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
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
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
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
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
THE TRYING OVT OF THE TRVTH BEGVNN AND PROSEQVVTED IN CERTAYN Letters or Passages between Iohn Aynsworth and Henry Aynsworth the one pleading for the other against the present religion of the Church of Rome The chief things here handled are 1. Of Gods word and scriptures whither they be a sufficient rule of our faith 2. Of the Scriptures expounded by the Church and of unwritten traditions 3. Of the Church of Rome whither it be the true Catholike Church and her sentence to be received as the certayn truth Published for the good of others by E. P. in the yeare 1615. E. P. to the Christian reader CHristian reader I having had some interest in the conveyance of the passages here following and with the coÌ„sent of both the writers taken knowledge of the matter in controversie was moved and did resolve to publish it to the view of others Considering that the subiect and question handled is very profitable and the truth therein necessary to be knowen And whereas the controverters are so different in iudgment and yet both of them for conscience sake suffer afflictioÌ„ being separated froÌ„ the Ch of Engl the one to the practise of a Romane Catholik the other to a way thereunto most opposite and both of them being leaders men of note in their so much different religions it may move a desire to see the thing further prosecuted between them and provoke a going forward where the stay is I have without prejudice but not as I hope without the good liking of both parties who ech of them seemed unto me very willing that any should read their writings put forth these things hoping that some benefit may come to the readers hereby whom I wish all of them to follow the Apostles counsel to try the spirits whether they be of God His grace be with us all to guide us in the truth Amen E. P. The occasion and beginning of the passages following MR. Iohn Aynsworth whiles he was prisoner in London had conference with some other prisoners that differed in religion from him about the right way of mans justification before God c which things he after answered in writing also with this challenge at the end Let who will answer it I could wish for name sake Mr Henry Aynsworth might see it If any answer it let him set to his name as I set down mine to stand to all and then I will deal with him Iohn Aynsworth This writing was as he wished sent to the party by him nominated who upon the receipt thereof wrote as foloweth To Mr Iohn Aynsworth prisoner in London Mercy from God our Father and the Lord Iesus Christ our hope MR Aynsworth I received a writing under your hand and name touching some controversie in religioÌ„ you defeÌ„ding the faith of the church of Rome that now is against such as haue forsaken her for departing from the ancient faith of the church that was in Rome when Paul wrote thereunto among whom we are the witnesses of Iesus Christ. You provoke in the end who will to answer your writing but wish for names sake my self mought see it promising if any answer it affixing his name you then will deal with him Though I have at this tyme other opposites to answer and affayres important lying upon me yet vvould I not altogither let passe this occasion offred by your self whom for nation and name I knovv not vvhither also for neerer alliance I regard as is meet greeving for your estate who are in captivity not so much in body as in soul from vvhich if I could procure your release I should be glad The vvay to doe you good or any that is in like error I take to be this that vve begin at the root and ground vvork of our religions in vvhich if vve can accord there vvilâ—e more hope of other things As first hovv our differences shal be tried and composed vvhether by the verdict of God or of man If of God as I hold then vvhere this is to be found vvhâ—ther in the scriptures of the old and nevv testament or in the vvritings and mouthes of other men If in holy scriptures vvhich is my faith then commeth to be considered vvhat they are and hovv to be used My self doe imbrace the vvritings of all the Prophets novv extant from Moses to Malâ—chie vvho vvrote all in Hebrue the Chaldee in Ezra and Daniel counted therevvith of all the Apostles and Evangelists vvhich vvrote in Greek as is novv generally received By all and every of these I offer my faith to be tried and to make tâ—yall of other faith offred The use of these to be vvith all care and reverence sobriety sanctitie and vvisdome ministred by the holy Ghost And here may be questioned in vvhom the faith of a ChristiaÌ„ should rest vvhither on the Churches sentence vvithout doubt or contradiction or vvhither he should also have assurance in his owne hart by Gods vvord and spirit If the Church be our stay then are vve to inquire vvhere and vvhich it is and so to consider the doctrines that it teacheth Among vvhich this is one principal vvhich you treat of in your vvriting hovv our synns shal be forgiven and vve justified in the sight of God Thus may vve proceed in order if you please to begin vvith these grounds I am vvilling as my leysure shal serve me not only to hear vvhat you can say for your religioÌ„ but also to inform you vvhere I see you err If you like not thus to deal but vvill insist on the question in hand I shall not be unvvilling to defeÌ„d my Saviours suffrings as alsufficient for my salvation and of all that trust in him That vvhich shal be prosecuted betvveen us if ought be I desire may be doon in love and meeknes in simplicitie and sincerity vvith brevity and perspicuitie all vvhich I shall labour for through the grace of God and exhort you to doe the like Othervveise from fruitlesse quarrels I shall furcease folovv more comfortable meditations Thus vvish I your farevvell in soule and body From Amsterdam this 4. of September 1609. Your freind to use in all Christian dutie Henry Ainsworth Vnto this letter Mr Iohn Aynsworth returned this answer I Accept with all willingnes Mr Aynsworth of your ready offer viz. that we should draw our disputations and controversies to a maine and principall point and foundation of our religion For as in the spiritual building faith is a foundation and main pillar so also in the mysteries and principalls of our faith there be some that as it were transcend through the whole body of controversies and serve therein as Maister-springes by whose motion and proof all things rest sufficiently satisfyed and proved to any indifferent judgement Amongst others this question by you propounded hath no meane place For if I square out all the beleife I mainteyn onely by approved and vnfallible rule my affertioÌ„s must needs be as
as the holy fathers interpret is made by a private Spirit interpretation Thirdly I argue and by my argument I break the force of a pretended answer thus Not onely scriptures by themselves are not sufficient to prove what is Canonicall and what is not but also that scriptures helped by private mens interpretation are not sufficient to prove the same For they doe not onely allow of private learned mens interpretation but the poorest handycrafts man or the sillpest huswife that is they doc allow to interpret the hardest places of scripture to shoulder the vniforme consent of all the fathers Doctors and schoolemen with some fond toyes of their owne braine and invention yea to give their glosse of those places of S. Paul where he speakes of justification and predestination whereas they should â—â—y Oh altit ido sapientiae et scientiae Dei quaÌ„ incoÌ„prehensibilia sunt judicia ejus â— When as they should rather rely on the auncient Fathers exposition S. Hierome in his old yeares went as farre as Alâ—randria to heare Didimus S. Hier. ad Paul Epist 103. c. 5. 