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
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
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
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
to man children when in danger of death before the eight day they necessarily were to receive remedie of their sinne How prove you that our blessed virgin Marie was a perpetuall virgin ante partum in partu et post partum how ar you able to prove this by the bare letter against Helvidius the heretick for he vrgeth you with the plaine text and with originall phrase viz. That he knew her not till the brought forth her first sonne and the word know you know what it imports in the Hebrew phrase As Abraham knew Sara So that you see we beleeve this perfection of the blessed and perpetuall Uirgin Mary by tradition though the bare text seems to make against it How doe you prove that our sunday should be celebrated on sunday and not on saterday by the bare letter without tradition How doe you prove the celebration of Easter as it is now without tradition How doe you prove the Creede of the Apostles out of the naked word How doe you prove without tradition that you should receive the blessed sacrament kneeling the receiving of it fasting the eating of blood and straÌ„gled meates prohibited in the Acts of the Apostles How are you able to prove all these or any one of these by convincing reasons out of the holy scriptures alone All these you say you can prove not alleaging one place of scripture for any of them though you have bene most copious to prove idem per idem in other pointes to little purpose Now you say onely it would goe hard with you if you could not prove these without tradition and me thinks it goes hard with you since you prove not one particular of them all Therfore I desire you that you would not confound your trace so like the Fore or hare in doubling and turning but that you would answer distinctly to each poinct as it lies if you answer Wherfore to shut up this point I will conclude with S. August Genes ad litt â— 10. â— 23. that as he sayes that the not rebaptising of infants were not to be beleeved if it were not taught by tradition So I say these forealleaged mysteries were not to be beleeved without the direction of tradition Now since we are come to the answering of your arguments which are nothing but allegations of scripture falsly applied me thinks I cannot better compare them then as to so many orient pearles and rich Jewels hung and placed out of order in an Judian or â—thiopians lippes nose armes and legges so these places of scripture in that they are racked and wrested from their right sence and meaning their lustre and beautie is rather a disgrace theÌ„ ornament to the wearer For when you bring the place of Deut. 5 32. to take heed that wee should doe as our Lord commaunded us not turning to the right hand nor the left and of that of Deut. 12. 32. not putting any thing therevnto or taking any thing therfrom I answer first granting that God commaundeth this but I deny that hence can be gathered that in that we should doe as our Lord commaundeth us and that we should not turne vnto the right hand or to the left that the holy scripture should be the onely rule and vâ—ptor of faith Fâ—r as it doth not follow nothing is to be added to the fourth coÌ„maundement and the fourth commandement is to be observed therfore there is onely the fourth commaundement and it is therfore the rule of all the rest 2. I answer that all additions whatsoever are not here prohibited but onely such as are contrary to the word of God For many other Prophets as the penn men of the holy Ghost did adde diverse yea most part of the holy scriptures But now it is plaine that the definitions and traditions of the Catholick church by whose mouth the holy Ghost doth dictat are most consonant to the text of scripture For the holy Ghost speaketh by them though not tanquam calamus velociter scribentis For Luke 10. it is sayd he that heareth you heareth me and he that contemneth you contemneth me Math. 18. If he doe not hear the church let him be to thee as an Ethnicke and a Publican and S. Ambrose expounding the last of S. John 18 v. where S. John saith If any man shall adde unto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues written in this book S. Ambrose saith he makes not a protestation against the expositors of his prophesie but against heretichs For the expositor doth adde nor diminish nothing but onely openeth the obscuritie of the place and sheweth the moral and spirituall sense Now to answer your second argument I wonder how you being a man of vnderstanding should be so much deceived as to think that these places make for you against vs. For wee holding firm our assertion can cite all the self same places Rom. 3. 10. 11 19. that man naturally understands not the things of God that mans wisdome is foolishnes Coloss. 2. 22. For we affirm it the gift of the holy ghost by an infused habit of faith that we beleeve and that by the directioÌ„ of the holy Ghost promised that the Church cannot â—â—r neyther doe we when we allow of tradition make at our pleasure voluntary religion for we acknowledge tradition also to be the word of God the voice of his spouse that is taught in al truth guided up the holy ghost vnto the end of the world Wherfore your argument proves nothing since you presuppose that proved that rests yet to you to prove The like answer I give vnto your third argument viz. that men are dead in trespasses Ephe. 2. 5. Math 15 9. that faith to by hearing and hearing by the word Rom. 10 17. But I deny that the word is the totall or onely rule of faith since we finde many thinges to be beleeved that are not expresslie found in the written word nor thence deduced And to answer breifly vnto your 4 Argument I graunt that the Preists and Prophets were bound to heare the word and that of Ezek. 13. 2 3. that they should not prophesie according to their own heart or follow their own spirit but I deny that they should follow onely the written word or that folowing the voice of the Church the interpretaton of holy Fathers and Doctors they follow their own harts and their own inventions So that you see how weake your arguments be so that they might with more reason bee returned on your self The second thing which you say I take vpon me to prove but more rightly to say onely to propound till the decision of this mayne question be ended which was whether the definitive sentence of the Church and Pope be an infallible rule and guide of our faith Thus questioÌ„ I say I onely inteÌ„ded rather to propound theÌ„ prove that we have not at one tyme diverse proâ—s togither in the fyre But now to handle it by way of vellitation and not of purpose
bare witnes of him so the Father which hath sent uâ— the scriptures beareth witnes of them Ye have not heard his voice at any time sayth Christ neyther have ye seen his shape his word ye have not abiding in you for whom he hath sent him ye beleev not So say I to you if ye beleev not the scriptures it is because the word of God abides not in you if you hear not them neyther wil you be perswaded though one rise from the dead agayn Luk. 16 31. But loe how you require proof of a received principle for which by lawes of right reasoning you deserv not to be reasoned with as a Christian It is the speech of an atheist to cal for proof that ther is a God of a Turk oâ— pâ—ynim to cal for proof that our divine scriptures are of God Professed Christians grant this why should we then warr one with an other about our own received grounds The books that I hold to be inspired of God authentik canonical your selves grant â—o to be Cease therfore I pray you to â—ight against God least by your own mouthes you â—s condemned But as yet you cease not for demanding how I prove without tradition the scripture to be inspired of God and my interpretation to be onely true you say I have my answer ready coyned viz. the things of God no man knoweth but the spirit of God It is wel my answer hath been coyned in the Lords mint and it shal be wel with you if you receiv your money from no worse coyners But what fault find you with this coyn you ask how I do proov that I have the spirit of God For my self first I answer with th'Apostle what man knoweth the things of man but the spirit of man which is in him I cannot make proof of that to an other which can be known but to my self onely as the tree is known by the fruits so may my spirit by the fruits thereof be discerned whither it be of God or no. For my interpretatioÌ„ I answer it may be truth it may be error let it be tried by the scripture it self of them that have the spirit of God Further proof ther is none on earth till the great day come when all secrets shal be made manifest But for the scripture vvhich is the thing you should keep unto it needs not my proof that it is inspired of God it hath proof in it self of God then vvhich can be no greater It is as if you should ask me proof that there is light in the sun my ansvver vvould be all vvhose eyes have the spirit of life and sight in theÌ„ doo see it the blind and senselesse can never discern it So is it much more in the things of God Learn it I pray you of our Saviour vvho saith that the vvorld cannot receive the spirit of truth because it seeth him not neyther knovveth him but yee my disciples knovv him for he dvvelleth vvith you and shall be in you and he shall teach you all things and he shall testify of me he shall glorifie me for he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you Now this Anointing or holy spirit all that are Christs have none other in the world and it dvvelleth in them and they need not that any man teach them but as the same Anoynting teacheth them all things and it is true and is not lying If you say with Nicodemus how can these things be I answer with Christ Verily verily we speak that we know and testify that vve have seen but ye receive not our vvitnesse If ye cannot perceive the vvind that blovveth nor knovv hovv the bones doe grovv in the vvomb of a woman with child how should ye know the work of God that worketh all If you see not Gods spirit in the script â—res it is because the eyes of your hart are blinded yet the light shines in darknes though the darknes comprehends it not If you still call for testimonie and proof of the spirit you have been answered it is the spirit which testifieth that the spirit is truth and if you refuse to walk in this light you must grope in darknes till you lye down in sorow But you still object as having a mist before your eyes that the Manichie Montanist Arian and all other haeretiks will vâ—aâ—â— of this private spirit c. be â—t â—o and cannot you trie the spirits as the Apostle biddeth whither they â—e of God doubtlesse if you were of God you should not onely trie and find out but overcome them for greater is he that is in the Saincts then he that is in the world this promise have we received from the Father 1 Ioh. 4 4. Againe you consider not though you were put in mind that Ievves Turks and Ethniks vvill beat you with your ovvn vveapons For the Iâ—vv resteth upon the books of Moses and the Prophets vvhich are the ground of our Christian religion and from them he reasoneth against â—esus of Nazareth our hope To allege novv against Ievves the authoritie of your catholik church or Pope is no more then for them to allege against youth authoritie of Annas and Caiaphas and the church of Israel If you confound not the Ievv by scriptures as did the first Christians by demonstration of the spirit and of power your self vvil turn back and be ashamed for no other weapons vvill vvin the victorie in this feild And the same vvill foile all Antichristians and heretiks vvhosoever for though they take up the sword of the spirit which is the word of God yet the true spirituall man vvhose eyes are in his head vvill return that svvord into their ovvn harts and slay them thervvith For the vveapons of our vvarfare are mighty through God to cast dovvn holds and a vvise man goeth up into the citie of the mighty and casteth dovvn the strength of the confidence thereof Prov. 21. 22. I but the Romane catholik church you say can shew Turks their beginner beginning increase and declyning estate And vvil not the Ievv say as much against us Christians that they can shevv our beginner beginning increase c. If this be your best defense the Turk vvill laugh you to scorn And IVLIAN the Apostata vvould not have his mouth stopped by your slight answer because he himself went out of the catholik Ch which was more ancient then he for then if a Ievv should novv come to your catholik church his brethren Ievves might stop his mouth by your yeason because he goeth out of a church more ancient then himself Iulian pleaded not for his own person but for Paganisme as much more ancient and universal then Christianisme vvhich if they be unfallible demonstrations of the truth our faith vvill perish unlesse vve deduce our antiquitie from paradise vvhere in deed Christianitie did beginn And so
