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.
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
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
was no private but the most publik spirit of God without which no scripture can be vvel interpreted And vvhere you say S. Peter was head of that council you passe the boundes of the text vvhich shevves no such thing Christ vvas the head and he guided them by his holy spirit Peter after much disputation shevved his mind grounded upon the vvorks and lavv of the Lord Barnabas and Paul confirmed the same by their ovvn experience then Iames confirmed Symon Peters speech by the vvords of the Prophets thereupon gave sentence or judgment vvhat should be doon vvherto the Apostles and Elders vvith the vvhole church agreed Wherefore if any man vvere head reason vvould lead us to think lames rather then Simeon vvas the man Thus the decree had povver and force from Gods vvord vvhich by the holy Ghost vvas serched scanned manifested of the Apostles and Elders vvas approved and consented to of the vvhole Church there the Apostles Elders and brethren all vvhich and not Simon alone sayd It seemed good to the Holy ghost and to us And that all care and diligence should be used to decide controversies by the vvord of God I acknovvledgâ— but to deney Gods vvord vvhich you call bare and naked though it be gloriously arayed vvith al ornaments of the spirit to be an infalâ—ible rule of truth is farr from my hart and farr from being proved by these your allegations But you shut up your argument thus Therfore let S. Peter himself conclude that no prophesie of scripture that is no interpretation as the holy Fathers interprâ—t to made by a private spirits interpretation But the Apostle concludes not your purpose that Gods word or scrâ—pâ—ure is not an infallible rule of truth therfore you are nothing hâ—lpenâ—â— this text though you constreyn it to spâ—aâ— otherwâ—isâ— then the auctor 〈◊〉 it downe which was not is you say by a private spirit 〈…〉 but of ones own interpretation or of it own explication or 〈◊〉 This speech dooth no whit disprove the auctoritie sufficiencie or iâ—â—â—llibilitie of the prophesies of scripture which the Apostle before did approve vâ—râ— 19. Therfore this standeth still firm against you thâ—t Gods bare word meaning without the raggs of mens inventions is aâ— infallible rule of truth but how this infallible rule is to be used interpreted applyed c. is a second consideration And though I would not swery from the question yet to help you what I may I will speak a litle of that which you allege If by 〈◊〉 spirit you mean an humane spirit or the spirit natural in man I grant it no prophesie of scripture is of private or of a mâ—â—s own interpretation he can not by all his wâ—t learning or industrie explane it without the spirit of God If you mean a private mans interpretation as that no privat man can interprete any prophesie I deney it For the publick man with you is the Pop he interprets all having his supposed soveraigntie from Peter But if all other be private men save Peter and his successors the Popes then doe you injurie to all the other Apostles Prophets Evang lists Pastors and Teachers at that time and in ages since as if they without Peter or the Pope could not interpret any prophâ—sie of scripture It is also against your own Bishops Preists Iesuits and against your self for none of you but the publick spirit of the Pope onely can interpret any scripture which if it be so why medle you now with controversies about the scriptures against me seing you can give but a private spirits interpretation which the Apostle in your own judgment condemneth If all Church officers be exempted from the private number and are amongâ—th publick and may all interpret then will your Pope have â—â—le privilege from this place above other Bishops Or if you think that no private that is as you speak no 〈◊〉 man can interpret any prophesie of scripture you doo injurie to Gods people or lâ—itie For were not all the laie oâ— people of the church in Corâ—â—th willed to covet spiritual gifâ—s and rather that they might prophesie which all of them might perform in the church Doth not the wind blow where it lysteth Gods spirit breath on whoÌ„ he pleaseth Prophesies of scripture never were of propre or private interpretation yet Christ a carpenters son brought up unlettered nâ—yther Preist nor Levite but a laie man in Israel was permitted to interprete the prophesies of scripture publikly and Câ—iaphas himself cavillâ—d not against him as being a private spirit The Apostles also were unlettered and private men yet were they not for that forbidden to interpret scriptures but if they lived in your church it seemes they should Consider I pray you of these things and the Lord give you understanding But you procede with this matter and thirdly you argue and by your argument as you say break the force of a pretended answer thus Not onely scriptures by themselves are not sufficient to prove what is canonical and what is not but also that scriptures helped by private mens interpretation are not sufficient to prove the same I see this your proposition but I see no proof in sted of that you digresse to complayn that the poorest handycrafts man c is allowed to interpret the hardest places of scripture But all this proveth not the point in hand namely that the scripture is not a sufficieÌ„t rule of our faith For this it may be and is how ever men err in expounding it Of this point I have spoken before your assertion is not an argument and if ther were but a pretended answer yet your bare position would not break the force of it the yron is blunt and you have not whet the edge therfore you must put to more strength Fourthly you argue thus That which by the lights and lanterns of your opinions hath been wronged in the highest degree to bolster vp heresies cannot be a true and indeficient rule of faith The assumption is a rhetorical flourish for what more 〈…〉 quent say you with hereâ—iâ—s then at their fingers ends to 〈◊〉 places of scripture c. And here you mention divers points and persons and then without conclusion passe on to an other argument The assumption which is personal touching Luther Calvin c and unjustly bâ—nt against us I leave to strive about and could requite you with the like of your Popes and Prelates who have wronged the scripture not in the least degree Your proposition I deney for though men wrong the word of God never so much eyther ignorantly or wilfully yet is the word never the worse not lesse sufficient rule of faith The Preists in Israel wrested the law by which they should haue taught the people yet was the law in it self a true and indeficient rule of faith to which the Prophets referred the people and blamed those that