67. vsed such hard discipline retirement into the desert abstineÌ„ce for obteyâ—ing the tâ—ue interpretation of the holy scripture How should we beleeve each private handycrafts manns censure and his silly interpretation against the vniforme consent of the holy Fathers against the streâ—me of the learned of all ages But admit they should have iâ— warâ—ly that speaking spirit to satisfy themselves how should a man be perswaded they it to be a lanterne unto others stepps Nay how will they prove against their adversaries that they also have not that motion of the spirit and though we should graunt they be illuminated in the truth of oneâ—â—ysterie how shall we know with like certainty all other different mysteries But you will answer out of the 1. Cor. 2. Spiritualis autem homo judicat omnia ipse autem a neminejudicatur a spirituall man judgeth all things and he is judged of none To which I answer admit that a spirituall man knoweth something yet it doth not follow that his supernaturall insâ—â—â—â—ts extendeth it self to all things but onely to the knowledge of those for the obteyning of which that illumination was inspired For Deliseus that had a redoubled spirit of Elias sayth Domiâ—â— celavit hoc a me et non indicavit mihi Our Lord did hide this from me and did not shew it why then may not these simple soules rather feare that their private spirits defect in the declaration of some mysteries rather then the redoubled Prophet confesse â—â—s ignorance in some things Yet let us graunt that some few men should fully comprehend and penetrate the mysteries of our beleefe yet for a twofold reason we denâ— to give unto them a definitive sentence and censure of matters of faith First in that we are not so certified who these particular men be that have these especiall illuminations and illustrations and therefore we are to preferr the definitive assertion of the Popes holynesse and his counsell before uncertainty of mens inventions 2. Since that the effects of this particular illumination and assistance of the Holy Ghost is not manifested and warranted by any extraordinary workes or miracles or the like in the it were to make a desperate tender of Gods truth to point this or that man whole vinpâ—ore of any controversy in that many other men in the pretence of some few mens illuminatioÌ„s might challenge unto theÌ„selves the like prerogatives of interpretation Fourthly I argue that which by the â—ights and lanterns of your 〈◊〉 have ben wroÌ„ged in the highest degree to bolster vp heresies cannot be a true and indeficient rule of faith For what more frequeÌ„t with â—eretickes then at their fingers ends to â—ite places of scripture to back their heresies as the Arians Pelagians Luther aÌ„s and Sacramentaries The Lutherans and Calvinists both disagreeing in a maine point of the real presence the one holding Christs pretious havy and blood to be really and corporall in the Sacrament though with a certayn companation and the other holding Christ to be present with a signification onely and yet both cite scripture both of theÌ„ yet â—â—â—ing scripture for scripture John Knell of Kent led with this private spirit denyed Christ to have tooken flesh of our B. Lady William Cowbridge sayes Bishops have no more authority then Priests pag. â—70 and yet by and by ledâ— vp the selfe same spirit sayd that Christs name was a filthy name Alanus Copus Dialog 6 c. 17. John Mesel denyed the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father pag. 1151. Frith the excellent Martyr of John For pag. 942 943 944 affirmeth the reall presence to be no Article of beleefe affirmative or negative John of Teurbury that the Iewes of good zeale did put Christ to death pag. 9â—5 Fiftly and lastly Iargue many mysteries of our faith are beleeved that are not 〈◊〉 declared in the word of God nor so infalliblie prescinding from all traditions of the catholike church deduced thence so that they are sufficient to make one beleeve that witâ— so firme an act as our faith requireth therefore that which makes those mysteries worthy of constaÌ„t beleefe is a rule of faith as wel as the written word whither they be traditions Divine or Apostolicall My antecedent may castly without all just contradiction be proued in that till Moses the virtuous steps and perfect acts of Noe Abraham Melchisedech was guided without the helpe of any written word by the hand of tradition derived from mouth to mouth from man to man yea after the witteÌ„ word it appeares by Erod 14. Narrabis filio tuo in illa die dicens hoc est quod fecit Dominus c Deut. 32. Interroga patrem tuum et annuntiabit tibi majores et dicent tibi Iob. 8. Interroga generationem pristinam et diligenter investiga memoriam patrum And not onely they of the old law but also they of the newe even after the coÌ„ming of our Saviour were without a written word the Apostles and disciples being busied in preaching and instructing viva voce Besides many things we beleeve though we have not the warrant of a written word for it viz. that there was a remedie for women children as well as for men to purge them of originall sin and something to be used to men children if they were ready to â—y before the 8. day which was the prefixt time of circumcision and that such a parcell of writing was scripture and such not Moreover wee beleeve constantly against the condemned heresy of Delvidius yea and against as it were the seeming letter of the scripture where it is sayd that Joseph knew not our blessed Lady til she brought forth her first sonne Now every one knowes the phrase of the Hebrue word know as Abraham knew Sara and yet we fâ—â—â—nly beleeve according to the prescript of the church that she was a perpetual Oirgin ante partum in
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.
the Israelites discerned canonical scriptures from others so doo we for we Gentiles are coheyrs with them and of the same body for there is one body and one spirit as there is one Lord and one faith But they relyed not on the Church or on the Highpreist his council for had they so doon their church must haue had privilege not to err as you think of yours which if you grant a Iew he wil overthrow your beleef in Christ seing their Preists Elders people condemned Christ his Apostles and their writings As you would answer a Pharisee for this point so mind the like answer to your self Finally your plea is overthrown confounded by your own practise for you will have us receive the scriptures for canonical because your Church of Rome sayth so they are we must beleeve upon her word Tobie and Iudith to be canonical but the third and fourth of Esdras not the first and second of the Machabees to be canonical but not the third or fourth If any make question of this for conscience sake you seek to resolve him by the definitive sentence of the Pope who cannot err But if he ask why the Pope of Rome may not err aswel as the Patriarch of Constantinople you then allege as after to me in this your letter Christs promise to Peter Mat. 16 and there you scan every word and presse every circumstance of the text to make him beleeve that Peter was the Rock and head of the Church and consequently the Popes his successors Ask he you againe how he shall know that Matthewes gospel wherin this promise is written is canonical rather then Nicodemus gospel you will answer because the Pope hath so determined Thus the very entrance and ground of your religion bringeth men into a maze and Labyrinth for we must beleeve the Pope cannot err because Christ sayth such words to Peter which the Pope expoundeth and applyeth to himself we must beleeve that Christ sayd them words because the Pope hath determined that he sayd them Thus the foundation of our faith must rely wholly upon man a clod of clay whatsoever he telleth us is scripture that must we so esteme how ever he expound scripture so must we take it what he sayth is tradition or Gods unwritten word we must so regard and keep it be it never so absurd against the light of nature against reason against the grounds of faith against the evident testimonies of the prophets and Apostles we must captivate all our understanding faith and conscience under the Popes wisdome and all because he telleth us we must so doo Otherweise if we may trie this principle of yours by the scripture through the light of Gods spirit in us then may we doe the like of other which be of lesser moment Consider I pray you this first point seriously and the Lord give you understanding in all things And let me here put you in mind though I be not yet come to the end of the last motive in your letter where you tell me how wheÌ„ you shal be demanded at the tribunal of almighty God why you beleeve in the Roman catholik church you can answer by reason Christ himself teacheth you so saying He that heareth you heareth me c. But deceive not your own soul for when Christ shall ask you at that day why you have worshiped images sung masse and Dirige prayed to Saints and soules departed and transgressed many other of his fathers coÌ„mandements by your traditions you will answer because the head of your church the Pope did teach you so when he shall ask you how you knew the Pope to be head of the church and to haue such authoritie over your conscience you will answer because Christ himself spake such words to Peter as are written Mat. 16. When he ask you agayn how you knew that he spake those words or that they extended to the Pope of Rome above all other your answer vvil be according to the grounds of your religion because the Pope himself vvith his senate of Cardinals did tel you so Then vvil your hope be the vveb of a spider and your house novv seeming upon the Rock vvil be found upon the sand you shall hear the Curse pronounced upon the man that trusted in man and made flesh his arm and vvithdreâ—v his hart from the Lord and that all such vvorshiped him in vain as had their fear tovvard him taught by the precept of men The Rock of my hart vvho is my portion for ever preserve me and deliver you from those syrtes and quicksands vvhere men make ship-vvrack of faith Your second argument to prove