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
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
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
partu et post partuÌ„ Besides the equallitie of three persons and their processions to Nestorius will not easily be proved or to an Arian if you stand onely to a writteÌ„ word for he will cite scripture for himselfe Pater major est me and if you say that is to be vnderstood onely in regard of his humanity and not in regard of his divinity he will bid you prove that by the written word and what place of scripture soever you shal bring he wil answer it with an other to his own purpose The like will the Annabaâ—tist doe about the baptisting of infants How will you without tradition prove the procession of the holy Ghost from God the Father and the Sonne as from one onely fountayne How wil they justify the not keeping of the Sunday on Saturday with the Jewes the receiving of the sacraments fasting the eating of blood and strangled meat prohibited in the Actes of the Apostles How can they cat a black pudding without the help of tradition since they know it is forbidden by the written word and no writte word found plainely to license it Therefore S. Paul seing how necessarie the vse of traditions were in Gods church so ofteÌ„ coÌ„mendeth it unto vs. Therefore brethren stand and holdthe traditions which you have learnt whether it be by word or by our 〈◊〉 Th'â—fficacy ' and force of which is so necessary by experieÌ„ce and so coÌ„ve nâ—â—t by the judgmeÌ„t of coÌ„moÌ„ sense that I wonder how men should deny the necessary vse therof For I aske if the Apostles were alive and should by word of mouth tel us the contents of many things conteyned in the scripture without all doubt with all readynes we should beleeve them why then will they not beleeve them that lived in the Apostles dayes and such holy Fathers as flourished shortly after Dyâ—â—isnis Areopagita affirmeth the Liturgie of the Masse for the dead to be an Apostolicall tradition in fine eccles Hier. c. 7. parte 3. Tertull. de corona militis S. Aug. De cura pro mortuis c. 1. D Chrvs. homil 3. in epist. ad Philipp in Morali D. Damascen sermone de defunctis initio Also the â—rcede is affirmes to be an Apostolicaâ—l tradition sic Ruffinus in exposit symboli in principio D. Hier. epistol 61. c. 9. D. Ambros. sermone 38. D. Augustinus de Symbolo ad Catech lib. 3. c. 1. Yea that traditions wâ—re of this account we may gather out of the antient Fathers of the Church We may easily gather by the irreverend speaches which Doctor Whitaker vseth against S. Chrysostom for whereas he in the 2 of the Thess. 4 graunts that traditions are as wâ—ll to be beleeved as scripture he sayth his speach was irreverend and vnworthy of a Father And wheras Euseb. lib 1. De demonstrat Euangel c. 8. sayth the Apostles did publish and propagate the fayth of Christ partly by scriptures and partly by tradiâ—iâ—â—s he breifly rejects one of the famousest recorders of antiqâ—â—ty saying his authority is not to be received Raynolds also in his conclusions aâ—â—ered to his conference 1. conclus pag. 689. Cartwr â— 8. in his defense pag. 103. affirmes that the fathers did still allow of vâ—written traditions Wherefore I will breifly conclude this point showing that a man ruled by his private spirites direction can have no faith For since they beleeve scriptures only to be scriptures in that 〈◊〉 are delivered vp by the Church why should not they theÌ„ beleeve any thing that the Church with a generall consent propouâ—â—eth as ◠〈◊〉 of our beleefe For if I beleeve the relation of my freind because my freind tells me I must beleeve all that my freind relates with the like firme assertion and with the like reason or else I doe not beleeve my freind but my owne affection that is thereunto incliâ—ed to beleeve the one and not beleeve the other No more doth no protestaÌ„t or any other sect beleeve with a supernatural act of faith for then would â—e beleeve al that the scripture propoâ—â—â—eth to be beleeved aswell as beleeve the scripture by reason it is of her propounded else they beleeve onely their private spirits dictament and fanâ—ies that hath derived unto the knowledge of many other mysteries as well as of the truth of the scriptures The second thing I am to prove breefly is that the Popes definiâ—ive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficieÌ„r rule in matters of faith The which is proved out of Luc. 22. Simon ecce Sathan expetivit vos ut cribraret sicut triticuÌ„ ego auteÌ„ rogavi pro te ut â—ides tua non deficiat et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuo Where our Saviour that is the founteyne of all grace and goodnes sayth that he hath prayed for S Peter and so coÌ„sequently for his successors since Christ speaketh of the confirmation of the Church against hell gates not onely for a tyme but for ever promising that S Peter and their faith should not faile commaunding both him and them and therefore bidding theÌ„ coÌ„firm their brethreÌ„ And that this prayer was powred forth for S. Peter and his successors appeareth â—vidâ—tly First iâ— that our Saviour points forth one particular man saying Simon Simon particularizing the speech with a pronowne of the second person saying for thee thy fayth and thy brethren 2. Though our Saviour did begin to speake in the plurall number Sathan expetivit ut cribraret vos Sathan desired to sift you immediately changeth the maÌ„ner of speech I haue prayed for thee and not for yee 3. Our Saviour prayeth for him to whom he bidds thou being converted confirme thy brethren but onely S. Peter and not the Church in generall hath brethren Besides S. Math 16. He sayth he builds his church vpon S. Peter Tues Pâ—trus et super hanc Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam and therevpon he chaunged his name of Simon he makes him Peter and Petra and Cephas which name in the Spriaâ—k tong signifyes a rock thereby to prevent all fâ—â—volous answers to a point so clearly declared As appeareth first in that first he designes him first out by the name of his father Bar Jonas 2. by his own name Simon then doth he as it were seclude him from the rest saying super hanâ— Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam then by the authority and preheâ—inence given him showed by the delivery of the kepes All which the auncient Fathers doe affirme with an uniform consent as Tertull lib. dâ— praescript Orig. homil 5. in Exod. Sanctus Cypr de unitate Ecclesiae S. Hyll Cano 16. in Mat. S. Ambros. sermo 47. 68. lib. 6. in cap 9. Luc. D. Hier. lib 1. in lovini S. Epiph. in Anchor S. Chrysost. homil 55. in Mat. etc. every one of them affirming expressly that the Church of God was built on S. Peter as vpon a rock Besides this our Saviour in S. John 21. gives S.
institutions c. Why did they in the printed Bible 1â—62 thrust in Rom. 11. Baals image which now Bible â—595 to corrected And if every image be an idoll as they translate it why Genesis the first can we not say God created AdaÌ„ according to his own idol And that all images in the old law were idols Exod. 25. 3. Regum 6. Why doe they make the Hebrew and Greek word that signifies hell when they list onely to signify the grave Though it be against scripture it self Gen. 37. I will goe down to the grave to 〈…〉 mourning which cannot signifie though racked in sense the grave since he thought his sonne to be devoured of wild beasts and so vnburied without a grave But when the self same word Prov. 15. speakes of the danâ—ied they translate onely hell how then can the parallising and coÌ„paring of one place with an other settle all doubts of the ignorant stop the mouth of the contrarie part who shall affirm that it is not the true sense Nay if scripture be a most manifest interpreter of it self Why did Luther that affirmed before this assertion of yours in assertione articulorum 10. damnatorum retraetate and recall that opinion of his before his death in colloq conviviali titulo de verbo Dei No man can vnderstand sayes he the Bucolica of Uirgil except hâ— be first five yeares a shepheard No man can vnderstand his Gâ—oâ—â—icks except he be five yeares a husbandman so let every man know that he hath not tasted sufficiently the scriptures except he hath governed in it a hundred yeares Nay if holy scriptures be so easy of themselves to be understood why doth Luther cal the epistle of S James stramineam and vnworthy of an Apostolicall spirit Why doth Beza writing on the eight chapter call into question the whole book of S. John when he averrs that it was not probable that our Saviour was left alone in the temple with a woman or that he did write in the dust with his finger My fourth argument you being forth thus That which by the lights lanterns of your opinion hath been wronged in the highest degree to bolster up heresie can not be a true and indeficient rule of faith You geaunt my assumption and you instance it in Luther Calvin Beza Onely to answer this you think it sufficient to say it is a rhetorical flourish No flourish that by your own confession hath flonge down your strongest pillars But you say it is the fault in them which willingly I graunt but with this addition that there is the like in you And I pray you tell me if all that have gone over such a bridge being in their right senses perfect judgmeÌ„ts have bene drowned would you think that bridge remayning thus unrepaired as it is a sure safe way So if all or most that have trusted to the naked and bare word of the scripture onely and to their own witts and spirits have grossely and dangerously erred wil you hold it so remayning an vndeficient rule Nay if the bare word so coÌ„firmes them in their errors that without some one common and visible judge they stil remain stiff in their errours can the bare word be the indeficient onely and the infallible rule But that it is so dispute against the Lutheran Calvinist Zuiâ—glian Anabaptist Protestant Faâ—â—list and they wil ell â—ite place of scripture interpretation for interpretation spirit for spirit â—ieng and reâ—ying you with places and spirits dictamâ—ns telling you long stories of the communication of the holy Ghost Wherefore I will conclude breifly this argument that the naked and bare word of the scripture cannot be an infallible rule and judge sâ—…t doth not make the partie overthrowen certaine that the sentence as much as lieth in the judge is passed against him which is the propertie of the sentence of every supreme judge that his decree be plainly seen and that without all contradiction the partie overthrowen in law may yeeld unto it For else there is no end of sentence no end of judgement if the partie overthrowen may with the like probability as before recomâ—nence his suite and offer plea without any â—â—d My fift argument which you put downe thus Many misteries of our faith are beleeved which explicitely are not declared in the word of God nor so infalliblie prescinding from all traditions of the church deduted thence so as they are sufficient to make a man beleeve with so firm an act of â—aith as is required Therefore that which makes that worthy of constant beleefe is a rule of faith aswel as the written word whether they be traditious divine or Apostolicall Now to all the places I bring to prove traditions How the world was onely governed and taught by traditions till Moses tyme who was the first pen-man of the holy Ghost and to that Ero. 14. Deu. 32. 37. c. you graunt that traditions were before necessary but you deny that they are now a rule of faith But you assigne no reason but onely this in disputing as if it were the total rule of faith where I would inferr onely that it was a partial togither with the word of God And whereas you object that these traditions spoken of in Deut. might for the Jewish Cabalists which are rejected by S. Peter 1. Pet. â— Tit. 1. 14 as vain conversation and Jewish fables Is plaine against the holy scriptures Deu. 32. interroga patrem tuum et anuntiabit tibi majores tuos et dicent tibi Ask thy father c. Ero. 14. Narrabis filio tuo in illa die dicens hoc est quod fecit Dominus Et Iob. 8. Iud. 6. Psal 43. Psal. 47. Eccles. 8 where it is plaine that the holy Ghost speakes of such traditions that are good to be followed not to be estemed vain idle fabulous To that of S. Pa to the Thes. is plaine that the Apostle speakes of that which was taught by word of his mouth yea of such traditions as you call humane in vs. For when S. Chrysost. comes to explicate the 2 Thess. 2. he explicates it so plainely for such traditions as wee have in controversie that D. Whitaker de sacra scriptura pag. 678. sayes that S. Chrisost. spoke in this point inconsiderately vnworthy of so great a father Therfore S. Paul and S. Chrysost vnderstood more here by traditions then you would willingly vnderstand And that not onely things of little consequence but of greatest moment are beleeved onely by tradition I prove manifestly since the Bible can not be canonicall without it were delivered by the hand of traditioÌ„ froÌ„ tyme to tyme as authenticke And besides how can you prove the procession of God the son and God the holy Ghost from God the Father as from one beginning or the consubstantilitie of the blessed Trinitie How are you able onely by bare scripture to prove the remedie in the old law vsed to women children for original sinne and