may recover your self from your imnâ—nent precipitium that dying out of the church of God you doe not eternally burne in the quenchless flames from Justice hall Julie 24 1613. Iohn Aynsworth To this letter H. A. gave no answer but exspected the promised large reply from I. A. which now followeth as the third in defense of the Church of Rome To Mr Henry Aynsworth at Amsterdam 6. 16. Ierem. State super vias et videte et interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona et ambulate in eâ et invenietis refrigerium animabus vestris ALthough your replie was slight and wilie rather seeking to transfer the questioÌ„ then to examin it to the true ground bespangling the rough rugge of your doctrine with multiplicitie of wrested places of holy scripture which makes me fitly resemble you to some AEthiopian behanged all over eares â—yes nose lippes and armes with Jewels and pearles that by their lustre beautie and misplacing makes the Nigroes fowllness the uglier Yet of such importance is the decision of this question being the keye and Master-spring to all the other doctrinall and controversall questions of religioÌ„ That howsoever your exploded doctrine and shuffling replication needes no answer being like a Comet that consumeth it self yet to complie with the worth of the question and to satisfy your followers desires I have once agayne returned you an answer In which I will showe that your reasons being rather seming reflections then true beames as you say of the word of God doe vanish of themselves 2. I wil prove that the true indeficient rule of our faith is not onely the written word of God but also the unwritten word of God traditioÌ„ the authoritie of the church of God in Councels â— Fathers is the ultimate decyder of all matters of controversie 3. I will show how my reasons for all your pretended answers remaine in full force 4 I wil prove that in your opinion you walk in a virious circle proâ—â— iâ— the self same by the 〈◊〉 the word of God by the privat spirit and the private spirit by the word of God 5 I wilâ— defend our Catholick opinion to be free from any such circular and râ—diculous proof 6 I 〈◊〉 show the Popes definitive sentence togither with a generall Court 〈◊〉 atleast to be a firme and an assured groundwork rock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7 And lastly I wil demonstrate to you or to any indifferent judgment that your building is on sands or spâ—ders â—â—ks your arcâ—uÌ„â—â— and resâ—â—uâ—â—oÌ„ of your faith at the last day of judgment to be groundless and fuâ—l of feare 8 First then to begin with your reasons which 〈◊〉 I maintâ—yne to be nothing els but aâ—â—er aâ—â—ous of scripture fâ—â—sty applyed I do think it 〈◊〉 before I answere your reasons grounded on the bareterts of scripture to signifie what a worthy most reverend esâ—eme we have of the scriptures and of each part of them We reverence them as Gods holy word derived from the fulness of truth â—â—e hold this volume worâ—â—â— to be meditated on day and night Jos. 1 8 Psalm 1 2 〈◊〉 hold it as seven times refined sâ—â—ver Psal. 11 7. A most cleare light illuminating our eyes Psal. 8 8 that it is a light 〈◊〉 our steppes Psal. 1. 8. â—2 v 105 130. 140. Wee hold all the holy scriptures to be most just 8. 8. Prov. to be a frerie speech and buckler of defense We also defend that the holy scriptures are diligently to be searched unto Joh. 5 39. â—â—om 1. 1. â—â—om 15 4. that whatsoever is writt in them is writ to our edificatioÌ„ that all the scriptures are profitable unto us 2 â—un 3 16 2. Pet. 1 21. that men delivered this scripture inspired by the holy Ghost Yet wee hold also though we worthâ—ly esteeme of them yet wee can not â—â—clude the eâ—plications of the holy church in the holy Fathers and Councels guided and directed by the self same truth And S. Augustin did oppose by the authoritie of the holy fathers his predecessors against Pe lagius and other â—ereticks saying â—ragâ—lis â—t arguta eorum novitas eâ—c The weake and wâ—â—â— noveltiâ— of hereticks is to be coâ—fâ—nÌ„ded by the authoritie of holy Fathers and a little after this great Doctor and holy Fatherâ— acknowledged by Calvin himself to be the faithful wriness of antiquitiâ— 4. 〈◊〉 stitut â— 14 sess 25 and Bâ—za calls him the Prince of aâ— Divines concerning dogmaticall poâ—â—cis in c. 3. â—â—om v. 12 as if on purpose he did answer your barbarous contempt of them calling them dust and athes â—et onely in regard of their mortaliâ—e as the scriptures calles them but when the vniforme consent of the Fathers Greek and Latin was objected against â—â—u What saâ—es D. Augustin shall light be darkness and darkness light that 〈◊〉 aclestius Julia should on ly see and that Hyllarie Greg. Ambâ—â—se â—ier August should bâ— blyndâ— So wee see how two worthy champions of yours hath raised S. August a Samnâ—l 〈◊〉 confound a 〈◊〉 not at Endor but at Amsterdam â— But wheras by your submission you would seemâ— to 〈◊〉 amâ—nd 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 that you 〈◊〉 thâ—re be a thoâ—â—aâ—d of theÌ„ that I sa◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you preâ—â—â— for 〈◊〉 trutâ— and holyness before 〈◊〉 For if you understand this of the 〈◊〉 fathers before 〈◊〉 I proâ—â— that you cannot 〈◊〉 that without â— visard to 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 since I wil prove that in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dogmatical 〈◊〉 they differ from you and so by your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—inpeere except you will be wilfully blind they 〈…〉 before you If you understand Jewel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the Protestant Doctors these in truth by your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neyther doe or can prefer before your self since by your 〈…〉 have no true church as I heare you teach against Mr. 〈◊〉 and so there difference must rather be hereticall then 〈◊〉 and if it be a true church why make you a schâ—mâ— in dâ—parting from them Now to come to the solution of your arguments if there were any There be 4 â—n number cited as you saye grounded on the holy scriptures but not one appearing in substance or in the true sense of the scriptures First you object out of Deut. â— 32. Keep and doe that 〈…〉 God commanded you â—e shall neyther 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 but by that our Lord God commaunded you 〈◊〉 you 〈…〉 What can you inferr hence but that the lawe ought strictly to be kept and that we â—ught neyther to adde or to take from the 10 commandements that is to make the 10. commandements 〈◊〉 oâ— superaâ—undant what is this to your purpose to prove that the written word alone is sufficient to decyde all controversâ—es For as here 〈◊〉 testification of the law or â—rpâ—icatiâ—n of the law was 〈◊〉 And that it was the office of the Preists to explicate the 〈◊〉 of the law appâ—ares Deut. 1â— v. 8 2 Paral. 19 1â— 2