that the bare naked vvord of God cannot be an infallible rule or square of truth is this That which is difficult and includeth many fenses at least to the ignorant cannot be a certaine rule of faith But the scriptures are thus Your antecedent you seek to confirm by Luther Teâ—tullian and S. Peter also vvho as you vvrite sayth that in S. Pauls epistles ther be many things hard to be understood which the vnlearned and unstable deprave as all the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition To this of the Apostle I answer first you set the holy text on the centers to stretch it out for your usâ— The Apostle sayth some things are hard to be understood you vvould haue him say many things he sayth they deprave these as the rest of the scriptures you say as all the rest Secondly this testimonie though it vvere as large as you extend it proves not your antecedent but onely the first part of it and scarce that too For to gather because part is difficult therfore the vvhole is is more then eyther his vvords or good reason vvil bear The later part that the scripture caÌ„not be a certayn rule of faith follovveth not upon the former it may be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though some part of it be difficult though many men doo deprave it Our ignorance or perversnes cannot make crooked that vvhich is most streight no more then our unfaithfulnes can make the faith of God of none effect The artizen that vvorketh by rule and squire maâ— through vvant of skil or heed vvork amysse but himself is to blame and not his rule Againe though some scriptures be difficult yet many be plaine and easy and God hath so tempered them togither that the vvisest should haue vvherin to exercise their vvit and admire Gods mysterios and the simplest should haue playne documents vvherby to grouÌ„d their faith It is our fathers vvil also that to some his vvord should be in parables that hearing men may hear and not understand vvhen to others it is given to knovv the secrets of the kingdom of God vvho hath vvritten his vvord to give unto the simple sharpnes of vvitt to the child knovvledge and discretion Again you allege the Eunuch Act. 8. vvho confesseth that he could
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
should blush but lyes hid in silence First you gather a consequence which here I strowed not I spake of God and of his verdict and authoritie not of the scriptures as yet For whither it be by writing or by speaking or any other way that God manifesteth his will unto us it is to me all one and the authority of the scripture is a second point Thus your answer is not here to the purpose Your reason annexed is a fallacie concluding from a part against the whole unequally The scriptures cited speak of Gods commands in generall you take one in particular and because one is not all therfore all must not be all but more then all must be observed which what they wil be I cannot tel unlesse the commandements of men Mat. 15. 9. 2. You answer that all additions whatsoever are not here prohibited but onely such as ar contrary to the word of God for many other prophets as the penmen of the holy Ghost did add divers pea most part of the holy scriptures c. In deed this answer is your own none of Gods you shew no tittle of his word for that you speak But I will shew you the contrary Prov. 30 ◠Adde not unto his words least he reprehend thee and thou be a lyar Lo here all additions and not onely things contrary are forbidden Againe though it be but a mans testament sayth our Apostle when it is confirmed no man dooth abrogate it or addeth therto If you add to your naturall fathers testament civill lawes would count you an unnaturall son your distinction would not help yow much lesse can it help yow for doing such wrong to the will of our father which is in heaven Your reason is direct against yow for the Prophets being penmen of the holy ghost added nothing of their own the additions were Gods own If the Prophets Apostles mought add nothing of themselves much lesse may we Thus God yet reigneth alone And if yow vvould have mans oil to lighten your lamp hear what Chrisostom sayth for this point Every Doctor is a servāt of the law for neyther may he add unto the law any thing of his own sense neyther may he withdraw any thing according to his own understanding but preach that onely which is found in the law Whereas yow add that your traditions are also from the holy ghost for Luk. 10. it is sayd he that heareth yow heareth me and Mat. 18. If he hear not the church let him be to thee as an ethnik and a publican First these are spoken to all Christs ministers of al his churches and therefore make no more for Rome then for Corinth or Ephesus But yow stil keep from the point yeild the cause unawares For be it tradition definition or whatsoever by whomsoever if it be Gods not mans it is yenough al that I would prove in this first particular After it shal be scanned whither your traditions be of God or no. Wheras therfore in answering my secōd agrument yow wonder how I should be so deceived as to think the places that I cite make for me and against yow yow may wonder rather at your own mistakeing that I say no more who when I plead for God onely his alsufficiency by opposing as the scripture teacheth mans corruption folly yow will not yeild though yow have nothing to contradict And even thus yow turn over the 3. 4. reason by denying them to prove that thing which I there did not cite them for Such oversight hereafter I hope yow will amend that yow weary not both me your reader Now to your former ansvver which was with a distinctiō in this plain point whither God onely or some other should be judge lawgiver to his people for their religion controversies therabout the same distinction yow urge here agayn which whither it be a meet distinct answer or argues not rather fear let the prudent judge For yow yeild not plainly to the thing by me propounded which neyther religion nor reason vvould stick at onely atheisme vvil deny For if ther be a God he of man to be served man knovves not the things of God til by himself they be reveled neyther may doe more or lesse then by the Lord is cōmaunded as I have before proved hereupon it vvil folovv undenyably that in al doubts controversies of religion Gods voice verdict must decide vvhat is truth and vvhat pleaseth him Whither he show it by himself from heaven by Angels or by churches or by particular men by writing or by speaking it is ought to be all one to us But the more to convince yovv yovv shal have humane testimonie as of Ambrose vvho sayth The mysterie of heaven let God himself teach me which made heaven not man which knew not himself Whom should I rather beleev concerning God then God himself Or if yow be not moved by this Fathers judgment the hethen shal rise up and condemn yow vvho esteemed true lavv apt to command and to forbid to be the right reason of the great God that the divine mind to be the cheiflavv Cicero de Legib. lib. 2. The second point novv is Wher this verdict of God is to be found whither in the scriptures of the old and new Testamēt as I beleev or in the writings and mouthes of other men To this I had not before neyther yet have your dir 〈◊〉 answer What makes yow shun the light herein is easy to discern To confirm my faith that the verdict and wil of God is to be foūd in holy writt I alledged divine testimonies many to them yow answer not one word neyther yet doo yow yeild to the truth Beware yow wink not vvith your eyes that yow may not see But seeing the holy scriptures move yow not yow shal have candle light to see the sun shine C. Bellarmine to whom yow referr me twise in your last writing to whose learning yow acknowledge yourself a scholar ingeniously cōfesseth saying Neq n distputari potest c. Ther can be no disputing sayth he except we and our adversaries first doo agree in some cōmune principle now we al hereticks agree in this that the word of God is the rule of faith wherby men are to judge of points of doctrine is a commune principle granted of al men from whence arguments may be drawen is the spiritual sword which in this battel may not be refused Behold here the first point plainly yeilded by your champion vvhich you vvithout dark distinction could not be drawn unto The second concerning the scriptures is in effect also yeilded when he sayth That the Prophetical and Apostolical book◠according to the catholik churches mind explaned both by the 3. council of Carthage c. 47. and late council of Trent sess 4. is the true word of God and the certayn and stable rule of faith