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
the Martyrs of the primitive church yoâ— will allow of for your Martyrs whether of S. Laurence or â—o 7. Whether you allow of Constantius the first Christian Emperour to be of your religion 8. Whether you will allow of any of our three conversions of England to have been to this religion which you now professe 9 Whether you hold that those that have died or shall die resolved Romane Catholicks have bene or shal be saved 10. Whether you will graunt the Church of Christ or the synagogue of the Jewes to be more visible or less subject to ruin and subversion 11. Whether you allow of the last edition of the protestants Bible or else what edition you propound to your flock â—â—â—etest to be folowed 12 Whether sufficiencie onely since I take you hold ordering or imposition of hands not to be vsed is to be required to make one of your teaching Elders or if onely that sufficeth not to assigne what more is required To these questions I intreat you Mr Henry Aynsworth that earnestly to give an orderly breife and distinct answer to ech one of these questions for on the resolution of these many fruitfull consequences may be gathered to make easie any poinct hereafter to be controverted betweene vs. But now breifly to set downe my arguments which I maintain stil you have not satisfied in no one poinct I will therfore breifly set them downe in forme desiring an answer as breif yet as solid and as substancial as you can affoard onely graunting denying or distinguishing which in deed is to answer in forme like a scholler Your conclusion as I take was this The written word of God contained in the Bible is the onely sufficient rule of our faith My reasons were these in substance to prove the contrary though the same in word I can not affirme not having one line of yours or my conference That which is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the onely rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knowen for scriptures go the bare scriptures which is the written word of God can not be the onely rule of faith My Major is most certaine and evident My Minor I proved out of Dr. Whitaker Hooker Zanchius Brentius all holding traditioÌ„ necessarily to distinguish scriptures froÌ„ no scriptures Also I take I proved this out of the holy Councells out of S. Augustin contra epistolam fundamenti Manichaeic 9. Ego Euangelio non crederem c. I would not beleeve the Gospel except the authoritie of the church should move thervnto Neyther did you answer my Minor when you said scriptures â—r knowen by themselves For first you slight and let slip the authority of those that in common reason I should beleive assoâ—ne as your self 2. You doe not answer to the authoritie of S. Aug 3. your answer is against common sense Since if scriptures were as prime a principle as that the sun shines or that honie is sweet no man could beâ— ignorant thereof that had all his naturall faculties and if more then the natural faculties and the object disposed be required you eats your owne words For then it is not so knowen a truth And how shall I know I have this spirituall eye of discerning truth more theÌ„ my adversarie that accepts of some things for no scripture that I do allow of as scripture c. Why had not S. Aug this â—ie that with whole Councel of Carthage accpted of the bookes of Machabees as divine and Canoricall scripture why had not S. Hierom that translated the holy scriptures Another reason that I urged was thus Many things were beleeved before the written word of God many things are now beleeved that are not expressely taught in the written word of God go the written word of God is not onely the rule of faith The first part of my Antecedent is easily proved For the church of God till Moses tyme was well governed and yet had no written word My second part was proved I giving instance that the Sacrament in the old law for expâ—ating of original syâ— in women The mysterie of the B. Trinity that God the holy ghost did proceed froÌ„ God the father and God the sonne as from one beginning That Easter day should be celebrated on Sunday and not on Saturday That the Creede of the Apostles is to be beleeved and yet no one of these is expressely taught in holy scriptures you sayd yes but you cited no place of scripture for probation thereof Moreover you have not satisfyed the places of holy scripture I cited to prove traditions especially you have not answered to that place of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. v. 15. nor to the authoritie of S. Chrysost. homilie 4. iâ—â— Thes. 2. wherin Dr. Whitaker sayes he speaks unworthy of so holy a father nor to the place off Basil or S. Hierom or S. Aug. De Genesi ad literam lib. 10. c. 23. where he tearheth many fasts feasts solemnities to be kept and beleeved onely through tradition and he testifieth there that in no wise we could beleeve the baptising of childreÌ„ without vnwritten tradition Another which I vsed was this That which is most difficult hard and almost for occurring difficults inexplicable can not be to the unlearned at least a certaine and unfallible truth But the scriptures are thus as well witnesseth your own conscience and divers places I set downe that seem to contradist one another go Moreover how should an artificer know whether this Bible be well translated or no since he can neyther conferr it with the original or the vulgar Latin And I showed how these difficults are not trivial Amongst other places I cited that place of S. Peter the â— chapter v. 16. In which are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the unlearned and vnstable deprave as also the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition No doubt S Peter meanes of those things S. Paul delivered touching vocation grace justification and predestination In which I showed how parvus error in principio magnus est in sine to which the words of S. Peter alludes to as also the rest of the scriptures meaning that an error in some one transcendall poinct of these doe cause error in many other places that depend hereupon But is these and more plainly examplified I had nothing but quotations imâ—ertinently alleged and no determinate answer to the difficult That whose onely the hath been defective and erroneous yea to the greatest Elercks to every one howsoever unfâ—ilfull and unlearned can not be a certaine and unfallible rule of faith But that the bare scripture is so I showed by diverse seming plaine piares cited by the Arrians Pelagians Semipelagians Donatists EutheraÌ„s Anabaptists â—t All which vie scripture for scripture If you give an interpretation of their place of scripture that they bring to confirme their hereste they will give also an interpretation
Apostles or from Apostolicall men 23. And not without great reasoÌ„ doth God use that means both to ad estimatioÌ„ to his holy mysteries to preserve these pretious stones for the Jewellers that did know how to prise theÌ„ that even natural reason hath taught and that the very Heathen Philosophers have used therby to adde prise and to distinguish the fitness of the auditor Pythagoras therfore taught his schollars rather by word of mouth relation of others then by Dictats or writing Gallen also lib. 2. de Anatomicis Adminiculis declares how the auncient Physitians did preserve and teach their medicines and receipts onely by verball relation froÌ„ one from another Cicero 1. De legibus affirms that it is a great error in a well governed coÌ„mon wealth to have all governed by written lawes And therfore the most ancientest and famous Rabbines and not onely they but our Hyllarius and Origen doe teach that Moses had not onely delivered him the tables of the law in the mountaigne but also most secret and hidden mysteries and explication of the law which truth the author of the first book of Esdras doth not obscurely testifie c. 14 5. I have declared to Moises many miracles and I sayd vnto him saying these wordes thow shalt speake openly and these wordes thow shalt hide and of such secret mysteries that of the Psal. 43. psal 77. Deutr 32. is to bee understood And in regard of these hidden mysteries Dyonis Areopag lib. de caelest Hierarchia â— 1. most diligently warnes Timothie That he should not disclose these things to the rude people So that we see God writ in Moyses heart many thinges that he did not write in the tables of stone This made St. Paul to speake the bidden mysteries in secrett and to give the little ones milk in that their weake stomackes could not brooke other meate And yet by pour rule Mr. H. Ainsw new borne babes like Ostreches should devour proÌ„ in freclie reading applying and epplicating the difficult places of scripture 24. Now since the second and third question are so neerely confined that the ending of the one is the begining of the other the ending of my reasons the begining of your answers and so requiring a resutation of them I thought good having in generall proved the necessitie of tradition besâ—des the written word to end my second part and with my particular proofes to begin the third poinct in interlacing the reasons answers replications together in order but both as breifly as I can 25. My first Reason to prove that the written word of God without the vâ—written word of God Tradition and the definition of the â—h is not the rule of faith in summe is this 26. That which is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knowen for Gods word go scriptures by themâ—â—lves are not the rule of faith 27 My Major is most certaine since nothing can be the indeficient rulâ— of all truth revealed and to bee revealed but the word of the first veritie God which is eyther the writteÌ„ word of God conteyned in the Prophets and the Apostlâ—s or the unwritten word of God coÌ„tained in Apostolical traditions definitions of the church and the uniforme consent of holie Councels and Fathers For still it is Gods or a Kings word whether it be immediately spoke by himself or by the mouth of another whom he authoriseth to speak or whither it be in writing And nothing else caÌ„ be unto us the rule to direct our faith except it first be knowen to be the word of God 28 My Minor is also true proved out of S. Augustine contra epistolam fundament Manich c. 5 Ego Euangelio non crederem nisi me ad haee commoveret Ecclesiae authoritas I should not beleeve the gospel except the authoritie of the church should move me thervnto Lanchius in his confess c. 1. and Brentius in his Prologo Kemnitij in examine CoÌ„cil Trident. Whitak contra Stapl. lib. 2. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policie lib. 1 pag. 84. et lib. pag. 200. et 142. doe all affirme that tradition of the church is necessarie to distinguish what bookes of scripture be scripture and what not And reason it self teacheth us since we doe not heare or see God or his knowen Prophets to write or speak this that is proposed unto us for the word of God most coÌ„venient it is least we wander in infinituÌ„ in proving the word of God by the private spirit and the private spirit by the word of God that there must be one certaine rule or depositum fidei and therfore St. Paul to Timothie â— 6. ch 20. Oh Timothee keep the depositum avoiding the prophane noveltie of voices and avoiding the opposition of falsly called knowledge which certain promising have eâ—red about faith and what that depositum is S Paul in his 2. to Tim 1. v. 13 â— 14 showes Have thou a forme oâ— sound of words which thou hast hâ—aâ—d of me in faith and in the love in Iesus Christ. Keep the good depositum by the holy ghost which dwelleth in us showing that Timothie and Christians ought to keep a certain platform of words delivered to them over and above his epistles which rule of words appropriated to high mysteries and matters of our religion as Trinitie Person Essence Consubstantial TransubstantiatioÌ„ froÌ„ one beginning Sacrament which the Apostle calls soâ—â—â—d words verba sana â— 29 You in 〈…〉 this my first a gâ—â—neÌ„t say that things may be belâ—â—ved though not gathred out of â—he written word understaâ—â—â—ng thâ—rby a humane and a common beleefe I know not what you mean by this except you would have Gods written word onely to be bâ—leâ—ved by a humane faith And therfore when I took you at your word and â—athered thâ—nce that some tradition or as you will terme it traditum is necessarily beleeved besides the written word For whâ— wee speak absolutely of beleefe in divinitie it is to be understood of a divine and not of a humane beleefe and when you speak of the cheef rule you say it may be bâ—leeved without the written word I might inferr that necessarilie it was to bâ— beleeved since you hold that the word of God is the word of God and that necessarily and so to be beleeved So that you may see that your water hath rather wet your shoes thâ—n that myne was spilt on the ground 30. 2. Wheras you say I doe vnjâ—stly condemn your assertioÌ„ that nothing to be beleeved is necessarie for salvatioÌ„ that is not taught by the written word I say most justly and I convinced you of falshood sufficiently when I sayd nothing is so necessarie to salvation by you as the written word which word is not proved by another written word of God To infirme which proofe of mine you produce two texts of scripture John 20 30 31. That
the signes which Iesus did which signes are written that we may beleeve And the 1. of Timothie â— 16. 17 Where all scripture is inspired of God etc. is said to be profitable for doctrine for reprehension for correction for instruction c. These places prove nothing for your purpose The first proves not that all things or sayings of our Saviour that he did or said are written though those signes were for all the signes the whole world could not contayn see a little after S. John 21. v. 25. 31. And the second place proves no more but that the scripture is good for these ends but it proves not that scripture is sufficient without tradition etc. and ecclesiastical lawes to all these ends And one might deduce out of these wordes to better reason then you each parcel of scripture in the old and new testament were sufficient for al this without any other So that you see I doe not fight with the holie ghost but with the perverter of the holy ghost 32. 3. You desire me to deale distinctly and plainly with your words I answer I hope I doe Then you beginne to answere distinctly to my wordes vidz the written word is not proved by another written word You answer first that the scriptures of God doe approve and confirme one another and his spirit that is in them and in all people doth seale that they are true For proof wherof you cite the first of S. John 5 9. The witness of God is greater and John 8 13. 14 I answer that Christ needed no testimonie for himself John 5 33. But I receive no testimonie of man meaning that he is greater then man that his divinitie doth not depend of mans witness yet for the benefit of others S. John is sayd to give testimonie of him 1. John through the whole chapter almost Acts 1 8. Christ say unto his Apostles that they shall be witness unto him in Jerusalem and in all Jewrie and in Samaria also Martyrs are sayd to be witnesses But now we doe not say that scriptures in themselves needs any witness for in actu 1. and in regard of themselves they are scripture by themselves proceeding from God but as they be in act 1 secundo and to be beleeved of others so they need testimonie of others 33. After he sees this dâ—fective he flies unto the privat spirit though he sayes it is in all people to unseale the authoritie of his word For if he understand by that spirit in all people that is of all ages times persons then must he accept of those bookes of holie scripture and of that sense and explication that by consent of holie Councills Fathers Doctors and expositors haith bene received 34. If he vnderstand this spirit in all people virtuallie and actuallie if they doe applie themselves to the right vnderstanding thereof This spirit by just reason they can not vnderstand since then wee must rather beleive St. Hierome that spent all his tyme and labor retyring himself to the desert for the vnderstaÌ„ding of the scriptures 35. What must Mr. H. A. understand else then that this spirit is in all the illuminated brethren of the church of Amsterdamâ— and yet this can not bee well understood since I heare Mr. H. A. stiffly maintains by the word of God with his coÌ„panie against Mr. Johnson there and his that this present church of England is not a scismaticall but an haeretical church What is then one of these cleare Eagle sight teachers blinded so in spirit that he can not discerne by the word of God what makes a church or a man haereticall 36. But now to prove that the comparing of one place with another which is your other refuge is not sufficient to distinguish what is true scripture or the true sence therof For if it bee so to bee vnderstood that after the collation of one place to another that by the nature of the scripture compared so the true sence shall bee vnderstood I inferr no but rather by this comparison the difficultie is often increased by a seeming contradiction If it bee vnderstood that by comparing of one that by a little and a little If it bee vnderstood that vy comparing one place with another by a little discourse the true sence and the scripture will be discerned I saie mens discourses are verie erroneous without the especiall assistance of gods holie grace which the church of God hath promised in her defining yea the verie selfe same man in divers times out of the self same confereÌ„ces of places of scripture hath inferred divers conclusions If you say the spirit to distinguish this is to be had by prayer I demand where these infallible promises are to be had for these infallible illuminations and what more certaine whether wee praie as wee ought And since Novatus Donatus Sabellius Arrius Cunomius Macedo Jovinianus Pelag Caelest Nestorius have had for their heresies diverse texts and coÌ„ferences with others to grownde heresies how should one vnfallibly to their judgments overthrow them in this For if you obiect to the Arian I and my Father am one he will object out of the selfe same St. John My father is greater then I If you saiâ— this by â—â—llation of scripture is to be vnderstood in regard of his humanâ—â—â—â— and not of his divinitâ—e He will 〈◊〉 likewise that vnitie signified in the other place is to bee vnderstood by references of other places of scripture in regard of consent and vniâ—y of wilâ— and not of nature 37. 2 And that the seale of your spirit can not distinguish this truth 〈◊〉 yea not so much as probablie I move For frist I aske what this seale of the spirit is Doth iâ— coâ—â—â—st onely of Gods perticular illumination that yee should have this touchstone to discerne scripture If so you contradict your selfe Mr. H A for so you grant that a man hath a divine faith and the spirit of discerning all before he readâ—s the scriptures for this spirit must distinguish them and so you have built without your grounde and guided your faith without your ruler the written word of God 38. If you answer this spirit consists in the evidence of the thing reaveled as you seeme to graâ—nt When you bidd me aske your proof that ther is a light in the same seeming so with Calvin to graunt that the scriptures are distinguished by themselves as light from darkness sweetness from sowrness this is most false for then everie one that had but natural perfection of the organ and free proposing of the object should distinguish this light and sweetness 39. If yee answer this spirit consists in the authoritie of God how will you prove this in particular to bee revealed of God and not the other part of scripture If you replie you can prove it by the Majestie of the writing How will you answer and show to everie particular mans cie
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
faith if it be as it ought that is if it be accomodated proportioned vnto the object end of our faith as it is necessary vnto salvation deth eyther require a particular motion of the Holy Ghost or an infused habit of faith as it appeareth out of the 7. chapter of the Aransicanum Conc. and out of the Trident Sess 6. c. 5. et canone Where it is affirmed that without Gods preventing grace and the illuminatioÌ„ of the holy Ghost no man can beleeve things reveled as he ought that is that Gods justifying grace be given him 141. Fourthly I affirme that this certaine and inevident iudgment of the truth of our faith into these humain reasoÌ„s and motives as into the moving applying and impulsive cause but not as into the formal motive of beleeving And the selfe same judgment is resolved into the supernatural light as into the true efficieÌ„t cause of that certitude and proportioÌ„ which it hath with his adequate object and end both being supernatural 142 If I be demaunded therefore whie I beleeve â— persoÌ„s and one God or any other thing I answer if you aske of me the formal reason whie I assent I answer I beleeve because God hath revealed it If I be thenasâ—ed how I know God hath revealed it I answer I doe not evidently know this though certainly I know it for the same revelation and infalible authoritie which the church of God as an intrinsecal condition or application applies to me to be beleeved 143. But if I be further questioned since the revelation of God and the proposing are both obscure and inevident how cames it theÌ„ that I certainly and evidently doe beleeve 144. I answer then I returne vnto the motives of evident credibilitie that maie induce any prudent man to beleeve that saith and that church warranted by so many motives 145. Neither is here coÌ„mitted any vitious circle between the authoritie of God the church as I have before convinced you in your grounds to commit For first the authoritie of God revealing in vertue of which the infailibilitie of the proposition is beleeved and the selfe same infallible proposition in vertue of which we beleeve that God â—â—ies and reveales hath two diverse objects For the object of the infailible proposition is that God reveales And the object that God reveales or of the revelation of God is the veritie beleeves 146. â— I saie in that when out of the authoritie of God revealing is given the formal reason of our beleeving the motive is given by the formal cause But when out of the infallible proposing of the church a reason to given whie we beleeve the divine revelation If it be vnderstood aright it is not to be given by a formal cause or motive but by an intrinsecall and requisite application of the motives whie we beleeve which is doone by the proposing of it by the church so that ther is no circle ab eodem in idem secundum idem which Aristotle only coÌ„demns 1. Post. text 5. as I have shewed before 147. Yet to goe one degree further in shewing how we are free in another regard from this mere circular and fruictless resolution of theirs I presuppose that then is coÌ„mitted a circle when the selfe same is proved by the selfe same to him that graunteth neither or doth aequallie deny both or doubteth of both For proofe of which we learne out of Aristotle that we ought to proceed from that which to knowen to that which is not knowen or at least from that which is graunted to that which is not graunted for so we shall proceed from that which is knowen after a manner to that which is not knowen 148. Whence I inferr that he should coÌ„mit this circuler discourse that to an Ethnick that equally should denie both scripture and the infallibilitie of the church should prove that the scripture were of divine authoritie in that the church teacheth vs it and the church of infallible authoritie in that the scripture teacheth vs it But to a protestant that admits of most of the scripture it is no circle to prove the infallibilitie of the church which he denies from the scripture which he admits of but first you do not give a resolutioÌ„ of your faith as I doe that is powerful against Ethnick or heretick 2. though wee admit of scripture yet wee cannot be vrged therevnto by you that receiving from the church the scripture will not beleeve all that she proposeth alike to be beleeved 149. The foresaid manner of proof is vsuall both in the scriptured and in ancient Fathers The Pharisees did admit of Moses and denie Christ. Therfore our Saviour convinced them with these words Joh. 5. 