best meanes for the obtaining conserving her ende to which the end of the temporall is subordinate And this indirect authoritie of the spirituall power over the temporall is grounded on scripture Exod. 22. v. 18. Deut. 2â— 1. Deut. 17. 12 3. Reg. 18. 40 4. Reg. 10. 11. 1. Esdr. 6. 10 1. Esdr. 7 26. Psal. 105. 34. Dan. 3. â—6 Act. 5. et 13. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 6 Tit. 3. 10. 2. Joh. v. 10. Which places wee doe not interpret so rigorously that it is lawfull for the comminaltie as you doe to depose him or that it is lawful to kil an anointed King which doctrine we abhorr as bloodie A declaration of which we may give that of so many Antipaâ—es though they are ever the greatest enimies to the Sea Apostollicke that ever any one was privately or publickly made away But how barbarous your procedings have beene in that time to which you have not answered 191. Though I have proved before that S. Peter had preheminence of authoritie above the other of the Apostles yet I thought good to set downe certaine proofes out of the holie scriptures to prove S. Peters primacie so also the Popes so then to confirme them by the authoritie of the holie fathers so that their authoritie citing scripture cannot â—ee refuseh Math. 10. v. 2. Simon is called first Mat. 15. 6. he chaungeth his name that it now signifies a head or superior and the channging of a name I proved commonly to be mysterious Mark 16. 7. The Angell directeth Peter to goe before their as there captaine Luc. 22. â—1 He praied particularly for S. Peter that his faith should not faile him and viddes him coÌ„firme his brethren Joh. 1. 42. He calles him Cephas that is a great stone a foundation stone Joh. 1â— 5. Christ washed S. Peters feete first John 20 4. S. Peter came first to the monument Joh. 21. 15. he bidds him 3. tymes feede his sheeâ— Act. 2. 14. Peter speakes for the rest Act. 5. 4. Peter exerciseth first the power of excommunitation Act. â—5 7. S. Peter in the councell of Hierusalem first gives his definitive sentence Gal. 1. 8. S. Paul came to HierusaleÌ„ to see S. Peter 192 For the confirming of which primarie of S. Peter so established by holie scriptures the holie Doctors are sâ—â—laiâ—e that falsehood it self cannot denie it For s. Clemens Romanus in the year of our Lord 80. saies that S. Peter by the merrit of his faith was assigned to bee the foundation of the church and he is the first of the Apostles etc. wheâ—e you see that to bee the first is to bee the foundation of the church Dyonysius Areopagita in the yeare of our Lord 100. lib. de divinis nominibus c. 3â— teacheth that St. Peter was supreme honor the ancientest head of divines Hyâ—â—olytus in the yeare 220. in his oratione de consummatione â—â—ndi calls S. Peter prince and rocke of faith And Origenes in the yeare 230. in his 5. homilie on Exâ—â—â—s he calles S. Peter the rock and sollid foundation of the church et ad Psal. 1. as you maie read in Eusebius lib 6. â— â—â— he calles Peter the rocke against whome hell gates shall not prevaile et 17. homil in Lucam he calles him Prince of the Apostles and on the 6 to the Roma he expounds that of S. John 20. of the threefold charge of feeding his sheep to bee made the foundation of the church 193. And Eusebius Alexandrinus in the 260. in his homilie of the resurrection expounding those wordes Saie vnto the Disciples vnto Peter he there declares how onely to Peter he gave the keis Petrus Alex in the year 280. in his sermoÌ„ de Poenitentia calles Peter the Prince of the Apostles And Constantyne the Emperor in the yeare 280. in his donation calles Peter the vicar of God on earth And the first Councell of Nice in the yeare 325. canone 39. Arabicâ— calls the Byshop of Rome the prince of all the Patriarchs S. Aâ—ha in the yeare 340. in his epistle ad Felicem calles S. Peter the piller on whom of the foundatioÌ„ and Apostles of the church And S. Basil the great in the yeare 370 in c. 2. Esaiae et in prohaemio de judicio dei 〈◊〉 in orat 3. de peccatis et lib. 2. contra EunomiuÌ„ he calls Peter the prince of the Apostles and foundation of the church Cyrillus Hierosol in the yeare 370 calls Peter the prince of the Apostles â—â—â—echs â— 11. he gives the reason in that Math 17. whâ—â— the â—â—her Apostles were silent Peter confessed Thou aâ—t Christ the sonne of the living God S. Chrys inferreth from thence whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound in heaven that he is the foundation of the church and in his 83. homil in Math. he inferrs the like ouâ— of these words I will build my church and in the Psal. â—0 he inferrs asmuch out of these words Simon Simon Sâ—â—â—aâ— hath sought 194. And for the same primacie of Peter the â—â—â—in Fathers are as plaine Tertull in the yeare 200. â— 21. de pudiciâ—ia on those words on thee I will build my church and to thee I wil give my keies he inferres in that it is said whatsoever thou loosest and not whatsoever yee loose that S. Peter was head And s. Cyprian in the yeare 25â— lib. 1. epist. 8. He saies there is one God one Christ one church one ehaire seated on S. Peter by our saviours voice And s. Cyprian lib. de vnitate Ecclesiae Cathol out of the words of S. Math. 16. Vpon this roche etc. and of S. John the 21. Feede my flocke and of S Joh. the 20. As my father sends me so I send you He showes there that S. Peter is the onely foundation and though the Apostles were sent yet with a mission subordinate to S. Peter and to the virtue of his chaire s. Ambrose in the yeare 370. out of these words Mat 16. Vpon this rocke I will build my church he gathers that S. Peter is the rock s. Hier. in the yeare 380 ad Ps 13 calls S. Peter the head of the church et in â— 16. Mat. coÌ„cording the rebuke of our Saviour the authoritie of S. Peter given to him he saies that preheminence was onely promised then and after his infirmitie it was performed et in his epist. 89. ad Aug. c 2. he saies S. Peter was of such authoritie that S. Paul writes he came to â—ome to see S. Peter And S. Aug. in the yere 400. in his book quaestionuÌ„ veteris et novi testam q. 75. he inferrs that all the Apostles were contained in S. Peters firmness that before you brought as an inference of great absurditie against me et in tract 124. in Joh. he inferrs out of these words Vnto thee I give the keies c. et in sermone 5. in festo Petri et Pauli he inferrs froÌ„ those words Vnto thee I give the keies
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.