the truth vvill prevayl in antiquitie against all opposites but then Gods vvord and spirit in his scriptures and servants must be ouâ— bulwark as now they be mine If your Church Pope and traditions will not stand you in stead against Iewes Turks â— thinks but onely for to contend a while against your even Christen then doo you not build upon the Rock nor lay such a ground as all hâ—l gates can not prevail against for these miscâ—eants will prevail against it but wee that rely on Gods word and spirit shall by his grace stand for ever even as the Apostles did by these convert all nations under heaven Wheras I further thâ—wâ—d you â—h insufficiencie of your plea for church traditions by example or Israel whose church and preists â—ared and codemned Christ c. You answer mâ— that the high preisthood that was judge did not err nâ— not when ouâ— Saviour was co deÌ„â—â—d in that the high preisthood remayned in our saviour for he was thâ—… if judge c. But doubtlesse the Pharisees would have smiled aâ—â—his answer wherin you â—â—ke for graunted the main controversie Question was then in Israel whether Iesus of Nazareth were the true Mâ—sâ—â—â— the high preists scribes rulâ—r sayd no he is a deceiver and hath a Dâ—…l if any confesse him to be the Christ let him be excoÌ„municate Dooth any of the rulers or of the pharisees beleeve in him but this people which know not the lawer cursed If you â—ad then lived it seemes you vvould have confuted all the Rabbâ—nes with this that Iesus was the Messias because he was the cheif preist and judge But had you not câ—â—aved othervveise to the scriptures as did th' Apostles and sâ—novv doo they vvould soon have stopt your mouth vvith this that hard controversies were by the lavv to come unto the Preists of the Levites not a Preist of Iuda concerning vvhich tribe Moses spake nothing touching the preisthood and unto the Iudge that should been thâ—se dayes in the place vvhich the Lord did choose vvhich vva Ierusalem not Nazareth or Galilee vvhence Iesus came and hâ—y should shevv the sentence of judgment c and he that vvould not â—â—aâ—ken to the Prâ—â—â— or Iudge should die But vve are the Preists of the Levites vvould they say and by our oâ—ce must teach the people betvveeneth holy profâ—nâ— and in controversie must stand to judge according to â—hâ— lavv vvhich vve teach tel must mâ—n doo now we have a law and by our lavv he ought to dye because he made himself the son of God If now your religion had been known that the Church the preisthood can not err the simple people might have chosen Barâ—bbâ—s rather then Iesus as in deed they did and have had much more colour to plead for Annas and Caiaphas then you have for your Popâ— and succession the pillar of your catholik church would have born down all the disciples of our Lord. Beware therfore how you build upon these â—oggs least you betray the Gospell unto stubborn Iewes Besides all this if you knew the scriptures you might find long before that the church of Israel erred Did not the preists rulers and people condemn the Prophets of God sent in severall ages and was not Ierusalem the holy citie and seat of the preisthood gâ—… of their blood Was not vile and grosse idolatrie practised often in Iuda and Ierusalem by the Preists and Princes so that Ierusalem Aâ—OLâ—â—AH mâ—â—red her self with inordinate love and with her fornications more then her idolatrous sister AHOLAH or Samaria For Iudah forsook the Lord and turned their faces from his tabernacle shut the dores of his howse quenched his lamps and neyther burnt incense nor offred burnt offrings in the sanctuarie unto the God of Israel and will you say in all this the Church did not err Vriah the Preist made an altar idolatrous like that in Damascus and polluted Gods worship in the temple Paâ—h it the son of Immâ—r the Preist being governour in the house of the Lord persecuted Ieremiah for preaching the truth and himself prophesied lyes A general defection was in the church they their Kings their Princes their Preists and their Prophets the men of Iudah the inhabitants of Ierusalem they turned the back unto God and not the fâ—… and sâ—â— their abominations in the house wherupon his name vvas called to defile it and built the high places of Baal and offred their children into Molech The heads of Ierusalem judged for rewards the preists taught for hire and the prophets prophesied for money And wil you yet say the church did not err The Lord sayd by Malachi that his covenant had been with Levi even life and peace and he gave him fear that he feared him and was afrayd before his name the law of truth was in his mouth and no iniquitie found in his lips for the Preists lips should preserve knowledge they should seek the law at his mouth for he is the Angel of the Lord of hosts But of the Preists that theÌ„ lived he coÌ„plaineth that they wâ—r gone out of the way had caused many to fall by the law had brokeÌ„ the covenaÌ„t of Levi for which God made theÌ„ despised vile before al the people And where now is the privilege of the preistood not to err And if the church then erred as many moe proofs may yet be brought if you stil denev it how did the godly for a grouÌ„d of their faith Wil not the law of the Lord his good spirit which he gave to instruct them susteyn is now as it did them then against all errors heresies and idolatries Otherweise Christians now under the gospel should have lesse grace or benefit by the scriptures and spirit of God then thee had then which is contrary to all the promises Thâ—se things I dor the more insist upon to inforce you to a deâ—pâ—r consideratioÌ„ of your estate foundation of you faith which you lay upoÌ„ the sands for though the church is to be respected and honoured above all societies in the world her doctrines admonitions censures to be regarded yet may we not make an idol of her nor set her in Gods throne himself hath taught us from the beginning that the Annointed preist may syn to thr syn of the people a ruler mought syn the whâ—l congregation of Israel mought syn and all were to offer sacrifieâ— for their trespasses that all flesh may learn to be silent before God and confesse theÌ„selves to err But Gods word â—trâ—th not his scriptures are as silver fined 7 times no drosse is in them therfore the scripture is above the church and that perfect rule must guide us not the imperfect doctrines of men Now wheras I shewed how the Labyrinth of your religion leadeth to the Pope the centre of your circle and
may say to him vvhy doe you this and that whosoever obeyes not his precepts incures the syn of idolatrie paganisme You may tell me that the Pope hath not dominion over your faith but your Canonist tel me that he can dispense against the law of God that he can dispense against the law of nature that he can dispense against an Apostle that he can dispense against the new testament yea that he can dispense concerning all the precepts of the old and nevv testament And may vve novv think that he hath not dominion over your saith or may wee think that vvhen he is come which should sit as God in the Temple of God that he wil doe greater things then these But of your Popes preeminence wee are to speak in another place To return therfore to the scripture which you deney to be an indeficient rule of our faith you objected that it had many senses and stil you stand to it as proved well I am content to leave it unto judgement But though it were so yet this is not proved that therfore it is no sure rule of our faith save by your churches exposition For why might not the church in Corinth which were made rich by Christ in all kind of speech and in all knowledge so that they were not destitute of any gift why might not that church I say declare the many senses of scripture as well as the church of Rome Or rather why may not the holy ghost shew any church or any member or Christs church the meanings of the scripture and so it remayn as a firm rule of faith and the Spirit of God the sole authentik expositor of the same But here you urge agayn your bastard phrase falsly fathered upon S. Peter that no prophesie of scripture is made by a private spirits interpretatioÌ„ though I blamed you before for speaking in such sort If you can not perceive heavenly things consider earthly Your one body hath but one spirit which gives life to the vvhole and to every member of the body The same spirit dooth quicken the hand and foot that quickneth the head and hart although a greater measure is in the principal members then in the inferiour Even so by the scriptures we learn that the catholik church is one bodie and hath one spirite and though the many members of this bodie have not one work but have received diversities of giftes yet it is the same spirit To one by the spirit is given the word of vvisdom to an other the word of knowledge by the same spirit and to an other faith by the same spirit and so all the gifts to all the members This is the most publick spirit that the church hath and every member of the church hath the same so there is no privat spirit which Christians have as you by tradition it seemes have learned Now seeing all Christians have the same spirit that the Pope himself unlesse he have the spirit of Satan how is it that he onely must be the publik spirit and interpreter of the word Because say you he is the head of the church and hath the promise of our Saviour that his faith should not fayl him This I deney Now you beleeve it because the