46. If you did beleeve Moses you would beleeve me for he gave testimonie of me Againe contrariwise the Manicheies did admit of Christ and the gospel did deny Moses and the Prophets therfore S. Aug. contra FaustuÌ„ ManichaeuÌ„ in his book lib. 1. de moribus Ecclesiae Catholicaec 1. et seq did convince the Manichees The like manner of proceeding wee take to instruct a Catholick that should denie any parcel of scripture wee convince him by the judgment of the church to whom he submits himselfe And Hereticks that denie tradition the church and the Popes authorâ—tie wee convince them out of scripture out of the writings vniform consent of the holy Fathers thowsands of whom M. â— A. saies he preferres for wisdom truth and holiness before himself whose vniversall consent of them living in all times being most expert in tongues neare our Saviours times many of them being the Apostles schollers not partiall to eyther of our causes writing so long before many delivering matters of facts that doth prove or coÌ„firme many poiâ—â—â— of our doctrine I cannot see how you can denie them especially since you saie you admit so farr of them as they agree with scripture For S. Hierom translated it S. Ambrose S. Aug. S. Greg. S. Barnard interpreted it and they all cite many places of scripture to prove fundamentall points of doctrine of our religion But I shewed how the holie Fathers agreed with scripture to which you are silent 150. But that you doe not proceed after the self same manner is plaine For though you abound with wrested places of scripture which we admit of all in their true sence Yet you denie the interpretation of the Fathers interpreting the scripture that by common consent and your owne graunt should better vnderstand them then you And wee doe not admit of scriptures as a sufficient proofe by themselves but togither with the interpretation of the holy Fathers of whom by your own words you should admit of since you prefer their wisdome truth and holynes before your selfe 151. Wherfore then M. H. A. would you have me beleeve you alleaging onely scripture for your self iâ— sense depraved before the holy Fathers that cite scriptures both for them and
Mr. I. A. I proposed to my self when first I began to answer you in these questions of religion the defense of the truth which God hath vouchsafed me mercy to witnesse and 2. the saving of your soul from death by turning you from your evil way vnto Christ if such were his pleasure Now although for this latter I have small hope left seing you so stiffly bent to keep the religion â— received by tradition of your fathers yet for the first respect I cannot be silent for I have still what to answer in the behalfe of God and of his written word against the reasons which you bring for the Pope and his Traditions The Lord guide my hart and hand vnto the mainteyning of his truth if it may be vnto the gayning of your soul. You first profess to have a reverend esteem of the scriptures which you set down I like well of But somewhat you want as That by the scriptures we come to beleive in Christ in beleeving may have life through his name Ioh. 20. 31 That by theÌ„ the man of God may be made wise vnto salvatioÌ„ may be perfect and perfectly furnished vnto every good work 2 Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17. and therefore that no man presume above that which is written 1 Cor. 4. 6. This if you graunt as you cannot with reason deny there wil be no necessary or profitable vse of your vnwritten traditions eyther for faith in Christ vnto life for wisdome vnto salvation or for any good work Whiles we therfore keep us to this heavenly light of Gods written word so commended by your selves though againe you disclaym it as not sufficient without your Popes traditioÌ„s I may say with Moyses †Their Rock is not as our Rock even our enimies being judges You devide your treatise vnto 7. parts The first thing which you promise is to shew that my reasons taken from the word of God doo vanish of themselves This you attempted before but were defeted let us see now what your latter thoughts doo bring forth For answer vnto Deut. 5. 32. you aske ‡ what I can inferr hence but that the law ought strictly to be kept that we ought neyther to add nor to take from the 10. commandements c. I answer you strayten the words too much in restreyning them to the 10. commandements for you may see before in Deut. 5. 4 -22 that the people themselves did hear the 10. commandements promulgated and â—durst here no more but prayed Moyses to goe neere and heare the rest what God would say and to declare all vnto them This he did and God told him all the commandements ordinances and lawes which they should doe in Canaan whereupon he inferreth that generall admonition v. 3â— 33. touching all the wayes of God and not the 10 commandements onely So your limitation being weighed in the Lords ballance is found too light You proceed and ask what this is to my purpose to prove that the written word alone is sufficient to decide all controversies I answer I did express my purpose was to prove this That God onely is to be the umpier and arbiter of all controversies about religion whither it were by his word written or unwritteÌ„ I stood not vpoÌ„ that in this first point This I told you plainly before if your purpose were not wilfullie to mistake and make needless coÌ„troversie you would not after warning have doon thus the second time Like fruitless labour you bestow to prove that the law of God should be explicated by the Priests c. A thing which I never doubted of yea I hold that the B. of Rome if he were as he ought to be should spend all his dayes in explicating Gods lawes to the people so should all Bishops in the world But Popes lawes devises traditions should neither be explicated nor once meÌ„tioned in the church without detestatioÌ„ You say such additioÌ„ is prohibited as is contrary to Gods law as appeareth Deut 4. 2. 3. where the idolatry with Beelphegor was punished for adding or diminishing as the text implies I answer though you costreyn the text to seem to help you while you set that before which Moyses setts after yet to let that pass I grauÌ„t that you say if you vnderstaÌ„d it wel For seing all additions to Gods law is forbidden whatsoever is added by others is contrary to Gods law Now all additioÌ„ is plainly forbidden Deut. 4. 2. and 12 32. Prov. 30. 5. Therefore nothing can be added by your Pope or any which is not contrary to the law of God Your Doctors whom you rely vpon tel you the same nothing is to be added sayth Ambrose no though it seemes to be good That which hath not authority froÌ„ the scriptures saith HieroÌ„ is as easily coÌ„teÌ„ned as allowed The answer you â— give to Deut. 12. 32. is what is here forbidden but an Hethen imitation and immolation of their children c. Is here any pro hibition of explicating the true sense of the law c. I answer you run into your former fault abridging the scope of the text To imitate the hethens was vnlawfull but to divise things of their own heads yea and to imitate God otherwise then he commaunded them was wicked also Proofe in Ieroboam who made a feast not like the heathens but like the feast in Iudah 1 King 12. 32. yet was it sinful and the holy Ghost brandeth him with forging the moneth out of his own hart v. 33. Many of your Popes idolatrous feasts have nothing so good a colour And your devised worship of Lord Lady Angels Saincts Popes Confessors c. is not onely an imitation of the hethens but an idolatrie worse then many of theirs as when we have ended these questions in hand I will vndertake to prove vnto you As for explicating the law I before approved it Your former reason from the 4. commandment you seek to vphold with a staffe of reed For when God gives many commandements why will you make the keeping of one to be the keeping of all In deed if he had given but one precept and men had given the rest it were somwhat that you say But they are all given by the same God to be our life and righteousnes if we keep them For man to add any thing to the 4 or to any or to all the commandements is an odious syn Mat. 15. 9. Whereas against all additions to Gods word I alleadged Prov. 30. 6. and Gal. 3. 15. to overthrow your fraudulent distinction you frame a reply to Gal. 1. 8. which place I produced not In Gal. 3 15. the Apostle sheweth froÌ„ the similitude of a mans TestameÌ„t that much more vnto Gods nothing may be added Against this you having nothing justly to except doo choose to your selfe an other place more easy to pervert What els dooth this bewray but the helplessnes of your cause
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—
faithful vvay of reasoning If as your maÌ„ner is you vvould have me to vnderstand it in the first I vvill so Then it is thus That which is not by it self known for Gods word cannot be tâ—e rule of faith This now I deny and your proof is vvanting The proof vvhich you make for it as you had set it down I admitt of concerâ—ing the vvord of God onely vvhere you extend Gods vvord to the definitions of the church c. I run not so farr vvith you But require you to prove your churches councils fathers definitions to be Gods vvord vvhich you doo not Your 2. proposition I deny for the scriptures by themselves vvithout your traditions may as easily be known for Gods vvord as the Sun in the firmament may be known to give light vvithout a candle This I vvill manifest hereafter Yoâ— seek to prove your aâ—â—ertion by authority of men That I refuse as insufficient by authority of Christ vvho theweth their religion to be vayn vvhich teach for doctrines the precepts of men Mat. 15. 9. Secondly you allege a reason Since we doo not see or heare God in his known Prophets to write or speak the word c. there must you say be one certayn rule or depositum fidei As 1 Tim. 6. 20. 2. Tim. 1. 13. 14. have thou a form of sound of words etc. whence you gather that Christians must keep acertain platforme of words delivered to them over and above Pauls epistles amongst which you name for one Transsubstantiation I answer first God his vvisdome power majesty truth c. are to be seen as evidently in the vvritings of the Prophets and Apostles as his eternall power and Godhead are to be seen in the creatures of the vvorld Rom. 1. Ps. 19. although Atheists cannot see these in the one nor Papists in the other Secondly as men doo not hear God vocally in his Prophets so if they did hear him in them or in Christ his sonn yet could they not beleeve vnless Gods spirit illuminated their harts Iohn 12. 37. 