledge to be of God and they have no more reason to refuse this and draw us to their Popes decretals then the Iewes have to refuse the Bible and draw men to their high preists Rabbies and Thalmuds or the Turkes to their Alkoran 12. Finally grace vvisdom and divine majesty appeareth in the holy scriptures to all that read them except they have a reprobate sense even by the confession of our adversaries But no such vvisdom grace or majesty appeareth in Popes decrétals more then in other humane vvritings yea they are full of ignorance grossnes barbarisme error favouring of the Popes private spirit as any of understanding unless they be the Popes bondmen vvil confess and no singular grace appeareth in them more then in the books of H. N. or Alkoran of Mahomet For all vvhich and sundry other like reasons vvhich might be alleged every reasonable infidel vvhom God vvill save vvill rather incline to our grounds of ancient Christianity then to the other of late Iesuitisme or Popery Let him that readeth consider and give sentence By this vvhich hath bene vvritten you may see M. I. A. that we fly not for proof to our privat spirit as you often slander us but we say a Papist may be couvinced by the wisdome and majesty of God shining in the scriptures and other arguments forementioned more easily then an Atheist can be convinced by the wisdom and majesty of God shining in the creatures And if this later were sufficient by th'Apostles testimony to condemn the hethens the former must needs be more sufficient to condemn you especially seing you confess the scriptures to be of GOD vvhereas the Atheist will not confess the world to be of God and yet you dare not abide the trial of your religion by this book of God without your own traditions and decrees also Whereas if you graunt a Turk to be tried by the Bible and his Alkoran or a Iew to be tried by the Prophets and his Thalmud you will betray all Christianity And when one ask you a reason vvhy you beleeve the scriptures or any doctrine to be of God you answer that extrinsiâ—ally that is outwardly and in respect of your selves it is because your church that is the Pope vvho is head of your church telleth you so and not by your own private spirit Which is as if one should ask vvhy you beleeve the sun to be the light of the vvorld and you should answer extrinsecally because the Pope tells you so and not because of any private sight or discerning in your own eyes Ask you agayn vvhither you know the Pope to be a man of God furnished vvith his grace and spirit that he cannot deceive you You answer we hold not that the Pope is necessarily indued with Gods holy grace for in matter of faâ—t he may syn as wel as any other Ask you agayn how then you trust such vile ungracious Popes as many have been by your own mens testimony you answer you hold the Pope hath a necessary assistance of the holy Ghost as he defines ex cathedra out of his chayr as the head of the church Ask you a proof of this paradox and you cannot bring any one line of Gods holy scriptures to confirme it you can neythâ—r find the Pope nor his chayr there mentioned any more then Mahomâ—t or the Alkoran Then you flee to late humane testimonies of Doctors Fathers Councils vvhich also you vvrest Yet ask you vvhither those Doctors vvere necessarily indued vvith the spirit of God could not
eâ—r deceiv you You dare not say this nay in deed you deny it whiles you refuse any doctrine or expositioÌ„ give by Doctor Father or Council vvhich the Pope approves not of and this is ordinary to be seen in yourbooks Follow you now still vpoÌ„ vvhat assurance you stay it is your Pope is Christs vicar caÌ„not err ex cathedra because himself sayth so And this is to make him a God For onely God is the ground of truth on whose word al creatures should rest And so by this argumeÌ„t alone if there were no more your Pope is proved to be that maÌ„ of syn which exalreth himself above al that is caled God you are of those upoÌ„ vvhom God hath sent strong delusioÌ„ to beleeve lyes as the Apostle prophesied 2. Thes. 2. 4. 11. Besides it is against al reasoÌ„ to take a mans witness of himself The law of God and Christ is against it the law of maÌ„ coÌ„demns it Nemo in sua causa testis esse vel jus sibi dicere possit l Generali C. Ne quis 2. q. 1. C. de manifesta Behold M. I. A. this third time I have vvritten unto you God by me warning you of your fearfull estate Take heed and despise not the mercy of the Lord calling you to repentance Be not unsensible of your calamity extreme peril as he that sleepeth in the midds of the sea on the top of the mast and sayth they have striken me but I vvas not sick they have beaten me but I felt it not To day if ye vvil hear the voice of God harden not your hart least he swear in his anger that you shall never enter into his rest My prayer shal be against your evil and that you may finde mercy unto life if such be the vvil of God Amen From Amsterdam the 6. of November 1613. Your freind that vvisheth your vvelfare Henr. Ainsw I. A. his 4. and last writing to H. A. To his loving friend Mr Henry Aynsworth these At Amsterdam Mr H. Ainsworth AS small hope have you in deed of the former viz. the defense of the truth as you graunt you have of the second â—â—tendement of yours viz. my conversion For trust me your allegations your prooses are so weak though many in 〈◊〉 ber that I wonder that he that professeth himself to hunt after the light onely should content himself so