his preface locorum commu for catholick church in the creed reade christian church â— Motive 6 Motive the power of myracles â— Motive 8. Motive 9. Motive 10. Motive 11. Motive 12. Motive The first Demostration of the Catholick truth The secoÌ„d Demostration To faith two judgments required Into what one evideÌ„t judgmeÌ„t of credibilitie is to be resolvediâ— to That this evideÌ„t judgment is to be had before an act of faith In to what our certaine mevident judgment is to be resolved into Whie I beleeve any article of our belâ—â—se Whie I certainly and evidently do beleeve That theâ— is coÌ„mitted no circle herein Two diverse objects Whiâ—in our opinion ther is no circle Wee are free from a circle See 1 â—â— That M H. A doth not vrge any graunted ground against 〈◊〉 see 143. That I should not beleeve him himselfe perswades me M. H. A. woven vp in an endless boâ—â—oÌ„ Catholicis praedicâ—tibus The 6. Paâ—â— The mayn question might for 2â— Mr. H. A. argument have bene transferred How the judgmeÌ„t of the church in what sense is infallible The Catholick church is the rule of faith in manifold sences Hervaeus interpreted vide n. 165. Mat 10. 2. Mat 17. 1. Marci 9. 2. Marci 4. 33 Luc. 8. 51. et 18. Ioh. 21. 2. 18. 11. Ioh. 3. 1. Ioh. 8 1. 10 Mat. 2. Marc. 3. Lucae 6. To be named stil first rather argues primacie of authoritie then of order The 10 of S Mat. 2. examined S. Andr. â— der called before S. Peter Whie S. Paul mentioneth S. Iames 〈◊〉 21. of the Apoc. 19. makes against himself if it prove ought in reference to that of Exo. 28. 1. 18. 19. 2. S. Peter walkes on the water â— He is caled by our Saviour the rocke So Hervaeus is to be interpreted â— 155. â—â— 5. Ambrose serm 6â— gather out of S. Peters working of the first myracle that he was head of the church Mat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Ioh 4 â— Ioh. 2◠〈◊〉 S. Mat. 23â— c. v. 9. Cephas signifieth a head and that which is the fouÌ„dation to a house is in proportion a head to a bodie S. Leo. defended That the Pope is not called the Lord God the Pope What wee hold of deposition Proofes out of holy scripture to prove S. Peters primacie Epistola 1. 2â— lacobâ— The Greek fathers affirme the Popes primaciâ— The Greek FaÌ„thers allso affime it That S. Petes authoritie must bee derived to his successors The Pope is not antichrist 2 Thes. â— 2. vide Irenâ—um lib. 5. c. â— Hyppolit in the yeare 2â—â— in oratione de coÌ„summatione mundi D. Athams in the yere 340. quest 29. Cyrillus Hierosol 300. cateches 15. Greg. Kazâ— orat 14. et 4â— D. Chrysost orat 4. in 2. Thes 2 Cyrillus l. 3 in Ioh. c. 6. Divus Hier q. 11. ad Algasiâ— My generall reason for the Popes primacie His answer refuted They part See before aâ—n 117. vsae ad n. 135. See before â— 123. See n. 123. By this hâ— would with Beza avoide the name Catholicke which he cannot does if he grauÌ„e the article of beleife I beleive the Catholicke church See before n 117. adâ— n. 135. Mr. H A. snatchetâ— but doth not fasten on my motives The Catholicke religion grounded nether on the spirituall or temporall profite or pleasure Not by the the policie of the clergie established Noâ— by the policie of the temporall The fearefull resolution of their religion His plea examplfied to be most ridiculus His stile of salutation in the fotâ— front of his Pamphleâ—â— 1. Pet. 1. 〈◊〉 S. 3. ◠〈◊〉 Deut 〈◊〉 31. The 1. part of your treatise S. 7. p. 99. v. 25. 27. * v. 8. 31. †◠Tim. â— 2. ‡ S. 8. p. 9â— L. de pâ—radis c. 12. * CoÌ„ment in Mat. 23. S. 9. * S. 10. p. 100. †Deut â— 24. 25. ‡ See pag. 55. 56. ‖ S. 11. pag. 100. * Chrysost Gal. 1. †S. â—â—â— S. 15. * S. 15. †Isa. 33. 22. Iam. 4. â—2 ‡ S. 18. p. 102. 2. Part. S. 〈◊〉 p. 1â—◠†Iob. 38 1. c. ‡ Gé 22 11. c. 2 Pet. 1. 21 * Exo. 20. 21. â—2 * Gé 20. 7. †Gen. 49. ‡ Num. 12. 6. 8. Iob. 4. 16 33 14 15 16. 2. SaÌ„ 23 2. ‡ Sess. 11 12. †S. 10 p. â—02 * p. 10◠†See pag. 25. 26. 72. ‡ as in Ps. 44. 78. c. 2 Tim. 3. 1â— * or as you recken 43. 77. †Mal. 4. 4. Isa. 8 20. * 2 Thes. 2 9 †S. 23. p. 104. ‡ 2 Esdr. 14. 21. 22. chap. 4. 23. S. 23. * Mat. 10 27 †RoÌ„ 16. 25 26. ‡ Colos. 1 23. Ephes. 3 4 * 1 Thes. 5. â—7 “ 1 Cor 3 2. Heb 5 â— * Act. 28 26 2â— The 3. Part. †◠26 pag. 105. “ S. 2â— * S. 29. †S. 30. p. 106. ‡ See pag. â—7 18. 59. â— 31. * S. 32. c. p. 106. †S. 3â— 3â— 34. ‡ S. 8â— S. â—5 “ Ioh. 14. 17. * Mark 3 30 †S. 36. * S. 37. p. 108. †S. 38. ‡ 1 Cor. 2. 14. Ephes. 1. 17. 18. “ Colos. 3. 10. * S. 3. †S. 40. Ioh. 9. 22. ‡ S. 41. “ S. 43. * Mar. 7. 5. c. †S. 44. c. to 54. p. 109. ‡ See before in p. 62. 63. S. 45. 46. 47. c. p. 110. “ S. 54. c. p 111. * S. 57. 58. †S 56. ‡ pag. â—4 2. Argument ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 112. “ pag. 〈◊〉 “ S. 66 p. 113. * Prov. 9. 13 †Pro. 9. 17. ‡ â— 18. ‡ S. 67. * Exod. 20. Cruâ—â—m â—â—am adorâ—mus Domine * Psa. 119. 105. †S. 68 p. 114. ‡ S. 69. 70. 71. See pag. 29. 30. 80. 81. “ Rev. 13. 2. * S. 72. p. 115. †S. 80. ‡ Synechdoche * S. 73. †S. 74. 7◠‡ Krino S. 76. p. 116. “ Act. 10. 20. * Act. 22. 10. †Anastas ‡ S. 77. 78. Act. 5. 34. “ S. 79. p. 117. * S. 80. idias epiluseos †Propria interpretatione Englished by Mr. I. A. private spirit interpretation ‡ S. 80. S. 82. “ S. 83. * S 85. †S 88. S. 89. p. â—19 3. Arg. †2. Pet. 3. 10. ‡ S. 91. pag 120. see p. 70. 5. Arg. S. 92. †In those things that are plainely set doâ—n in the scriptures al such things ar found as concern faith hope charity Augustine de doct Christ. l. 2 c. 9. * S. 94 The 4. 5. parts after handled S. 153. c pag. 134. * S. 157. * S. 160. †V. 20 S. 159. Homil 5â— in Math. ‡ S. 〈…〉 pag. 135. S 162 16â— * S. 164. pa. 13◠†Colos. 1. 17. 18 ‡ 1 Cor. 2. 16. ‖ Rev. 9. 11. “ S. 165. * S. 166. †S. 165. ‡ 2 Ioh. 1. 1 ‖ Act. 20. 17 †S. 167. pa. 137. S. 168. * S. 169. †S. 170. pag. 138. ‡ 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
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
It is sayd to be full of baâ—iy And the 1. â—â—eg 7. 15. It is sayd that the braâ—en pillars were thirty eight cubiâ—â—â— in length and yer 2. Parall 3. 19. but thirty five Math. 1. 8. It is sayd that Joram begaâ— Qziaâ— but in the 4. book of the Kings which the Protestants call the second it is written that Joram was father to Ochozias Ochoizas to Joas Joas to Amaâ—â—â—s not Joram to Ozias otherwise called Azarias Mat. 1. 3 16. Joseph is called Jacob wheras S. Luk. 3. 23 nameth him 〈◊〉 Mat 10 10. the Apostles sent to prâ—ach are forbidden to have a â—reffe in their â—aâ—ds and yet S. Mark 6 8 baâ— them take onely a staffe or rod in their hand Mat. 26 34 and Luk. 22 34. sayth that before the cock did crow Peter should deny him thrice but S. Marke the 14. 