Pope himself tells it you for your ovvn privat spirit may assure you of nothing I wil disprove it by your next words and knowen experience For you say he may err in matter of fact and syn aswell as an other man then say I he may goe to the Divil for his facts and synns as vvell as an other man then is he the successor of Iudas Iscariot not of Simon Peter then the gates of hel prevaile against him And thus your Rock is rent in peeces and your building is on the sands You rely upoÌ„ one whom you know not but he may be a reprobate a child of the Divil yea a divil incarnate as Pope Iohn the 23. was found and judged to be by the Council of Constance and then he may lye as well as his father the Divil and then if you take not heed he may murder your soul as well as his father the Divil And how then dare you make him your rock your hope your confidence to beleeve all that he sayth not to beleeve Gods word unlesse he tell you it is Gods word not to beleeve any meaning of the scriptures but as he tell you the meaning is If men were bruite beasts without understanding they could not be more overruled then thus but the Lord sayth be not as the horse and as the mule And if the inhabitants of the earth had not been druncken with the wine of her fornication the great whore could never thus have benummed their senses and bereft them of heavenly light If you deney that your Popes may be reprobates and Heariots though they may syn your own popish records will teach you by as undoubted marks upon them as ever had Cain the dearest lovers of your catholik chaire branding their holy fathers with titles of prodigious wonders monsters for their beastly lives so some of them are knowen to have dyed without repentaÌ„ce or faith in God that eyther they never had faith or els their faith failed and then Christ prayed not for them as he did for Peter so their pretended priviledge lieth in the dust The 15. of the Acts alledged for Peters primacie I have before answered and leav it unto judgment yow urge now againe vers 7. that Pâ—â—er rose up shewing therby that he was head c. a strange collection that if a man rise up to speak in an assembly he must need therfore be head you mought better have gathered so if he had sitten stil spoken for sitting of the two rather argues auctoritie then standing up But tel me I pray you in earnest when Gamaliel is sayd to rise up in the council of the Iewes in Ierusalem would you gather from this that he was the head of them all Or when Paul rose up in the synagogue of Antiochia was he therefore the head If not why dally you thus with the holy scriptures to gather such conclusions as common sense wil not bear But if you would plead for no other headship then this that your Pope may rise up and speak in councils it wil easily be granted but then if others should judge and give sentence froÌ„ the scripture as Iames there did your chair of Rome would soon be overthrown Like weight is in your next words that the first gentils were chosen by his mouth for that you should say God chose that the gentils by his mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and beleev What primacie of power you can build hereon I cannot tell order I am sure ther must be in al things so ther was with them and is with us we grant unto you
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
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
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
weakness of faith Whereas indeed S. Peters words if thou be the sonn of God are an argument of confidence and beleeving manifested by the word following commaund me to come vpon the waters And that our Saviour argued S. Peter of little faith was when he feared the strong winde and began to sinck not for his walking vpon the waters before others no other having with that firmnes of faith asked or atteÌ„pted to come to our Saâ— though they saw him Those places cited 2 King 2. Dan. 3. 25. Heb. 11. 34. proves that ever such myracles doe not prove superioritie or of dignitie before others which wee intend not to prove but onely that this together with many other circumstances doe prove superiority of S. Peter 162. 3. Our Saviour calls S. Peter the rocke and saies on this rocke I will build my church and that hell gates shall not prevaile against him First you saie John the 10. 27. 28. 29. that hell gates shal not prevaile against the just which if you vnderstand in the Calvinistical sence that one once justified can not be againe the child of wrath which is a most horrible falsehood and against the holy scriptures Roma 11. 20. but thow by faith dooth stand be not highly wise but feare et 21 Revel 2. 5. But if not I come to the and will move thy candlestick out of his place 163. It is against the principles of faith since so all Christians being truely baptised and so regenerated in grace could not sinne to death and so all should bee saved 164. You take it for a great matter that I graunt the Pope maie sinne in matter of fact be reprovated if he die in mortal sinne It is our Catholick doctrine and the Pope goes to confession coÌ„monly oftener then any ordinarie Preist yet this proves nothing that the Divill prevailes against him as he is head of the church as he defines ex cathedra As for your blasphemous speeches torne out of the Apocalyps in his place I shall returne them on your owne head and of the hereticall sonnes your father 165. 4. You object against that which I cite out of S. Luk. 22 31. And our Lord said Simon Simon Behold Sathan hath required to have you to sift as wheat But I have praied for thee that thy faith maie not faile thee and thou once converted confirme thy brethreÌ„ you answer that the other Apostles were to coÌ„firm their brethreÌ„ I answer as particular pastors Act. 14. 22. et 15. 41. 32. 1 Thes. 3. 2. Apoc. 3. 2. but not as the supreame pastor by special assistance of Gods grace dissigned here to confirme his brethren S. Aug. lib. q. novi testamenti q. 75. to 4. teacheth that Christ praying for Peter praied for the rest because in the pastor and prelate the people are corrected or amended And S. Cyprian Epist 55. n 6. saies that hence infidelitie or a false faith cannot fasten on S. Peter and in the selfe same chap. he affirmes though there were 12. Apostles yet for keeping vnitie he would have one head of all You saie you will consent with the holie Fathers so farr forth as they agree with scripture 〈◊〉 bie will not you consent then vnto them when they alleage thus scripture for the Popes primacie But I proved that you admitted theÌ„ so farr as they agree to scripture that is to your owne phancie to which as guiltie you are altogither silent As for the places cited by you Act. 14. v. 22. I finde therein nothing to your purpose but a grosse corruption of the holie text in your opinioÌ„ translating presbyter Elder which soundes as well as if you would translate the Major of London the Elder against the common vnderstanding and vse of the word But in the old testament you translate sacerdos a Priest and yet here you translate Elder 166. That which you prove the 16. of the Act. 41. proves that S. Paul did coÌ„firme particular churches but not the whole church as head by office and in that he commanded them to keep the Apostles precepts and the ancients proves tradition against you And that particular pastors precepts are to bee kept not onely things expressed in the writteÌ„ word That the 32. ver affirmes that particular may particularly comfort others the 1 of the Thess. 3. 2. proves onely that Timothie was sent particularly onely to confirme them and the like can onely be inferred out of the third of the Apoc. 2. which is so farr from proving the speciall confirmation promised to S. Peter that the confirmation is by the vigilencie of one that had the name onely to live c. Thus wee though you object my objections bleede I am assured your wrested places as poore same souldiers are to retreate on crutchess 167. 5. I gathered by a congruencie that S. Peter was head in that his feet were first washed by our Saviour Ioh 13. 6. 7. where presently after he had spoke of washing the text saies He coÌ„meth therefore to Peter by therefore hath reference to washing and to S. Peters first washing you stand not much herevpon but according to the opinion of most of the ancient fathers you admitt S. Peter was first washed Onely you except that he shewed greater weakness then his brethren I answer that his refusing to wash was out of a respective love that he had to our Saviour but vnderstanding presently that of our Saviour If I wash the not v. S. S. Peter to show he had a perfect resignation not expressed by any of the rest he presently peâ—ldes Lord not onely my feet but also my hands and head 168. 6. I inferr that S. Peter onely received a revealed promise of his Martyrdome but here you that slights any thing objects that performaÌ„ce is more theÌ„ promise And S. StepheÌ„â— James Act. 12. 2. 7. 59. suffred Martyrdome before I answer that an assured promise absolutly to come is not worse but rather better then an accelerated performance if the performance of the other be differred for greater good as S. Peters was And the theife on the crosse for dying repentant maie challenge a crowne of glorie as Christ Jesus promised him and not to bee the head of the church as it was promised to S. Peter 169. 7. I gathered S Peters preheminence above others in that Act. 2. v. 14. S. Peter as the head of the rest made the first sermon when the Jewes objected they were ful of winâ— But Peter standing with the eleven lifted vp his voice and spake to them yee men Jewes and all that dwell at Hierusalem etc. v. 15. he answers for the rest For these are not drunck as you suppose and that he was not onely superior in age or order only I have showeÌ„ Therfore Mr. H. A. doth as it were graunt this and with that the Pope were as forward as S. Peter in these and such good offices I wiâ—â— alâ—o that wee had also that abundance of Gods