in the dark like Senecaes poore blind woman who accounted all others to be blinde and that onely she did see But if you would as well have taken paines but even to have summed my reasons and proofes faithfully as you vainely repeate so often your owne Mine and yours indifferently paralleld would have manifested long ere this the truth But you conceale so my proofes and so magnifie your own that it is no wonder your seâ—tarâ—â—s prifeth yours as things of worth when in deed they are but gaâ—die glasse and plaine Bristowes stones in sted of Diamonds And therefore as I remit you for all your slight replie to my former answer in so many sheates of paper delivered so I remitt your auditorie but to compare both for their satisfaction and manifestation of the truth if they bee intelligible It being a tedious thing to take so often such fruictless paine as to plough 〈◊〉 so many sheetes the barraine sands A short answer especially being not compatible to many vnjoincted and scattered citations were not your vanitie therin sufficiently vâ—â—asked in the former And since you doe confess to bee tyred as indeed I profess I am but to reade your slight stuff I shall content my selfe to poinct out how you have satisfied me in no one poinct referring my selfe to my former defence which doth and shall stand in force for ought therin that you can justly oppugne To the first of mine wherein as I showe that your reasons vanish of themselves you keepe a greate pudder to no purpose Naie you overthrow your selfe graunting the vnwritten word of God to deepde controversies that the law must bee explicated by Preists For as traditions the vnwritten word are included and implied in the written word or belonge to the explication or performance of the same so also fasts feasts and ceremonies of the Church are virtuallie included in those generall precepts and prerogatives of the Church as I expressed in my former Now to add that which is gathered thence or to explicate that which is included is not contrarie as you doe in your replie not obscurely confess as I show in my 12. parag as also the 16. 17. parag is to answer Where as you charge me that you have often answered that which I object parag 20. I referr to the indifferent reader But verily I maie speake and not from my own judgment that your writings deserve no answer I answer Apostollicall traditions are to bee taught as the word of God and to bee expounded what then In answering my first reason faine you would reâ—aiâ— we with a spllogisme of your owne seing that which is known for Gods word is the rule of faith which I denie not But holie scriptures are knowne for Gods word which in your sense I denie For they are not knowen by themselves but by tradition and the authoritie of the church For many paâ—â—ells of scripture have bene doubted of by those that bragged of the spirit of God to discerne scripture And you neyther save your self from an infinite process in that kind if you could doe that how can you prove the whole Bible to be canonicall as I have proked In my 32 parag I fullie satisfied your tortured places and if I doe leave out som places it is in that they are virtuallie answered in other places expounded For if a man should examine each place you bring wee should never have an end And if the scriptures bee as cleare as the Sunne to be distinguished it followes that they must bee knowne of all if you saie of all his you doe petere principium since everie one will pretend to bee his I proved also by the authoritie of S. Aug that scriptures in Actu 2 to bee knowne to others requireth necessarily the authoritie of the Church to which as to verie manie places more you never answer You wrong your self and not I you since you giue just occasion to me to terme the guide of your religioÌ„ your privat spirit for the word â—pâ—ly befitts your grounds as I prove effectuallie and I doe convince that our faith is not subject to any such circular vagarie I resolving my religion into no other grounds then St. Cypr did his S. 55. And you might see if you would that the Pope doth not make what he wil a matter of faith but onely doth declare it parag 69. And to what end should I answer him that never answered me as I did procede but onely by snatches which is not to answer me but his owne phancie and
Then descending more particularly he answereth that my Major is too generall For he sayes many things may be beleeved though they be not gathered out of the written word so that we see he holds some tradition necessary besides the written word for he sayes to be beleeved that is with an act of faith now that which is to be beleeved must be certaine and must have also infallible most certaine motives proportionable to so firm an act and must be beleeved of those at least that are schollars who are more precisely to examine the articles of beleef then laiemen so that wee have drawen water out of the rock since you graunt that tradition is necessary to your own beleef which afterwards you deny when you say there is nothing necessarie to salvation but is taught by the written word For now I ask those many things that may be beleeved without the written word eyther have their motives infallible and sufficiently propounded so they shal be faultie if those schollers to whom they are sufficiently proposed beleeve not or else the motives that are propounded are not certaine infallible and constant and so they shall onely cause an opinion or at most