30. sayth Christs words were Before the cock shall crowe twise thou shalt thrisâ— deny me Mar 15 25. â—ayth our Saviour was crucified at the third howre but S. John 19 14 saith it was about the sixt houre before he was condenmed by Pâ—â—ate So that you see the comparing of place onely with place often times may bring a poore man into a maze or circle except he adde to this the authoritie of the Church and the holy Fathers and the learned Doctors exposition by whose helpe all these seeming contradâ—â—tions will easily be salved Now wheras you may answer that these difficults are in matters of fact and not of doctrine so it much imports not whither a man reconcilâ—s these places or no I graunt the first but I deny the sequâ—â—â— For since you teach that al difficults of scripture may be helped by comparing of one place with another now when as ignorant men shall folow this your rule as an unfallible guide when they see themselves ledd by it vnto a contradiction they doe not onely begin to cal into question this but al other things conteyned in the scriptures seing the self same truth affirming the little as well as the great and as much abhorring from coÌ„tradiction of a litle matter as of a great The second braunch of my antecedent which I bring is that holy scriptures hath many senses litterall and spirituall yea and often many senses literrall and many senses spirituall All this you deny wonder that I doe not prove it I answer that no disputant useth to prove comoâ—mâ—â—â—mes and principles and we use not to prove coÌ„mon 〈◊〉 at most Protestants allow of viz. of a litterall and a spirituall sense the lâ—sâ— wherof they divide into three members into an all gâ—ricell tropological anagogicall sense yea and not without great cause they allow of this since D. August lib. 11. confess cap. 26 et lib. 11. De â—â—â—â—tate Dei c. 19. sayth also that the scripture often haâ— many litterall senses But you against the holy fathers held that it hath onely one sense but as you answer appliable to diverse places times and persons Here I wonder that you should be so consideÌ„tly hoveld with your own concâ—â—t and so caried away with your privat spirit that you see not that which to most manifest But even as a pigeon that is seeled in your soaring spirit you see onely the way at length to your own downfall though in your conceit you ascend bolt upright for a season But that the scripture hath many senses we leave as proved and if to prove fitter for another place Now it sufficeth for this place to show that which you graunt to sufficient to prove the second part of my antecedent For if that one sense hath reference to diverse tymes places and persons it must needes be very difficult require some common help besides themselves to obtaine their severall true expositions nay here me thinks you graunt that the scriptures hath diverse senses since you graunt diverse as it were formalities of senses respecting divers places tymes and persons Here also in prosecuting of this point you seem to mistake our doctrine For we hold that neyther Apostle or the Pope have domintoÌ„ over our faith or authoritie to institut Sacraments of themselves neyther can they make what they will as a matter of faith or tradition But it must be received tyme out of mynde by the vniform coÌ„sent of that Church which hath kept her peâ—petuall succession of Bishops from S. Peter and then S Aug. in epist. 118. will teach you that insolentissimae infaniae est existimare non certe fieri quod ab vniversa ecclesia fit that it is a most insolent madness to think that it should not be right that the whole church doth teach Besides the Pope doth not make a matter of faith but declareth onely that such and such a thing is to be beleeved and that by the inspiration of Almighty God guiding him as he is the head of the church Neyther dooth he for all this omitt to use all humane helpes of counsell and consultatioÌ„ with the learned that though as he is head of the church he hath a promise froÌ„ Almighty stil to assist him yet in that he might not seeme to presume in omitting the vse of naturall and prudentiall helpes and meanes he vseth all diligent serâ—tinp therein The place of 15. of the Acts which you examine of mine where I lay that in the counsel held at Hierusalem all was concluded with this of S. Peter the head It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us This I sayd and still averr makes much against you For here the Apostles to end the controversy in hand trusted not their own several spirits but to a mature deliberation and counsell where S. Peter was hâ—ad and vinâ—eere though he vsed an Apostolicall inguisition and therfore it is noted in the 7. verse that Peter role up showing thereby that he was head and had the preemineâ—ce of place first to speak noting also his priviledge that the first Gentills were chosen by his mouâ—h though S. Paul was designâ—d to convert them Now unto that which you 〈◊〉 that verse 13. and 14. S. James 〈◊〉 stanâ—â— all and that hence we might rather hold him head of the Church I answer that doth not hence folow in that S. James in that he was an Apostle and Bishop of HierusaleÌ„ gave his sentence nert For surely S. Paul and S. Barnabas also spake though their speach is interposed for the better declaration of the question to be decided and for the greater confirmation of S. Peters sentence And though S. James sayd in his speach I judge he doth not meane thereby that he gave the principal definitive sentence since he and all the rest followed and seconded by their suffâ—ages the decision of S. Peter as it is plaine in the text The whole assembly for reverence of his person and approbation of his sentence holding their peace The which S. Hierâ—m affirmeth saying all the multitude held their peace and into his sentence James the Apostle
horrible errors go the scriptures though directed by the private spirits interpretatioÌ„ cannot be a rule of faith My major is most certaine My Minor is also certainely knowen since ther was never yet any heresie so absurd or monstrous that did not pretend to vse for his weapon cited places of scripture and their collations as the Arrians Pelagians Semipelagians Lutheranists Calvinists go that private spirits interpretation cannot be a certain rule to all 90 To this Argument you saie I have put to much strength but you say I have not whet the edge All that you can bring against me is that you saie you can retort it on the private spirit of the Popes determinations and definitions but you can not deme but that the churâ—h hath more promises and so consequently her visible head as I shall prove And so I see howsoever you would not be cut with the edge you care not much to admit a fore bruife by the blowes And it is the greatest disgrace a man can have still to be drie beaten as you confesse you are and are sure to be But for your virtuall retorsion I shall actually answer you in his due place 91. That you object out of the 1. Cor. 11 19. Act. 15. 1 2. Act. 15 15 16. etc. proves rather that there must be one visible supreme judge to decide controversies As for your calumniations they are most proper to men of your coat and ranck and when time place and paper wil scarse give sufficieÌ„t vent to our reasons I wonder you should blow abroad these glassy bubbles breathed against the Sea Apostolick But the best that you can answer is that they will serv your children of Amsterdam to run after I never return your jests but provoked by you Where you say that counsels and Fathers may be racked to favour heresie as well as the scriptures I deney that they can be but that the vniforme and generall consent of the church may easily distinguish them 92. My Fourth Argument as I take was this THere be many things we beleeve by a divine and not by a humaine art of faith which are not revealed in holy scripture nor with such evideÌ„ce deduced out of holy scriptures if you exempt the authoritie of the church My antecedent I proved by instances that we beleeve against Helvidius our Ladies perpetuall virginitie that God the holy Ghost proceedes from God the Father and the sonne as from one beginning the twelve articles of our beleefe as they â—â—e the abstayning from strangled meat baptising of infants relebration of the Sabaoth on Sunday and not on Satterday the receiving fasting and kneeling â—c All which I did urge against you You answer you have sufficient proof of these things that ar of faith but you show neither scripture or denie them to be beleeved with a divine aâ—t of faith or give reason why we practise other things out of scripture contrarie to the practise of the primitive church 93. And when I have twice or thrise desired a distinct answer â—o eaâ—â— particular you would satisfiâ—â—â—e with your marvaile that I would have you enter battaile with the Arrians