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
vvord spirit Your own hand writing therefore convinceth you of vntruth not me of bad conscience as you charge me I did and doo cal it a bastard phrase as being of your own or of the Popes begetting for th'Apostle Peter neyther spake nor meant so You add to his vvords and therfore are reproved of God Prov. 30. 6. you swary from your authentik Latin translation and therefore are reproved by your own canon law I proved by the scriptures Ephe. 4. 4. Rom. 12. 4. c. 1 Cor. 12. 4. 8. 9. c. that there is but one spirit which al Gods people have though in divers mesures as mans body hath but one soul or spirit to quicken it This you not being able to deny doo vvind away and except though it be the same fowl yet it worketh otherwise in the head then in the foot etc I answer it is very true You inferr then that so it belongs to the head of the church and not to every craftsman to interpret scriptures Why are ther no members in a mans body between the head and the heels that you make such a leap Is there no mean between the head and every craftsman What place then is there for your Cardinals Bishops Preists Doctors Iesuits c. they are not the head of the church yet you think them higher then the feet But if this your answer be good then though Peter were head as you erroneously think I hope the spirit wrought otherwise in him then it did in that divil incarnate Pope Iohn the 22. and in other your monstrous vvicked Popes as your own friends doo vvitnes against them Then had those beasts a private spirit vvorse then any an honest craftsman then it belonged not to them to interpret scriptures No nor to your Preists and Iesuits unless you vvill make them heads A little after touching Pope Stephen vvho repeled the decrees of his predecessor Pope Formosus you vvould have him to doo this not as the head of the church but out of the violencie of his private spirit I like vvell of your answer and think the very same of all the Popes traditions and therefore the privat spirit vvhich so oft you entwite me vvith I return into your own hands to be kept as the Popes Depositum You pretend that for all the vvickednes of some Popes God hath stil preserved the unity of faith in your church And that never any Pope by his definitive sentence did define heresie I answer if the Pope may be judge as vvith you he is I vvarrant you he vvill never condemn himself of heresie But if Gods word be judge many heresies are easy to be found in your late council of Trent and in many Popes decrees Which vvill come to be scanned in particular doctrines after these generall grounds are ended Your digression to another vvriter I omitt you may seek answer if you please of himself And your author â—o vvhom you send me for satisfaction about your Popes power of dispensations I shall read vvhen I have leysure therto Your 3. Argument you set down now upon your memorie otherweise then ever before thus That which hath still been a rule to theÌ„ that have erred cannot be a certayn rule to direct all in faith But the scripture interpreted by the private spirit as every one pretends given from God hath led many into dangerous and horrible errors go the scriptures though directed by the private spirits interpretation cannot be a rule of faith I answer your conclusion I grant though your argument be naught for the private spirit wee found whileare to be the violent spirit of the Pope or his like And scripture directed or rather perverted by such a spirit cannot in deed be a rule of faith Against your 2. Proposition I except it implieth a fallacie putting that for the cause which is not the cause The scriptures never led any into errour but vnlearned and unstable persons pervert all scriptures as the Apostle sayth unto their own destructioÌ„ the cause hereof is not the scriptures but mens corruption The Pharisees perverted the doctrines spoken by our Saviour Christ himselfe yet I hope you will not deny but his heavenly words was a certayn rule to direct all in faith So the proof of your minor faileth you Against your first proposition which you say is most certayn I except as not playn and so deceitfull That which is a rule to them that err understanding of it own nature and properly cannot be a certayn rule to direct all in faith But now to assume that the scripture is such were blasphemie Agayn That which is a rule to them that err to weet a rule by accident through their ignorance or malice abusing it cannot be a certayn rule to direct al Gods people in faith now I deny the proposition and leave you to give proof of these things in your next And whither before or now you have drie-beaten mee as you boast let the lookers on give verdict Your 4. argument you omit through oversight I suppose onely whâ—r I shewed by 1. Cor. 11. 19. Act. 15. c. that contentions were in the Apostles times and composed by the scriptures not by setting up a supremejudge or Pope Yow answer barely they prove rather theâ— must be one visible supreme judge to decide controversies Wee are thâ—n at a point Let him that readeth the scriptures and reasons which I there alleged judge whither of the two they doo rather prove Your 5. which yow call your 4. argument is that we beleeve many things which are not reveled in holy scripture c. I told yow and tell yow agayne that I doo not howsoever yow may beleeve any thing needful for my salvation which is not reveled in the Holy scriptures neyther wil I use other weapons against Arians Anabaptists or any heretiks that acknowledge the scriptures to be of God This therfore is no argument to convince me at all You insult for that I will not shewe my particular proofs against those heresies I told you this were to digress from our present controversie Propose yow arguments and I will answer you for the cause in hand els multiplie not words in vaine You now plainly answer that Gods vvord as it is extrinsecal the vvord of God and to be knovvn of us depends of tradition and the authoritie of the church This I reject as an heresie For vvhen vve read or hear the books of Moses or the Prophets vve read that vvhich is spoken to us of God Mark. 1â— 26. compared vvith Math. 22 31. that vvhich the Spirit of God speaketh to the churches Rev. 2 â— 11. novv not to beleeve or rest upon this ground but to rely upon mans record is to make the testimony or man greater extrinsecally to us then the testimonie of God contrarie to 1. Ioh. 5 9. and maketh men lyable to the curse Ier. 17. 5. You
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
1. S. Paul was caled to his office not by S. Peter but by Iesus Christ Gal. 1. 1. 2. S. Paul received the doctrine vvhich he preached not from S. Peter but by revelation froÌ„ Iesus Christ Gal. 1. 12. 3. S. Paul laboured in preaching the gospell more then S. Peter did 1. Cor. 15. 10. 4. S. Paul went and preached vvithout so much as conferring vvith S. Peter or the rest Gal. 1. 16. 17. 5. The gospel over the vncircumcision that is the Gentils among vvhom Rome vvas cheif was committed to S. Paul Gal. 2. 7. 6. S. Paul had upon him the care of all churches 2 Cor. 11. 28. 7. S. Paul hath vvritten and opened clearly the great mysteries of Christ in his Epistles more then S. Peter or any Apostle 8. S. Pauls vvritings are by S. Peter himself reckned among the holy scriptures 2 Pet. 3. 15. 16. 9. S. Paul rather then any other Apostle vvas caled of God to preach at Rome Act. 23. 11. 10. In his voyage to Rome he vvas marvelously saved from shipwrack and very memorable accidents fel out besides in that journey Act. 27. and 28. 11. S. Paul preached the gospel and suffered persecution in Rome and stood for the truth vvhen no man there assisted him Act. 28. 30. 31. 2 Tim. 4. 16. 12. S. Paul preached at Antioch where the name Christians vvas first given Act. 11. 26. 13. S. Paul vvithstood S. Peter to his face and blamed him vvhen he did amyss Gal 2. 11. c. 14. S. Paul first casteth out the Divil of divination Act. 16. 16. 15. He striketh Elymas the forcerer vvith blindnes Act. 13. 8. 11. 