a humane beleefe and not a most firme constant supernaturall art of faith that is ever most certaine and infallible caused by the written and the vnwritten word of God and the church propounding Moreover your answer is found halting when you say that there is nothing necessary unto salvation but is delivered by the writteÌ„ word which is most false since nothing with you is more necessarie unto salvation then the written word which word is not proved by an other written word for so that also by an other and so we should never have an end so that hence you must coÌ„fesse though against your position that something most necessary vnto salvation is to be belâ—eved and that without the written word now if that which is most necessary and the rule of all the rest be beleeved in that it is delivered by tradition surely things of lesse consequence though necessary to salvation may also be beleeved though ther is no written word of God to affirme it having tradition which is Gods vnwritten word tyme out of mynd to deliver it As for the proof of my Minor proposition you put down these words I cited though not learned out of Mr Hooker For if any book gives testimonie to the rest yet the scripture that gives credit to the rest would require another scripture to be credited neither could we come to any pause wheron to rest or assurance that way and if you answer that all scriptures are theopneustoi that is in pired of God I will graunt you that but I wil demaund how you prove that this book or this parcel of scripture without tradition is inspired of God For to say it is inspired of God by reason it is scripture and scripture by reason it is inspired of God is to prove idem per idem and petere principium to suppose that provâ—d which is given you to prove And besides I would know of you how you know that your interpretation is onely true But you have your answer ready ceyned you say the things of God no man knoweth but the spirit of God But how doe you prove you have the spirit of God How doe you prove you have the effect thereof in your conscience piercing more sharply then a two edged swoâ—d For the Mamchei Montanist Arian â—estorian Pelagian Semipeâ—agian Lutheran Calvinist Familist will â—ll boâ—st of this private spirit will all say they are illuminated of God that they have the spirit that discerneth all things they are able as wâ—l as you to uphold their religion with wrested peeces of the scripture Now whereas you object that the Turk câ—n urge against us their Allcoâ—ans antiquitie I answer no siâ—ce the Romane catholicke church can shewe their beginner beginning increase and their declining estate And wheras you object againe that Iulian the Apostaâ—a may offer plea with us for antiquitie I answer no since he went out of the catholick church to whose faith he was Apostata and therfore supposeth the catholik church to be more ancient then he as he particularly opposed himself against her And if it be here objected that the heatheâ—â—sme he â—â—lo is anciâ—â—ter then our Christianitie I grant all but not ancienter then Judai me For God is more ancient then the Divil truth then falshood and so those Christians that are most ancient have the most true religion Your second Objection made against this point I answer that the high Preisthood that was judge did not err in that Moses was never â—viltie of Idolatrie Moses was joint Priest with AaroÌ„ as it is recorded in the Psalmes Moses et Aaron in sacerdotibus ejus et Samuel inter eos qui invocant nomen ejus All which appeares and is most manifestly showen also in that he ordered Aaron Exod. 29 And in that there Moses is coÌ„manded to sacrificâ— Applicabis et vitulum etc. maâ— abis euÌ„ in conspect Dei etc. offeres incensum super altare And that Moses did execute al this it appeares out of Levit. 8. Likewise I answer that when our Saviour Iesus Christ was condemned the high preisthood did not err in that the high preisthood remayned in our Saviour for he was then cheif judge and decider or â—he the high preist was our Saviours superiour which ye wil not grant For that prâ—â—sthood was infallible onely till Christs coming being also clearly foretold that at his coÌ„ming the highpreist should concurr vnto his death and condemnation and so not to be directed by the holy ghost Finally wheras you would confute me by my own practise in that I râ—solve all things by the definitive sentence of the Church grounded on Christs promise to S. Peter Math. 16. that his faith should not faile and that he being converted he should confirme his brethreÌ„ all the other Apostles I answer that as our Saviour was of infinite grace and mercy to promise so he was of infinite power and fidelitie to perform Now wheras you object that I know onely this promise by Mat. 16. that by the Popes churches sâ—ntence I knovv onely S. Matthevves gospell to be canonicall and that the gospell of Nicodemus is not authenticke I grant all but I deny that here there is any maze or circle that you would fayne from hence inferr since this mutuall reference and reciprocall dependence is in diverse kindes and then Aristotle will tell you that it is no circle or vitious argumentation to demonstrate a causa ad effectum et ab effectu ad causam and a younge Philosopher wil tell you that the materia and the form doe mutually depend and reciprocally cause one an other but the one in genere subjecti and the other in genere causae formalis And as a Iewel in his prize