Anti-Trinitarians 〈◊〉 and have you convince them by scriptures And with great reason I prove I urge this For since you adventure to assigne an adâ—quate rule of faith you are bound to show me how this rule of yours is able to mainteyne it self against whosoever and to distinguish truth from falshood as I offer to doe by my assigned rule So that this is not to put on foot new questions but it is properly 〈◊〉 presse the footing of our cheife questions answer 94. You proceed and would have me to mainteyne Tradition to be the totall and not the partial rule of faith togither with the written word of God Hence you inferr that I graunt some word of God without tradition to be knowen I answer the word of God as it is extrinsecall the word of God and to be knowen of vs depends of tradition and the authoritie of the church Though intrinsecallie and in it self it is the word of God though it be knowen to none so that you may see in what sense I make tradition to be the rule of faith and apostolicall tradition also I affirme to be also the word of God though unwritten 95. Here make you a long digression and you show what acts kept by tradition are to be kept and to be remembred to children after ages as you say to see the destruction of Rome but we knowe certainly the opposers by their oppositioÌ„ will work themselves their destruction and confusion of their Babylon And we know that Balaam in stedd of cursing Gods people did blesse them John Fox was your Nabucodonosor turned so out to grasse that he durst not come neare the wall by reason of a deep mellancholie apprehension for feare of being crased like an vrinall As for the spanish Armadoe whatsoever the Spaniards intended to doe here in England our Countrymen did performe much at Cales howsoever they ded speed at Lisborne before I answer onely this God and St. George for my religion King and Countreymen I would doe that which befitted a good subject but these your instances are malitious and odious 96. To that plaine place 2. Thes 2. v. 15. Therefore brethren stand and hold the traditions which you have learned whether it be by word of mouth or by epistle This place is so playne that S. Chrysost affirms S. Paul herein to have meant of unwritten traditions that Doct. Whitaker sayes his speech is herein very unworthy so holy a father And that which you bring out of S Chrysostom against me showes that all sufficient precepts of manners and good life are set down in scripture That which you bring out of the 26. of the Acts 22 we say that in tradition nothing is spoken besides that is contrarie to the Apostles speeches As for that which you bring the 1. of the Cor. 14 37. is nothing to the purpose For we doe not deny but those things that are written are true But if you would have more plain places of scripture in defense of tradition â—â—s the 15. of the Acts 41. Where he in confirming of the church commands them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and what precepts S Paul meanes he explaines himself chap. 16. v. 4. He delivered unto them to keep the decrees that were decreed of the Apostles and auncients that were at Hierusalem which deliverie without question were by word of mouth what these decrees were it is uncertain by scriptura though they may be kept by the help of tradition 98. The fourth thing that I am to show is to prove how you walk in a vitious circle proving the selfe same by the selfe same as the authoritie of the scripture by your private spirit and your privat spirit by the authority of the scripture by which manner of proof you may prove any thing 99
authoritie of all the Fathers which could not chuse but puffe up men with pride 108. Against which men I reason thus Eyther the holie Fathers had this spirit of God or else they had not If they had as surely they should have if Mr H. A. did not feynedly preferr them before him then they infalliblie were instructed by his spirit in matters of faith why are their authorities rejected by Mr Henry Aynsworth as earth and ashes If they had not then this spirit is a new and so not a true spiritt since it differrs from that spirit that ruled the auncient fathers many whereof were the Apostles schollers 109. But that the holy Fathers had this spirit I prove since you cannot deny but that they were of the elect the sonnes of God but they can not be of the elect and of the sonns of God without his spirit John 10 27. My sheep heare my voice 6. Joh. 45. erunt omnes docibiles Dei 1. Joh. 2 27. You have no need that any teach you of ought And here by better reason the places that you cited before for the proving of your privat spirit return on your own head Joh. 14. 17. vers 26. Joh. 15 26. John 16 14. Rom. 8 9 1. Joh. â— 27. Joh. 3 9. v. 11. â— 8 Joh. 1 5. 1. John 4 1. there is no triall of the spirits then to trie whether it be of God but these menâ—s spirit were of God since they were of the elect And if you prescribe the tree of the spirit by the fruit Gal. â— 22 25 these mens virtues learning pietie as you confesse are to be preferred before your self 109. Againe I will not onely prove your spirit to be dissonant frâ— the holie fathers but that it is not Apostolical For if the Apostles had been inspired with this spirit every one had â—â—ayed it so that by himself without the help of another he could have distinguished of truth from falshood what needed then a Conneâ—l to be held at Hierusalem since every one could sufficiently distinguish of this truth 110. And to show further how your spirit is incompassed with difficults I argue thus This spirits testification is ever infallible or not If it doe deceive them it is not of God If it be still infallible how can ther come such various coÌ„troversies in the Church of God 111. If you answer this is ever infallible when it agrees with the word of God to which it is to be compared But then I argue if this spirit doth never testifie but when it is read what will they doe then if they were to dispute with a Turke if he should deny the whole Bible or about a controversie of the whole Bible whether it be Canonical or noâ— But admit that the testification of the spirit were onely to be tried by the written word of God How comes it then that the Lutherans and Calvinists are at such an unreconcïlable diffentien in comparing the scriptures This is my body and this is my blood by their private spirits interpretation every one contends to have this spirit to have the true sense of the word How will you then be able to settle these variances by the bare word to the liking of both 112. And to answer the placrs that you doe or may be produced for the mainteyning of the privat spirit I wil give generall grounds to answer all answering some in particular First then to that of John 10 27. My sheep heare my voice you must mark what sheep he meanes viz. the sheep that he committed to S. Peter as Pastor John 2â— 17. feed mysheep And not content with this he showes how these sheep should hear his voice Luc. 10. 6. He that heares you hears me and he that contemns you contemns me The other place is of Esaie the Prophet 54. 13. I will give all my sonns learned c. Jer. 31. 34. Herafter the man shall not teach his neighbour all shall know me from the least to the greatest Joh. 6. 45. out of which and such like places they falsly gather they have testificatioÌ„ of the spirit 113. But these men abuse scripture drawing it to their own sence For these places and the like doth not prove that which they seeke but onely show a threefold difference between the old testament and the new First in that the Prophets did teach in the old testameÌ„t but Christ Jesus himselfe did teach in the new â—cv 1. 