39. So your reason is against Christ himselfe as vvel as against the â—…pture Thirdly the church whereto you vvould send us when 1. â—ayth this is Gods vvord how shall men know it so to be any more then they knew the vvords that Christ spake to be Gods unless you lift vp your church above Christ. Fourthly vvhat church mean you Greek or Latine or AEthiopian and how shall men know Christs Church from Antichrists And if the Latin church tel us the fables of Tobit and Iudith are Gods canonicall scripture and the Greek church say they are nor but apocryphal vvhich of these shall vve beleeve Thus you vvould draw us into a vvilderness vvherein vve may loose all stay of faith and fall eyther into despayr or atheisme To those vvords of Paul I have answered before and to let pass your mistaking as if he did inioyn a sound of words as you vvrite further I vvould have you manifest if you can vvho are Timothees successors and vvith vvhom he left Pauls depositum as you call it And how a man may know your kenophonie and monstrous vvord of TraÌ„substantiatioÌ„ to be one of Pauls holsom vvords rather then the Lutherans Consubstantiation Your contending against the distinction vvhich I gave of beleeving things necessary to salvation and other things not necessary as whither Peter were ever at Rome or no and the like I leave to the judicious reader seing you cannot or vvill not vnderstand and rest in the truth Your marginall argument that The written word is not proved by an other written word therefore by tradition I reject as false and inconsequent so proved in my former vvriting You in reciting the scriptures vvhich I brought doo maym the texts to ease your shoulders In Iohn 20. 30 31. you leave out these words and that in beleeving you might have life through his name So in 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. you neyther mention nor answer this that by the scriptures the man of God may be perfect and perfectly fitted vnto every good work Whereby â— proved that faith vnto life and every good vvork may be learned out of the scripture as I inferred When you cannot answer you call me the perverter of the holy Ghost Let the prudent judge Vnto your answers made to my evident demonstrations by the book of God that the scriptures and spirit of God are sufficient to prove and approve themselves to every conscience I need not make any replye but leave it vnto judgment But to help you if it may be I vvill breefly note your oversights 1. You allege my words sundrie times as if I had sayd Gods spirit is in all people vvhich I never spake nor thought but proved the contrary by Ioh. 14. 17. I sayd Gods spirit is in all his people vvhich if you doubt of see Rom 8. 9. 16. 1 Ioh. 2. 27. You barely say and prove not that in actu 2. the scriptures need testimony of others besides God and his spirit and themselves meaning your Church and Pope you seem to say the like of Christ himself as others of your side hâ—ve playnly spoken By which blasphemie God must be beholding to men Christ to the Pope that by their witness men may beleeve in Christ and his vvord The contrary is evident by Mat. 16. 17. flesh blood sayth Christ hath not reveled it vnto thee but my father vvhich is in heaven See also Gal. 1. 16. 17. and 2. 6. 9. 3. You are often vp agayn vvith your bastard phrase of the private spirit vvhereas al Gods children have the publick or catholick spirit if you vvill so call it as I playnly proved in my former vvriting you have nothing to say against it but that the spirit worketh otherwise in the head then in the foot vvhich is a manifest tergiversation vvhereof in due place 4. You cary your self in this passage about the spirit of God as a sish out of the element as having no relish or feeling of this heavenly grace whereat I much marvel not though I am sory for it Enter into your self and see by vvhat spirit you doo discern the Pope to be Christs vicar as you suppose and his traditions to be Christs oracles Will you not say it is by the spirit of God Now vve are assured that Christ is more able to furnish us vvith the spirit of God then the Pope is to furnish you That you perceive not Gods spirit to be in us but reproch us it is not strange for the vvorld as Christ sayth seeth him not neyther knoweth him Your fathers also could not perceive Gods spirit to be in Christ himself but sayd he had an vnclean spirit and we his servants are not better then our Lord. 5. So for the majesty of the scriptures shining as the sun in his strength by their majesty vvisdom harmony c. proving approving themselves one an
other to the faithfull conscience you turne vvind because we caÌ„not perswade the Arians c. by conference of scriptures to beleeve aright It is not what vve can perswade others but our selves For there are many Arians and other heretikâ— vvhich you vvith your fathers councils Popes are not able to convert Yet you think your Popes decrees are Gods vvord and vve know that the holy scriptures are so indeed And the more to convince you look to your Mr. as you called him Cardinall Bellarmine and see a sound argument of his to prove the knowledge and assurance of the scriptures to be of God by the testimony of the scripture it selfe Bellar. de verb. dei I. 1. c. 2. argument 4. 6. You ask a question thinking to intangle me what the seal of the spirit is and you suppose divers answers Because you are so partial a judge of my spirit I pray aske your Pope what the seale of his spirit is and how he discerns scripture whither he build without ground as you say I doo Look what he can wel answer for himself to satisfy your conscience that think to be answered by me In the mean while mind that the seal of the spirit is for my own assurance and comfort which concerneth an other man nothing 2 Cor. 1. 22. 1 Cor. 2. 11. 7. You having my answer already doo refuse it saying it is most false that the scriptures are distinguished from other books by themselves as light from darknes For then say you every one that had but naturall perfection of the organ and free proposing of the object should distinguish this light This say I is most true for the law of God is a light Prov. 6. 23. which when it is by him free proposed and the organ that is the mind of man wich now is blinded recovereth naturall perfection that is to say is illuminated or renued in knowledge after the image of him that created it every such man with his perfect organ seeth the word of God to be in the scriptures as every man that hath a perfect naturall ey seeth the light of the sun and can assure himself hereof though he goe not to Rome to ask the Pope whither the sun gives light or no. But you are as a man without sense that though the sun shine at noon day yet if the Pope say it is midnight you will beleeve him so on the contrary For you profess to beleeve each part of scripture to be Gods holy word derived from the fulnes of truth Now this is because the Pope tells you so and he tells you also that the books of Tobit Iudith Maccabees c. are scripture canonicall although in them there be apparant lyes as you may see Tobit 12. 15. compared with Tob. 15. 18. Iudith 9. 2. compared with Gen. 49 5. 6. 1 Mac. 6 16. compared with 2. Mac. 1 16. 2 Mac. 1. 19. coÌ„pared with 2 King 25. 1. c. so 2. Mac. 1. 20. 21. 22. 31. many the like Now though the Apostle sayth no lye is of the truth 1 Ioh. 2. 21. yet you beleeve these lyes are derived from the fulnes of truth because the Pope will have it so to be Thus the blind lead the blind into the ditch So you doo not by your private spirit as you say distinguish heritiks from true beleevers but by the definitions and declarations of the church that is I trow of the Pope I shewed you a better way by the Apostle 1 Ioh. 4. 1. 4. but you love darknes better then light And by your grounds if you had lived in Christs dayes on earth you would have distinguished Christ as an heretick from true beleeving Iewes by the definitions of that church and Preisthood Vnto Iewes you confess you must shew other grounds then your Popes authority But if they retort vpon you your private spirit as you doo to me eyther your mouth is stopped or your conscience in pleading against me as you doo is corrupted Yea when you are driven about the high Preists that condemned Christ to say their ignorance was most vincible by their own law which was the scriptures your own mouth giveth sentence against you For by the same law say I the ignorance of your Romish Preisthood is most vincible also Your owne traditions are of no more force against us then the Iewes were against Christ. You charge me with racking many wrested places of scripture to prove the church of God invisible and you oppose many scriptures against it I answer eyther your care was litle or your conscience was large to write so vntruely The question was whither the church erred or no that I proved by many examples and testimonies of scripture as is to be seen in my former writing when your mouth is stopped her in you pass by all that I alleged and turne to another matter wherin you seem to say somewhat and answer vnto scriptures which I mentioned not I mean to hold to the point and not to follow your wandrings which are in the moveable pathes of that strange womaÌ„ Prâ— 5. 6 That which you answer to my demonstration of the Labâ—riâ—th of your religion leading to the Pope c. I shall not bestow labour to reply upon but leave it to judgment so for your answers to the scriptures by me alleged for I will not strive to have the last word Whither I answered nothing as you say to your reason let the reader see Your 2. Argument from the hardnes of the scriptures you agayn repete and dilate Seing you make no other proofe then was before I vvil not follow you to repete my answers but referr to my former writings To prov 8. 8. 9. you reply it is to be vnderstood eyther of generall doctrine or of precepts of manners and good life I answer you ought not so to restrayn it For wisdom there sayth al her words are righteous all are playn will you say nay generall doctrines are playn but not particular precepts of manners but not of faith Belike then the foolish woman that whore of Babylon Apo. 17. must explayn matters of faith and particular doctrines Well I shall content me with Wisdoms playn words and vvhat she teacheth not I regard not to learne if you vvill needs goe to the banket of stollen vvaters and hid bread know that the dead are there if you vvill take vvarning Where I shewed how your Popes determinations make Gods law more hard to simple men instancing the second commandement corrupted by your glosses and distinctions You take vpon you to defend your image-worship by the brazen Serpent and Cherubims And might not Ieroboam so have defended his golden calves Gods law sayth Thou shalt not make to thy self any similitudes thou shalt not bow down to them nor vvorship them you make many similitudes of God Christ