16. S. Paul in visions vvas taken up into the third heaven into paradise 2. Cor. 12. 2. 4. 17. S. Paul in nothing vvas inferior to the very cheif Apostles 2 Cor. 12. 11. 18. He vvas of that tribe vvhose precious stone is the first foundation of the heavenly Ierusalem Rom. 11. 1. Rev. 21. 19. Exod. 2â— 10. 20. 21. Therefore for all those reasons S. Paul vvas head of the Catholick Roman Church Here I appele unto any unpartial reader vvhither my proofs for S. Paul be not stronger then yours for S. Peter and vvhither the Pope vvas not overseen to choose S. Peter for his patron vvhom he cannot prove by any one title of Gods vvord that ever he set foot in Rome gates to leave S. Paul vvho vvas caled of God to preach there and did so a long time as the scriptures doo confirm Yet for all this you vvil not graunt that S. Paul vvas head of the church therefore say I neyther S. Peter and as for your Pope he hath no more â—ight to shew for the same then Mahomet We have seen your proofs from scripture you add unto them Doctors And here as before you bring in your forgeries of Clemens and Dioâ—ysius c vvith other vvrested testimonies of the Fathers Who al of them if they sayd as much as you vvould have them had no authority to make an head for the church Secondly vvhatsoever they sayd for Peter it proveth nothing for your Pope He must therefore shew better evidence for his usurped prelacy or els he must stil be reputed the adversary that exalteth himself 2 Thes. 2. 4. You proceed and say that S. Peters authority must be derived to his successors lawfully elected and governing at Rome This is the mayn point vvhich I vvould fayn see proved You could prove it by expresse authority of all the fathers cited but let reason you say suffice me Behold here and let all that have eyes behold the desperatenes of your cause vvho for the mayn ground of your religion church vvhereof you so boast cannot allege any one word or title of holy scripture but leave those true and ancient infallible records and betake you to the latter forged erroneous humane testimonies traditions of men I deny that Peter left any such successor in his office as you dream of and for the Pope to chaleng it is to folow the violencie of his private spirit as you sayd of Pope Stephen Now let us hear your reasoÌ„ Christ gave the power of preaching c. you say for the good of others to the worlds end This I graunt So Christ nstituting S. Peter the head you say would have that prehemineÌ„ce derived to his lawful successors All this I deny 1. He made not Peter head much less his successors â— He appointed no such successors after Peter in his office 3. If Peter vvere to have successors the Bishop of Rome hath no more to say for it by vvarrant from Christ then all other Bishops in the vvorld vvho for preaching ministring sacraments and governing their flocks have and ever had equal power with the Bishop of Rome vvhen he was at the best Thus after your long and tedious dispute you coÌ„clude vvith a fayr begging of the question not being able to produce one line of the bible which speaketh for your Pope nor any sufficient ground of reason How soundly now you have proved your sixth part viz. That the Popes definitive sentence at least with a general council â—t is a sufficient groundwork of fayth let any indifferent reasonable man give sentence Here I did not dare you as you say to bring in the arrowes of the fathers c in an other place it vvas that I gave you leave to use their reasons if you pleased but not to press me vvith their bare names as your manner is to doo And in all your long discourse let the reader mind vvhat any one scripture or reason you have had by the help of Doctor Father Council or Pope to prove your assertion that the Popes definitive sentence is to be a ground of our faith You object and that often that unless I wil eat my word you must preferr the uniform consent of the Fathers before me I answer to your often repetitions this First I spake of moe and others then you account holy Fathers yea I included such as I doubt not but you vvould burne for hereticks Secondly I spake and agayn speak it unfeighnedly as is in my hart being privy to my own manifold ignorances and infirmities and esteming of others better then of my self Thirdly therefore I say beleeve not me but beleeve the word of God which I shew vnto you If I speak of my selfe tread it vnder your foot but if I speak the words of God in despising theÌ„ you despise the Lord sinning against your sowl And if you depend on the sentences of Fathers Councils Popes not confirmed by the scriptures you make idols of them and heap up wrath upon your head Leave therefore your disdayning of me and leave your extolling of other men for all flesh is grass and all the glory of man is as the flower of grass which withereth away but the word of the Lord endureth for ever and that is the word which the Apostles preached to the churches 1.
compared vvith Tob. 15. 18. 1. Maccab. 6. 16. vvith 2. Mac. 1. 16. 2. Macc. 1. 19. vvith 2. King 25. Iudith 9. 2. 3. vvith Gen. 49. 5. 6. Esth. apopcryph 12. 5. 6. vvith Esth. can 6. 3. and 3. 2. Esth. apoc 11. 2. vvith Esth. can 2. 16. besides their Popes determinations for making and vvorshiping of similitudes or images of silver and gold wood and stone hethenlike for having the vvorship of God and scriptures in a barbarous tongue vvhich the people understand not and many the like are expressly contrary to the commandements of God as any man of common judgment may evidently preceive yea some of their Popes have repeled the decrees one of another as before hath been manifested Eightly The summ of our faith learned from holy scriptures is to trust on God and Christ alone for mercy and salvation not on creatures as Angels and souls of men nor on our selves or humane merits vvhereby vve resting on God have and doo profess to have ful assurance of our salvation and so have peace of conscience in life and death But Popish faith learned by tradition teacheth men not to trust on God and Christ alone but on the intercession of creatures and Pardons of Popes and on their own merits also for salvatioÌ„ vvhereby their coÌ„sciences accusing them they neyther have nor profess to have such peace by full assurance that they are heyres of God unto salvation as vve nay they rage against this truth as against an heresie Ninthly The holy scriptures vvhich vve rest vpon are of such power and authority that many thowsands in their ages have given their lives for the defense of them and of the things taught onely in them yea even hereticks have dyed for things vvhich they have erroneously thought to be in the scriptures reveled But for Papists they cannot shew many if any that have vvillingly given their lives for such doctrines as have onely bene taught by men by unwritten popish tradition and not in their judgment by the prophetical and Apostolical scriptures Tenthly the Holy scriptures vvhich are the rule of our faith have prophesies of things to come and due accomplishments of the prophesies as they vvere foretold vvhereby vve are confirmed of the truth and infallibility of those vvritings But the vvritings of Doctors Councils Popes on vvhich Papists rely are destitute of this confirmation Neyther dooth the Pope use to prophesie though it vvere necessary if he vvould as Christs vicar obtrude his ovvn decrees for divine oracles seing the testimony of Iesus is the spirit of prophesie as the Angel sayd Rev. 19. 10. Nay rather the prophesies of scripture plainly foreshew the Church of Rome to be the whore of Babylon and her Lord the Pope to be Antichrist Which he fearing it wil come to light forbiddeth therfore his subjects the reading of Gods book Eleventhly Papists themselves are forced in disputing against Iewes which were once Gods church and from which they themselves with us received the books of Moses and the Prophets to use onely the holy scriptures and prophesies to convince them for their Romish church traditions the Iewes doo not regard With these scriptures the Papists doo rightly think the Iewes are sufficiently convicted Even so doo we much more having the scriptures of the new Testament added to the old rightly hold it sufficient to convince the Papists by the written vvord vvhich they acknowledge to be of God and they have no more reason to refuse this and draw us to their Popes decretals then the Iewes have to refuse the Bible and draw men to their high preists Rabbies and Thalmuds or the Turkes to their Alkoran 12. Finally grace vvisdom and divine majesty appeareth in the holy scriptures to all that read them except they have a reprobate sense even by the confession of our adversaries But no such vvisdom grace or majesty appeareth in Popes decrétals more then in other humane vvritings yea they are full of ignorance grossnes barbarisme error favouring of the Popes private spirit as any of understanding unless they be the Popes bondmen vvil confess and no singular grace appeareth in them more then in the books of H. N. or Alkoran of Mahomet For all vvhich