1. Where our Saviour is said to have spoke to the Fathers in the Prophets but to vs in his Sonn 2. Moses and the Prophets did propound to the people what they were to beleeve but Christ Jesus vy his inward prace given them did help them to beleeve he not only teaching them by his voice but also helping them by his grace 3. that Moyses and the Prophets did preach Christ onely to the Jewes but Christ and his Apostles to all nations â—oÌ„ 10. 18. in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum so that interpreting what places soever you have or shal produce for the establishing of this privat spirit shall easily be answered by referring them to these places THE 5. PART 114. That I am to prove is to defend our Catholiche opinion from such an idle proofe or circular resolution of our faith The which that I may better performe some coÌ„mon grounds are to be handled before that being presupposed the difficults that oppose our opinion may be the better cleared 115. First then we must 〈◊〉 suppose that since every Heathen or Jew doth know by the light of nature that their is one God the author of all things and that wee are created to serve and honor him and that God is the rewarder of vertue and punisher of vice And since by discourse he may naturally reach vnto this that although it was most free for God to create any thing or to will any thing ad extra yet supposing that he hath created and so if not necessarily yet infaliblie by the excessive propension of his goodnesse he doth propose to men the best and fittest meanes for his honor and divine service And since the Monarchical government is best as appeareth by necessary subordination of creatures elements nations causes beasts vnto one supreme Mr. spring of all So since God having created man would be worshipped of him It is most readie to any mans discourse that he hath ordained one vniform kind of church or service to al people The which as it cannot chuse but seem most probable to a man through the great conveniencie and congruitie Yet if we shall suppose that the multiplicitie of religious and ceremonious services should as coÌ„tradictories or contraries thwart one another so their supreme end It would necessarily be gathered out of the coÌ„pass of any reasonable reaching brain that al these religioÌ„s were not instituted of God and that everie man was bound to weigh ponder the
vs and whose judgment you saie you preferr before your selfe For first you intangle your selfe in an endless circle For you prove the privat spirit to be true in that the written word saies as interpreted by you that it is true and you prove the writteÌ„ word to bee true by the private spirit both which wee denie since we will have neither the writteÌ„ word alone or privat spirit to be the rule of our faith And you doe not only coÌ„mit a circle but perswade against your owne perswasion since you would have me to beleeve you onely citing scriptures before thowsand Fathers citing scriptures also whose worth by so many titles you preferr before your selfe suerly suerly you have no guift in perswasion 152. And not onely thus vnreasonablie doe you proceed but as the Manichies to S. August you object many places of scripture whose infereÌ„ces still â—re Nolâ— Catholicis credere doe not beleeve the Catholicks I can then returne you this answer with St. Aug. noÌ„ rectè facies per EuaÌ„geliuÌ„ me cogere ad Manichaei fidem q. ipsi EvaÌ„gelio Catholicis praedicantibus credidi You doe not wel by scriptures cited from the gospel to vrge me to beleeve your Brownisme against the Catholick faith For this Gospel out of which you cite these wordes and wrested places I received froÌ„â—he Catholick church from whence you would diâ—â—wade me 153. The â— thing that I am to shew is that the Popes definiâ—tive sentence at least with a generall counsel is sufficient to determine all controversies and is a sufficient groundworke of faith This you saie I propound faintly in that I did alleage I did not of purpose dispute it though as you object it was the maine question 154. I answer most true it is according to my answer wherin I did voluntarily yeild to this to which by force of argument I was never vrged so it is the maine drift of the question But in regard of the satisfaction of you or your arguments it is not the maine question For when I saie there is something els required besides the writteÌ„ word to make it a compleat rule of faith I did not answer faintly when I graunted more then that to which I was vrged For your Argument required to know how the judgment of the church and in what sence might be infallible might have a manifold sence For if you take the definition of the church for the consent of all the fathers doctors of the church so it is infallible If you take it for a general CouÌ„cel coÌ„firmed by the Pope so it is also of infallible authoritie If you take it for the definition of the Pope with the councel of Cardinals defining ex cathedra so it is of infallible authoritie And since in all these sences the Catholick church is an indeficient rule to determine a matter of faith and to interpret the scriptures I did not therefore faintly answer when I insisted on the last 155 As for your rhethoricall flourish and forged resolution of my faith I have sufficiently excluded our opinion from that circle in which you stick fast Nervaeus wheÌ„ he saies the Pope is virtualy the whole church meanes nothing else but that he is the spiritual head to direct the whole church by the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost 156. As for my vellitation those few that I brought were sufficient to overthrow your groundles opinioÌ„ As for my reasons in the armadoe of mine as you terme theÌ„ that you saie wil never enter the feild It may be well they scorn to oppose one that lies at their fellowes mercie already 157. Now you come to examin the prerogatives of S. Peter Out of the whole series of which the circuÌ„stances therof not onely out-of each particular I drawe an infallible Argument but you in an swering them rather seeke to shun or avoid a blow then to give any 158. First you graunt that ever almost S. Peter is named first of the Apostles you except some 3. or 4. places but you cite none though otherwise most frequent in multiplicitie of cited places to no purpose Hence you graunt that primacie of order and not of authoritie maie be gathered You saie this gratis But since the holy Ghost both not repeat this prunacie to no purpose surely there his authoritie above his other brethreÌ„ is argued thence And since to be named still first through the whol scripture rather argues primacie of autority then of order Why should not wee rather iâ—ferâ— the vsual then the vnusual significatioÌ„ especiallie since in all records wee see the prioritie of the place is given to the preheminencie of the person 159. But let us examin one place the 10. of Mat 2. And the names of the 12. Apostles be thâ—se The first Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother and so Marci 3. Luc. 6. he is still named first Which cannot bee vnderstood of prioritie of your order you vnderstaÌ„ding therby prioritie of yeares or vocatioÌ„ Since S. Andrew that is named next excelled S. Peter in yeares was first called As S. Ambr. witnesseth on the 2. of the Cor. 12. and he inferreth then that although S. Andrew was his elder yet S. Peter was his superior This place made so much for this that Theodorus Beza although he coÌ„fessed all copies agreed herein yet he would have this word first to be â—oisted in see Beza in the annotations of the new testameÌ„t 556. As for that of the Galatians where S. Paul not numbring or reckoning the Apostles of set purpose as the 3. Euangelists doe meÌ„tioneth first S. James Bishop of Jerusalem whom first he met and who led him vnto the other Apostles as it appeareth Act 21. I. Calvin seing in his conscience the force of this Argument at which you wink grants that hence may be gathered that he was first of the 12. Apostles but not the head of the whole world 160. As for that which you object the 21. of the Apocalyps 19. where the foundation of the wall of the citie is described to be adorned with pretious stones And then you inferr in that in the Preists habit or ornament the Jasper which is as you say the stone of Benjamin by his place makes against you if I would plaie the part of a Cabbalist or naturalist But the scripture it self Exod. 28 v. 18 19. confutes you For there in the first place is said to be placed the stone Sardius Topazius and Smaragdus In the second the Carbunâ—â—â— the Saphyrus and the Jaspis So that we see the Jaspis or the stone Benjamin by your doctrine should not have the first place 161. Secondly against my congruitie alleaged for S. Peters primacie Math. 14. 