replie unto Act. 26 22. that in tradition nothing is spoken besides that is contrarie to the Apostles speeches First this is untrue many of your church traditioÌ„s are both besides coÌ„ntrary to the scriptures as when we examine the particulars wil appear and yow dare not subject your church and traditions to the trial by the scriptures but yow wil haue mens fayth extrinsecally to depend upoÌ„ your church Secondly you wind away by terms of your owne besides that is contrary vvhereas the Apostle sayth nothing without or except that vvhich the Prophets and Moses sayd none other thing Your allegation from 2. 2. Thes. 2. is answered in my former vvritings You further allege for traditions Act. 15. 41. 16. 4. I answer all Apostolicall decrees such as are ther mentioned we doo receiv but yours decreed by the Pope are Apostaticall Secondly you may see that those which they delivered vvere vvritten before Act. 15. 23 -25 28. c. You say they are uncertayn let the prudent judge And if so they be then are they not necessary for salvation for all such are vvritten Ioh. 20. 30. 31. 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. Here you interlace 2. other points compâ—â—ing the grounds that vve and that you doe goe vpon and you handle them largely in 55. sections I vvill first follow on vvith your 6. part at S. 153. both because that vvas the course of our former vvritings and the examining of the things alleged for your Pope vvil give light touching these other points which also I vvill consider of after in his place The second of your assertions vvhich now you make the 6. part of your longsome pamphlet vvas That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith To this now as a man fearful of your cause you have added the Popes definitive sentence at least with a generall council And this you say you are to show and vve say I are ready to behold your showes Here I find no argument by you set down to conclude your assertion as vvas in the former points vvhich is an other declaration of the weaknes of your cause Heretofore to help the Pope you fled to S. Peters prerogatives vvhich vvere they as great as you feign them to be yet as I told you there is no more proved for the Bishop of Rome then for the Bishop of Babylon or Patriarch of Constantinople Yet having no better grounds you agayn flee to them and labour to repayr your showes of Peters preeminence vvhich I by the scriptures had pulled down And first you say that out of the whole series of them and the circumstances and not onely out of each particular you draw an infallible argument I answer the particulars I have proved to be by you wrested so the vvhole series and rank of them can conclude not hing soundly for you Your 1 show vvas S. Peters naming first I told you this is usual but not alwayes and to help you because you complaynâ— cited not the 〈…〉 see Ioh. 1. 45. vvhere Andrew is named before him Gal. 2. 9. vvhere Iames is named before him Mar 16. â— vvhere mention is made oâ— the disciples and Peter so 1 Cor. 9. 5. the Apostles brethren of the Lord and Cephas Though if he had been alvvayes first named it proves him not to be the head of the church more then the first foundation Rev. 21. 19. vvill prove Paul as I shewed you Here you boast that Exod. 28. 18. 19. confutes me vvhere the Iasper you think is the sirt stone and so not the 12. for Benjamin I answer an yll translation hath deceived you For Moses there sheweth that the stone Iaspeh whereof the Greek Iaspis Arabik Iasp Latine Iaspis and English Iasper are naturally derived vvas the â—2 and last in the brestplate and so for Benjamin vvho vvas the last born of the patriarchs to be graved vpon Exod. 28. 9. 10. 21. This your own learned Linguists as Arias Montanus and others doo acknowledge and so correct your translation So the best of the Iewish Rabbines as Maimony vvho sayth Benjamin was written on the Iaspeh Misn. lib. 8. Treat of the vessels of the Sanctuary chapt 9 S. â— And thus Paul of Benjamin hath colour to be the head of the church as vvell as Peter You press Mat 10. 2. the first Simon caled Peter Andrew as you think vvas first in yeres first in caling for proof you cite Ambrose on 2. Cor. 12. I answer first Ambroses humane â—uthority is no proof for Peters pretended divine headship Secondly Ambrose saith not that he vvas first in yeres put that therfore amoÌ„g your own traditioÌ„s but ChrysostoÌ„ if you vvil rely upoÌ„ men maketh Peter elder then Andrew That which Ambrose sayth is Andrew folowed our Sav before Peter this I hold true by Ioh. 1. 40. 41. but it is one thing to folow Christ as a disciple an other thing to be chosen an Apostle as reason teacheth and you may read Mar. 3. 13. 14. 16. compared with Mar. 1. 16. Luk. 6. 12. 13. 14. vvith Luk. 5. 8. 10. That Andrew therefore vvas an Apostle before Peter I deny by vvarrant of scripture thus I wink not as you vvrite but vvith Calvin I confess Peter to be first of the Apostles You grant by that I alleged from 2. King 2. Dan. 3. that such miracles as Peters walking on the water prove no headship of the church so then this also you brought but for a show 3 I corrected your error in translating him for it in Mat. 16. 18. restreyning that to Peter vvhich Christ promised to his vvhole church You stand to it stil. But first against humane learning for autes the feminine gender cannot accord with Petros the malculine as it can and dooth vvith Ecclesias the Church You plead also against true religion for I proved by Ioâ— â—0 27. 28. 29. that all true Christians are invincible of hâ—l gâ—â—â—s and not Peter onely Here you burst out and cry that if I vnderstaÌ„d it in the Calvinisticall sense that one once justified can not be again the child of wrath it is you say a most horrible falshood and against the holy scriptures Rom. 11. 20. 21. Rev. 2. 5 I answer I understand plainly as Christ sayth that his sheep shall never pâ—rish neyther shall any pluck them out of his hand but he vvill give them eâ—er â—al life Ioh. 10. 28. that it is not possible the elect should be seduced 〈…〉 Christ Mat. 24 24. for God putteth his fear in their harts that they shall not depart from him Ier. 32. 40 and Gods gifts and caling are without repentance Rom. 11. 29. and they that are born of God cannot syn vnto death 1 Ioh. 3. 9. And these things accord vvell with Rom. 11. 20. 21. c. for by faith we stand but all men have not faith 2 Thes. 3. 2. there is a vayne fayth
you this but the contrary for Christ being present and vvalking vvith his churches needeth no vicar And this title head God in his vvord giveth onely to Christ Col. 1. 18. Yet you leaving Gods vvord fly to your S. Basil for succor that all men may see your church and prelacy is built on the sands of mens traditions not on the Rock of divine oracles You vvill not from it but Peter signifies a rock vvhich I have disproved and shewed that Petros of Petra the Rock and Cephas of Ceph is no more then to be a Christian of Christ. Peter vvas a principal stone yea the first if you vvill layd upon Christ the chief corner stone the Rock all Christians are living stones layd on him also Your racked allegations from Augustine and other Doctors I vvil not spend time to confute for I build my religion vpon the Rock Christ not upon men Your reason vvhy the gender vvas not changed in Christs name as in Peters is for that all vvhich admitted of his doctrine vvould not deny him to be head of the church I see you love to say somwhat unto every thing I also may say all vvhich admitt of the Popes doctrine vvill not deny Peter to be head of the church so by your argument there was no need to change the gender for him neyther And so the scripture hath doon somthing needless or els your answer is fruitless How you save Optatus credit and your self from blame for falsely interpreting Cephas a head contrary to the holy Ghost Ioh. 1. 43. vvho interpreteth it a stone I leave it for the learned to judge Your exception that Peter vvas not elected to be the mouth of the rest vvas refelled in my former vvriting if you vvould rest for Thomas Philip Iude vvere not elected any more then Peter to speak for the other disciples Ioh. 14. 5. 8. 22. yet you vvill not have them heads So your distination of the Apostles equallity in power of order not of jurisdiction is a bare repetition of a thing never proved but before refuted And where you add equall as they were Apostles but not as they were Bishops it is mere trifling you might as vvell say equal as they were men but not as they vvere living creatures For they vvere no otherweise Bishops then as they were Apostles And in Act. 1. you may see that Iudas his Episcopee or Bishops office vvas no other then his Apostolee or Apostles office Act. 1. v. 20. compared vvith v. 17. 25. 26. Besides by 1. Cor. 12. 28. and Ephe. 4. 11. you may see the Apostles were by office the first in the church that if the other were equal vvith Peter in the Apostleship as you graunt they vvere equal also in al power that if you resist any longer you vvill be condemned of your self Your succession grounded but vpon mens report I allow not of for you build on boggs Your understanding of that admonition Rom. 11. 20. 22. c. is partly true and against your self in that you vvrote before S. 162. partly it is frivolous vvhiles you dream of more previlege to the See of Roome and Bishop there then to others churches and Bishops You have no colour for this in the testament of Christ yet is it the mayn thing that yow should prove if it were possible No citie in the world remayneth so execrable by Gods word as Rome for killing Christ of old by her power and pollicie and for being Antichrists throne Rev. 17. and 18. It is worth the noting that you doo not hold the Pope is necessarily indued with Gods holy grace And that in matters of fact he maysyn you say as well as any other Your Popes facts I am sure prove this if any shoud have the face to deny it Hereupon I inferr that your Popes are not members and so not possibly heads of the catholik church of God It is high blasphemy to say the head of that church may want Gods holy grace Colos. 1 18. c. 2 19. How now doo you know that the traditions and definitions of your graceless Popes are of God If you trie them not by the scriptures which you dare not because of the private spirit they may deceive and damne your soul as well as any other men You say you hold a necessary assistance which the Pope hath of the holy Ghost as he defines ex cathedra And upon what ground hold you this You find in Gods book no mention eyther of your Pope or of his Chayr for good The Apostle Peter directeth us to that vvhich holy men of God spake not to that vvith Satans slaves doo teach such as vvas P. Silvester the 2. of vvhom Cardinal Benno vvriteth that he came up out of the abyss or bottomless deep o◠divine permission And by the same answers of the Divils vvherby he had deceived many he vvas also deceived himself vvas intercepted vvith suddayn death by the judgment of God And yet vvil you trust such a miscreant that out of his chayr he vvill tel you none but divine oracles Never vvas there such a thing known since the beginning of the vvorld that a graceless reprobate should have necessarily the assistance of the holy Ghost so often as he sits him down on his chayr to define or determine the matters of God No religion on earth to my knowledge ever admitted such an unreasonable doctrine for vvhich you have no proof unless from the Popes own ungracious spirit vvhereby he exalteth himself against all that is caled God 2. Thes. 2 4. Notvvithstanding you labour to justify your S. Leo that sayd the head meaning I trow your ministeriall head at Rome infuseth grace to the whole church that God took S. Peter into the fellowship of the individual vnity And doe you in earnest beleev these things of your reprobate Popes as of S. Silvester the 2. of that Divil incarnate S. Iohn the 22. their like I perceive it is not vvithout cause that the scarlet coloured beast is sayd to be full of the names of blasphemie And here you say I see your religiō is no upstart religiō that so many yeres agoe was mainteyned Yes upstart it is but many yeres agoe I grant for the mysterie of iniquity did vvork evē vvhiles Paul lived 2 Thes. 2. 7. he told how after his departure greivous wolves should enter not sparing the flock under the name of wolves comprehending it may be Lions also and all other salvage beasts Wherefore Antichrist is an old man though you mistake as if he were yet scarse in his cradle 2. You helpe S. Leo as meaning that vvhich S. Peter sayd of such as should be partakers of the godly nature I answer first this is a very friendly interpretation that the fellowship of the individual unity should be but participation of the godly nature which al Christiās are partakers of A man may