and sundry other like reasons vvhich might be alleged every reasonable infidel vvhom God vvill save vvill rather incline to our grounds of ancient Christianity then to the other of late Iesuitisme or Popery Let him that readeth consider and give sentence By this vvhich hath bene vvritten you may see M. I. A. that we fly not for proof to our privat spirit as you often slander us but we say a Papist may be couvinced by the wisdome and majesty of God shining in the scriptures and other arguments forementioned more easily then an Atheist can be convinced by the wisdom and majesty of God shining in the creatures And if this later were sufficient by th'Apostles testimony to condemn the hethens the former must needs be more sufficient to condemn you especially seing you confess the scriptures to be of GOD vvhereas the Atheist will not confess the world to be of God and yet you dare not abide the trial of your religion by this book of God without your own traditions and decrees also Whereas if you graunt a Turk to be tried by the Bible and his Alkoran or a Iew to be tried by the Prophets and his Thalmud you will betray all Christianity And when one ask you a reason vvhy you beleeve the scriptures or any doctrine to be of God you answer that extrinsiâ—ally that is outwardly and in respect of your selves it is because your church that is the Pope vvho is head of your church telleth you so and not by your own private spirit Which is as if one should ask vvhy you beleeve the sun to be the light of the vvorld and you should answer extrinsecally because the Pope tells you so and not because of any private sight or discerning in your own eyes Ask you agayn vvhither you know the Pope to be a man of God furnished vvith his grace and spirit that he cannot deceive you You answer we hold not that the Pope is necessarily indued with Gods holy grace for in matter of faâ—t he may syn as wel as any other Ask you agayn how then you trust such vile ungracious Popes as many have been by your own mens testimony you answer you hold the Pope hath a necessary assistance of the holy Ghost as he defines ex cathedra out of his chayr as the head of the church Ask you a proof of this paradox and you cannot bring any one line of Gods holy scriptures to confirme it you can neythâ—r find the Pope nor his chayr there mentioned any more then Mahomâ—t or the Alkoran Then you flee to late humane testimonies of Doctors Fathers Councils vvhich also you vvrest Yet ask you vvhither those Doctors vvere necessarily indued vvith the spirit of God could not
eâ—r deceiv you You dare not say this nay in deed you deny it whiles you refuse any doctrine or expositioÌ„ give by Doctor Father or Council vvhich the Pope approves not of and this is ordinary to be seen in yourbooks Follow you now still vpoÌ„ vvhat assurance you stay it is your Pope is Christs vicar caÌ„not err ex cathedra because himself sayth so And this is to make him a God For onely God is the ground of truth on whose word al creatures should rest And so by this argumeÌ„t alone if there were no more your Pope is proved to be that maÌ„ of syn which exalreth himself above al that is caled God you are of those upoÌ„ vvhom God hath sent strong delusioÌ„ to beleeve lyes as the Apostle prophesied 2. Thes. 2. 4. 11. Besides it is against al reasoÌ„ to take a mans witness of himself The law of God and Christ is against it the law of maÌ„ coÌ„demns it Nemo in sua causa testis esse vel jus sibi dicere possit l Generali C. Ne quis 2. q. 1. C. de manifesta Behold M. I. A. this third time I have vvritten unto you God by me warning you of your fearfull estate Take heed and despise not the mercy of the Lord calling you to repentance Be not unsensible of your calamity extreme peril as he that sleepeth in the midds of the sea on the top of the mast and sayth they have striken me but I vvas not sick they have beaten me but I felt it not To day if ye vvil hear the voice of God harden not your hart least he swear in his anger that you shall never enter into his rest My prayer shal be against your evil and that you may finde mercy unto life if such be the vvil of God Amen From Amsterdam the 6. of November 1613. Your freind that vvisheth your vvelfare Henr. Ainsw I. A. his 4. and last writing to H. A. To his loving friend Mr Henry Aynsworth these At Amsterdam Mr H. Ainsworth AS small hope have you in deed of the former viz. the defense of the truth as you graunt you have of the second â—â—tendement of yours viz. my conversion For trust me your allegations your prooses are so weak though many in 〈◊〉 ber that I wonder that he that professeth himself to hunt after the light onely should content himself so in the dark like Senecaes poore blind woman who accounted all others to be blinde and that onely she did see But if you would as well have taken paines but even to have summed my reasons and proofes faithfully as you vainely repeate so often your owne Mine and yours indifferently paralleld would have manifested long ere this the truth But you conceale so my proofes and so magnifie your own that it is no wonder your seâ—tarâ—â—s prifeth yours as things of worth when in deed they are but gaâ—die glasse and plaine Bristowes stones in sted of Diamonds And therefore as I remit you for all your slight replie to my former answer in so many sheates of paper delivered so I remitt your auditorie but to compare both for their satisfaction and manifestation of the truth if they bee intelligible It being a tedious thing to take so often such fruictless paine as to plough 〈◊〉 so many sheetes the barraine sands A short answer especially being not compatible to many vnjoincted and scattered citations were not your vanitie therin sufficiently vâ—â—asked in the former And since you doe confess to bee tyred as indeed I profess I am but to reade your slight stuff I shall content my selfe to poinct out how you have satisfied me in no one poinct referring my selfe to my former defence which doth and shall stand in force for ought therin that you can justly oppugne To the first of mine wherein as I showe that your reasons vanish of themselves you keepe a greate pudder to no purpose Naie you overthrow your selfe graunting the vnwritten word of God to deepde controversies that the law must bee explicated by Preists For as traditions the vnwritten word are included and implied in the written word or belonge to the explication or performance of the same so also fasts feasts and ceremonies of the Church are virtuallie included in those generall precepts and prerogatives of the Church as I expressed in my former Now to add that which is gathered thence or to explicate that which is included is not contrarie as you doe in your replie not obscurely confess as I show in my 12. parag as also the 16. 17. parag is to answer Where as you charge me that you have often answered that which I object parag 20. I referr to the indifferent reader But verily I maie speake and not from my own judgment that your writings deserve no answer I answer Apostollicall traditions are to bee taught as the word of God and to bee expounded what then In answering my first reason faine you would reâ—aiâ— we with a spllogisme of your owne seing that which is known for Gods word is the rule of faith which I denie not But holie scriptures are knowne for Gods word which in your sense I denie For they are not knowen by themselves but by tradition and the authoritie of the church For many paâ—â—ells of scripture have bene doubted of by those that bragged of the spirit of God to discerne scripture And you neyther save your self from an infinite process in that kind if you could doe that how can you prove the whole Bible to be canonicall as I have proked In my 32 parag I fullie satisfied your tortured places and if I doe leave out som places it is in that they are virtuallie answered in other places expounded For if a man should examine each place you bring wee should never have an end And if the scriptures bee as cleare as the Sunne to be distinguished it followes that they must bee knowne of all if you saie of all his you doe petere principium since everie one will pretend to bee his I proved also by the authoritie of S. Aug that scriptures in Actu 2 to bee knowne to others requireth necessarily the authoritie of the Church to which as to verie manie places more you never answer You wrong your self and not I you since you giue just occasion to me to terme the guide of your religioÌ„ your privat spirit for the word â—pâ—ly befitts your grounds as I prove effectuallie and I doe convince that our faith is not subject to any such circular vagarie I resolving my religion into no other grounds then St. Cypr did his S. 55. And you might see if you would that the Pope doth not make what he wil a matter of faith but onely doth declare it parag 69. And to what end should I answer him that never answered me as I did procede but onely by snatches which is not to answer me but his owne phancie and
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