29. where S. Peter walkes vpon the water Out of which place S. Chrysostom homil 57. and S. Bernard lib. 2. de consider ad EugeniuÌ„ doth inferr S. Peters prerogative above the other Apostles you saie rather argues his
of the hethens planting Israel spoken of in Ps. 44. was largely vvritten in the book of Iosua The things rehearsed throughout Psa. 78. are writteÌ„ in Exo. Num. Ios. Sam. c. So the evident scriptures doo coÌ„vince you The old good vvay Ier. 6. 16 vvas the law taught by Moses and the Prophets Psa. 103 7. Deut. 8. 6. 9. 12. and 11. 22. 28 and 31. 29. Iudg. 2. 17. this law vvas vvritten and to this did the Prophets call the people Isa. 8. 20. Mal. 4. 4. and from the other ordinances of their fathers Ezek. 20. 18. And this vvith the accomplishment of the promises vpon them that vvalked therin vvas the truth vvhich the fathers should tel their children Isa. 38. 19. as appeareth Deu. 6 6 7. Ioh. 17 17. And the things vvhich Solomon teacheth as a father Prov. 1. 8. c. are vvritten in that other his books Prov. 22. 20. Eccl. 12. 10. and of other things he vvilleth us to take heed Eccle. 12. 12. That strange it is any man reading the scriptures should plead against them as insufficient to teach us all doctrines needfull for salvation Vnto Ecclus. 8. 11. I think you meane v. 8. 9. I answer the book is not authentik and so proves nothing yet if the author mean the Elders doctrine agreeable to the law his counsel is good If he mean other humane traditions of the Iewes then I answer the vvisdome of Iesus the soon of Sirach herein is proved to be foolishnes by the doctrine of Iesus the Sonn of God Mark 7. 7. 8. 13. Vnto 4. Esdr. 14. 5. 6. I answer the author is a fit man to bolster vp popish traditions by signes and lying vvonders He telleth as you allege of doctrines that Moses vvas not to teach but to hide These then apperteyned neyther to law nor gospel Deu. 32. 4. Rom 10 5. 6. 8. I am content therfore that they go among the Popes decrees He telleth that Gods law vvas burnt and that he vvould vvrite agayn all that had been doon in the vvorld since the beginning This lye is vvorthy to be put into your Legendaurie But what forgeries vvill not you bring to help your Pope withal To this also you may ad if you please your tale fathered vpon Dyonysius Areop with the vvriter thereof as vnlike that Dionyse in Act. 17. as Esâ—ras the 2. vvas to Ezra the first Vnto 2. Thes. 2 15. I answer all Pauls traditions I vvill gladly admitt of but not of the Popes therefore any more then of Mahomets Besides Paul taught nothing but from the vvritteÌ„ law Act. 26. 22. yea that which he taught by word to these Thessalonians was from the scriptures as you may see Act. 17. 1. 2. 3. Vnto 1 Tim. 6. 20 and 2. Tim. 2. 1. I answer as to the former whatsoever doctrine is Apostolik is also authenticall and I imbrace it The thing committed first from God to Paul from Paul to Timothie from Timothie to others vvas the sound doctrine of the Gospel 1. Tim. 1. 11. â— Tim. 1. 10. 11. All vvhich is written in the bible sufficient for faith for all good workes and for vvisdom vnto salvation 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. So that vnwritten traditions are needless for the gospel of life though necessary I graunt for the stablishment of Poperie Besides you mark not that this committing of the vvord to Timothie and by him to others will cary the crown away froÌ„ Peters feighned successor the Pope That Timothies successors at Ephesus have more â—o shew for themselves theÌ„ the Byshops of Rome for authority of vnwritten traditions if any there be Whereas you say S. Paul spake the hidden mysteries in secret I know not vvhere you learned this vnless by some secret tradition at Rome For if they vvere the hidden mysteries of the Gospell Christ willed them to be preached openly and Paul himselfe testifieth that they vvere published among all nations even to every creature vnder heaven and he vvrote his Epistles which conteyn the hidden mysteries of the wisdome of God to vvhole churches to be read to all the brethren True it is he taught them orderly first the rudiments of religion or doctrines of the beginning of Christ vvhich he calleth milli then the higher mysteries which he caleth strong meat Which order of his all good Byshops and ministers of Christ should follow stil in feeding their flocks But that the mysteries of Christ should be spokeÌ„ by him in secret so as the yonger Christians might not freely hear or read them as you gather is a tradition of your own There is none of his Epistles vvherein you may not find both milk and strong meat and as he vvrote so he spake in his sermons It may be you have reference to 1 Cor. 2. 7. we speak the wisdom of God in a mysterie even the hidden wisdom c. If so then you corrupt both Pauls vvords meaning The mysteries were not hidden or conceled from any Christian but from the princes of the world and naturall man as the words following manifest 1 Cor. 3. 8. 14. and hidden not as vnlawfull for them to heare but as vnpossible for them to vnderstand though they heard because in their vvorldly wisdome they despised God 1 Cor. 1 18 20 21. c. Thus men may see into vvhat strayts you are driven to find out your traditions which cannot be mainteyned but by wresting the texts The 3. thing which you vndertake to shew is that your reasons for all my answers remayn in full force you repete your â— reason thus That which is not known for Gods word cannot be the rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knoweÌ„ for Gods word go Scriptures by themselves are not the rule of faith I answer first by imitating your argument thus That vvhich is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the rule of faith But Popes traditions are not knowen for Gods word Therefore Popes traditions are not the rule of faith On the contrary I reason thus That vvhich is known for Gods word is to be the rule of faith The holy scripture is known for Gods word Therefore it is to be the rule of faith The first proposition is by your selfe here proved The second was also by your selfe graunced S. 3. where you said of the scriptures thus we reverence them as Gods holy word derived from the fulnes of truth c. The conclusion must follow of the premisses so the truth hath wonne for the book of God your error for vnwritten traditions must give place or ells your owne mouth shall condemn you Secondly I answer your argument is deceytfull as your former vvas For to omitt that it is all of negatives vvhich in strict reasoning should not be you add a term in the 2. proposition vvhich vvas not in the first viz by themselves vvhich also you put in the conclusion This is no right nor
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