have been confounded and abolished and this hath been stablished against the forces of the divil and of the princes and powers of the world and sense of the flesh and naturall minde of man Al which doo manifest that these cannot but be of God The inward testification of God is by his Holy spirit which illumineth the mind to vnderstand the things given us of God writeth them in our harts and sealeth up the assurance of the promises that ar in them unto the beleeving conscience The secondary testimony that the scriptures ar of God is from men as First the Vniversal consent of churches in all ages of the Iewes first and after of the Christians in all places which have received beleeved and obeyed the Holy scriptures as the Oracles of God yea even Antichristians themselves acknowledge them to be from heaven Secondly the multitude of men that have given their lives for defense of these scriptures and doctrines taught in them yea even the heretikâ—s themselves who thought their errors were confirmed by these scriptures and therfore died in them are not excluded from this motive which is such as the like can not be shewed of any book under the sun The first outward proofs which God hath engraved in the scriptures themselves are sufficient to convince al men and make them without excuse For as the invisible thinges of God that is his eternal power and godhead are to be seen in his works the creatures Rom. 1. 20 so the invisible things of Gods word the powrfulnes wisdom and alsufficiencie therof unto mans salvation are to be seen in the Holy scriptures which they that beleeve not wil not be perswaded though one should ryse agayne from the dead Luk. 16. 31. And if God will damn the wicked that doo not by his works discern him and honour him as God much more wil he damn the prophane that doo not by his scriptures discern his holy wil and obey the same The inward testification by the spirit of God in the beleevers hart is for the comfort and assurance of every one that hath it not for any outward proof to others much less to the wicked which have it not neyther can perceive it In vayn therfore doth Mr. I. A. and the papists cal for manifestation of that which they can not discern and cavil against the spirit as not a due outward proof when we allege it not for that end Now wil I set down some motives which may draw any reasonable infidel if God shut not up his hart from understanding to come â—ather unto true Christianity with us the Reformed churches then unto Catholikisme or Popery with the Romists First we allege for the triall of our faith and religion the most ancient records in the world as Moses and after him the Prophets and the Apostles Euangelists first founders of ChristiaÌ„ religion through the earth But Papists dare not stand to these but allege for the triall of their religion later new records of Doctors Councills Popes c. Novv in all reason that vvhich is most ancient should be most true both as Gods lavv shevveth and as Tertullian also heretofore pleaded Secondly we allow al men by that common light and judgment which God hath graven in the hart of man which is the ground of al expositions to read hear examine and judge of our proofs reasons testimonies and therfore â—oâ— exhort al to have the scriptures and to peruse them and to try the spirits of al men But Papists allow not their ignorant disciples â—o read or hear the scriptures in their mother tongue nor to try their doctrines spirits which is a signe that they ar not of God but doo captive al mens judgments unto the definitive sentences of their Popes which is as if men should put out their own eyes that the Pope might lead them blind Thirdly the grounds which we build upon namely the Prophets and Apostles writings are both commanded of God and by Papists themselves the scriptures are acknowledged to be of God authentik and canonical so that we build upon the Rock even our adversaties being judges But their traditions and Popes decrees besides scripture are forbidden of God and allowed of none save themselves neyther doo vve acknowledg or can they ever prove them to be of God any otherwise then Mahomet may vvarrant his Alkoran or the Iewes their Thalmud Fourthly the writers of our grounds the Holy scriptures vvere all holy persons governed by the spirit of God and not any one of them vvas a reprobate But the writers and determiners of popish traditions have been many of them and that by the papists owne confession most wicked and vile persons that sold themselves unto syn and Satan al dayes of their life and got their popedomes some by simonie and bribes some by schisme and sedition and other like evil meanes Therfore in al reason they are nothing so vvorthy to be beleeved or rested vpon as the sacred vvriters on vvhome vve depend Fiftly the Holy Apostles Prophets to vvhose vvritings vve cleave preached not themselves but Gods law and Christ drew no man to subjection unto themselves but unto God sought not in their doctrines or vvritings their ovvn vvealth or vvorldly prefermeÌ„t sold not the Gospel nor made marchandise of it Wheras Popes on vvhose definitive sentences Papists doo rely preach themselves as wee declare sayth P. Boniface we define and pronounce that it is altogither of necessity to salvation that every humane creature be under the Byshop of Rome So other their traditions and definitions tend to the maintenauce of their own pomp dignity vvorldly vvealth and pleasures for their Popes bulls pardons and blessed reliks are set to sale for money so are their Preists masses and Trentals as the vvorld vvel knoweth and therefore of all naturall vvise men are justly to be suspected and the holy Prophets to be preferred much before them Sixtly the holy vvriters vvhom vve depend on are all of such authority and credit as vve admit of proof from any one of them because they all teach one faith and obedience Whereas Papists send men to Bishops Doctors Fathers Councils which disagree one from another so making great show of them to the simple wheras themselves as often as they lyst refuse the judgment and exposition of their fathers doctors c. as is to be seen in Cardinal Bellarmine and others that often doo refuse the sentences of the Fathers and conclude vvith the Council of Trent or definitive sentence of the Pope Seventhly the scriptures that vve build upon doo all agree and are â—one contrary one to another but hovv ever there â—ay seem contradiction yet they are easily even by themselves reconciled if men vvil labour in them But Papists have also for their rules of faith Apocryphal booke and fables vvherein are many open lyes and vnreconcilable contradictions against the Prophets as Tob. 12. 15.
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
besides prohibits onely that which is contrarie S. Iohn himself otherwise by M. H. A. should sin The like showed My doctrin warranted by Gods own word The desinatioÌ„s of the church are Gods Mat. 18 17. et 1â— Deâ— 19 15. In opere imperfecto c. 7. Math. D. Ambrose lib. de Paâ—adiso c. 12. Nihil igitur l. quod bonum videtur Mark vvel Deut. 32. vers 7. Psal. 43 1. Prov. 1 8. Esa. 38. 19. Ier. 6 16. Eccle. 8 11. 4. Esdr. 14. 3. 2. Thes. 2 15. 1. Tim. 6 20. 2 Tim 2 1. and see whether unvvritten traditions are not to be observed seen 〈◊〉 S. Chrys. plaine vvords for tradition See 〈◊〉 lib. 3. c. 4. Clemens Alexand lib. 5. Streat c. 2. Orig. lib. 5. super numeros Athanas. epistolâ ad Epictetum D. Ambrosius lib. de â—ide 3. c. 7. epistola 83. D. Aug lib. contra Cresco Grammat c. 33 lib contra epistolam Manich quaÌ„ vocant fundamentum c. 5. et epistola â—6 ad Casul vide n. â—1 THE II. PART The rule of our faith the writteÌ„ vnwritteÌ„ word jointly Traâ—it was once the total rule therfore it may be thâ— partial The â—h of God taught onely by tradition 2470 yeres Tradition directed men after writteÌ„ law vide n. 16. Many places of the old testamâ— for tradit 2â— S Dyon Arâ—opag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clâ—meas Alex. Thâ—ancâ—â—â— fathers most plain for the allowing of tradition Origen S. Athanasius S. Basil. The 2. coâ—cel of Nice S. Hierom â— S. August 22. yea our â—aâ— adversarâ—oâ— confirm this M. Luther Iohn Calv. Ph MeliÌ„c Diverse reasons whiâ— God vseth traditions D. Hyll supra 2. Psal. Orig. homil 5. Num lib. 4. Esdras c. 14. v. 5 Dyonis Areopag 1. Cor. 3. 2 Hebr 5. 1â— The secoÌ„d third parts conâ—ined THE 3. PART 1. Ratio Major Minor Conclusio My Major proved 27. Stil it is Gods word whether it be mediat or immediat spokeÌ„ or written My Miner proved S. August saying Pâ—oved also by Protestants What S. Pa meanâ— by his â—epositum Platform of words phrase over above the scripture to be observed D. Aug l. 10. de â—iv Dâ—i c â—3 His ans to my â—â—st aâ—â— I did rightly infer out of his wordes The writte word not proved by another written word go by traditioÌ„ A place of script produced ans Another answered Mr H A. his first answ how the word of God is known so to be How Christ both hath no need hath need of mans testimoniâ— Scriptures in actu 2. not in 1. needs witness His 2. answer What he means by the 〈…〉 in all people That this spirit is not in the church of Amsterda His third Answer What is to be understood by comparing one place with another Collatione in diverse times in the self maÌ„ often causeth divers judgments Hereticks have had stil this coÌ„parison oâ— places Your grouÌ„d not able to coÌ„fute an Arâ—an What the seale of your pâ—it is His ground tâ—achâ—th â— mâ—â— beleâ—ves before he reades the scripture Another aâ—s of his Calv. â— inst c. 7. S. â— 2. 4 〈◊〉 â— Al heretiks doe bâ—ag of their private spirit How I distinguish hereticks The Iewes cannot object against us the law and the Prophets Generall motives to conâ—â—nce a Iew. How the high preist hood did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many places oâ—â—olâ— scripture to prove the visibilitie of the church That the church of God hath never erred AdaÌ„ did not err in doctrine if he did against our adversaries owne grounds Moses al the Levites free froÌ„â—dolatrie Iudg. 2. How the word all is to be understood In what sense Elias was said to be left alone A breif râ—â— so that the ch of God is and hath been stilâ— visible The resolution of my religioÌ„ the same with S. Cypr. How the word of God the Church may depâ—â— I doe not deny for my witness the spirit of God The difficultie and hardness of thâ— scriptures in principal matters Parvus error in principio magnus est in fine His answer refuted Not onely the matter but the manner of proving is difficult The brasen serpent before an image became an idol a. Cor. 6 16 Our adversaries ignorance like that of the Moabites 〈◊〉 Latria Dulia All the Apostles alike in power of order but not in jurisdictioÌ„ The Popes confirmation of the CouÌ„cel of Châ—lc required contra hereticum Eutich This was a judicial coÌ„firmation Diverse Councelâ—s confirmed by Popes Act. 15. against M. H A. Note The 19 v. examined S. Hieron Also v. 15. 16. Act. 15. The reason why S. Iames did speak S. Peter did not speak risen but rising Why Gamaliel rose up Gamaliel spoke rather as a â—â—â—ind then as a judge Gamaliel did use rather a favorable perswasion then a definitive sentence Act. 17 16. makes against him His similitude against him self The First of Pope Stephen examined Pope Formosus witnessed for a holy man Decret 40 examined Boniface no flattâ—â—er of the Pope ad â— 6. distinct 〈◊〉 How the P. dispenseth against the law of nature in som sense â—â— My third Argumenâ— M. H. A. contented to be drie beaten The uniform consent of the church may easilie distinguish whether scriptures 〈◊〉 â—acked Many thinges beleeved not expressed in the 〈…〉 Thatâ—… Intriâ—secal he the word of God is so of it self but to bee knowen of us it depends of the tradition of the Church THE FOVRTH PART Mr. M. A. walkes in a circle Ioh. 15 16. Ioh. 16. 14. Ioh. 3. 9. 11 Here it is proved that he doth petere principium Mr H. A. walkes in a circle Jo. 10. 27. His discourse is unprofitable Mr H. A. to solution circular fruitless endlesse He cannot tell what this inward testificatioÌ„ is Mr H. A. resolution uncertain Many absurdities sequeles of his doctrin No parcel of scripture affirms the whole scripture to be scripture What should authorise that scripture that should give autheÌ„tickness to all the rest By his opinion Gods providâ—ce is weakned Whether the holie fathers had this spirit or not makes against him That the auncient fathers had this spirit Mr H. A. places of scripture retorted on himself His spirit not Apostolical His answ pretended General groundes reselling the privat spirits proofe A threefold difference between the old and new testament The Catholicke opinion defended from such a idle proofe A general doctrine first to be presupposed The motives of our religioÌ„ of evident credibility The author of our religion the first motive This argument S. Chrysost orat 2 et 3. contra Iâ—â— a os et D. Augustin lib. decaâ—â—chisandis rudibus The second motive The third motive antiquitie Our Antiquitie in cluded in the name Catholick Beza in praefatione novi testa printed 1565. calls the name catholick a vaine word Humfrei in vita Iuelli a vaine terme pag 113. Sutlcif in his chalenge pag 1. fruictless name the like did Gaudentius as appeareth out of S. Aug. lib. 2 contra Gaud. c. 25. Muscul in