maketh him a ground of grounds whereon 〈◊〉 bâ—ild our faith that he must tell us what is divine scripture and vvhat is the meaning of every point of scripture vvhat is unvvritten veritie c. and none may doubt or contradict you give me an anansvver from Aristotle Philosophie but altogither neglect the true sophie or wisdome that is from above For by what ground from God may I be assured that the B. of Rome rather then of Eph sâ—â— c is the onely man in the world on whom my â—aith must rest oâ— that ther is such a mutual reciprocation betwixt Gods word him that the one necessarily depends on an other the word on the Pope as touching us I know the church as it is manifested by the scriptures so beareth witnes agayn of the scriptures holdeth them forth or should as the pillar ground of truth But this not alwayes nor necessarily For how thâ—n is it come to passe that the church of Ephesus which in Pauls time was the pillar and ground of truth hath long synce been swallowed up of heresies Why may I not fear also that the church of Rome whom Paul wâ—rn d not to be hie minded out to fear least God who spared not the natural branches the Iewes would also not spare her but cutt her off is swallowed up of like evils And to follow your ovvn similitude hovv do you manifest that the Pope is the onely skilful Lapidarie that must value the Carbuncles Saphirs and al other precious stones that shine in the scriptures If a Lapidary should shew you a chaulk stone and say it 〈◊〉 a diamond prize it aâ—â—ording vvould you beleev him and give him 〈◊〉 price yet you beleev the Pope vvheÌ„ he tels you that the fabulous books of â—obie and of Iudith other like apocryphal are canonical inspired of God to be prized as dear as Mosâ—s and the Prophets As he shevves little skil in this art that gives such rubbish in sted of the Topaz Chrysoliteâ— so dare I not trust him in valuing the stones upon Aarons Ephod or shevving the vertue uses of them vvhâ—r of he is more ignorant as experience hath taught them many other men Yet you refuse the holy Ghost the spirit of al truth who onely is able to value the word of God and undoubtedly to manifest the wisdom of the same to build your salvation upon a man who may himself as anon I wil prove by your own confession be the child of damnation Now verily I am loth to put my soul into his hand that hath so little care of his ovvn or make him the onely Pilote of my ship that sayles himself into the gulf of hâ—ll And wheras you vvould havâ— me giv you leav to be of Sâ—â—â—gâ—stines mind who sayd he would not beleev the scripture to be scripture without the authoritie of the church if he and you understand Christ the head of the church auctor of the scriptures good leav have you But if you mean his supposed Vicar the Pope for so your catholik church shrinketh into one man or any such prelate you may take leav if you vvill but I vvil give you none For Augustine vvho vvrote a book of â—etractations râ—pâ—â—nting his ovvn sundry errors and oversights mought err in this as vvel as in other points it is not vvisdom for any man to follovv him in all things that vvas deceived in many And this is such an assertion as behoved him eyther vvâ—l to explaine it or plainly to retract it and not to leav a stumbling block before the blind And if you vvil needs blindfold your self and folovv him yet give others leav to use their ey-sight least they fall into the ditch And herein I not you follovv Augustines stepps for when controversie was between Hierom and him about Peters syn Galat. 2. Hierom alledged many Doctors to back his opinion then desired of him as you doo now of me to give him leav to err with such men if he thought him to err Augustine answered that he had Paul himself in sted of them al yea above them al and to him he did flie and appeal from them al that were otherweise minded and asked leav of them that he mought rather beleev so great an Apostle then any other how learned so ever As you would have leav to be of Austins mind for the other point so wil I take leav to be of his practise in this Your â— argument now foloweth drawn from the difficultie hardnes to understand the scripture Wherto I answered granting some things to be difficult in the Bible but deneying the inference that therefore it is no certayn rule or square of truth Yow reply that the testimonie alledged 2. Pet. 3. 16. doth prove it for in what say you dooth S. Peter say that S. Paul is hard but concerning many points of our faith and religion as concerning predestination reprobation vocation of the gentils justification by faith of which high mysteries S. Paul is the chief and principal master I answer First you confound the things with the scripture which manifesteth the things whereas these two differ much Predestination is a hard thing for men to understand whosoever speak or write of it but the scripture that treateth hereof is playn in it self Paul is not so obscure as your Pope Secondly the Apostle saith that the unlearned unstable doo pervert or wrest these things as the other scriptures also but what is this against those that be taught of God and stablished in the truth by his spirit Evil minded men wil wrest al things be they never so playn Shal we therefore have no rule no sure grouÌ„d of our faith To come theÌ„ neer unto you in this point I freely grant that many high mysteries are in the scriptures hard to be vnderstood of us ignorant men but withal I add this that those mysteries are made more hard by your Popes determinations For wheras men mought have some good mesure of light in these mysteries by the playn scriptures it is come to passe by your Popes prelates glosses interpretations coÌ„ments c. that darknes grosse darknes hath covered many people who if they had never read any thing but the book of God inought have seen much more clearly through his grace You doe not right therfore to complayne of difficultie insufficiencie in the Prophetical and Apostolical writings Why rather mind you not theâ—saying of the holy Ghost in the scriptures Prov. 18 8. 9. The words of my mouth are al playn to him that wil understand and streight to them that would find knowledg But you make Gods holy comfortable words to be crooked dark deceivable rules and his divine oracles given for the salvation of men to be like the doubtfull Delphik oracles of the Divill uttered for mens destruction You think the late fathers and your Popes can
Apostles or from Apostolicall men 23. And not without great reasoÌ„ doth God use that means both to ad estimatioÌ„ to his holy mysteries to preserve these pretious stones for the Jewellers that did know how to prise theÌ„ that even natural reason hath taught and that the very Heathen Philosophers have used therby to adde prise and to distinguish the fitness of the auditor Pythagoras therfore taught his schollars rather by word of mouth relation of others then by Dictats or writing Gallen also lib. 2. de Anatomicis Adminiculis declares how the auncient Physitians did preserve and teach their medicines and receipts onely by verball relation froÌ„ one from another Cicero 1. De legibus affirms that it is a great error in a well governed coÌ„mon wealth to have all governed by written lawes And therfore the most ancientest and famous Rabbines and not onely they but our Hyllarius and Origen doe teach that Moses had not onely delivered him the tables of the law in the mountaigne but also most secret and hidden mysteries and explication of the law which truth the author of the first book of Esdras doth not obscurely testifie c. 14 5. I have declared to Moises many miracles and I sayd vnto him saying these wordes thow shalt speake openly and these wordes thow shalt hide and of such secret mysteries that of the Psal. 43. psal 77. Deutr 32. is to bee understood And in regard of these hidden mysteries Dyonis Areopag lib. de caelest Hierarchia â— 1. most diligently warnes Timothie That he should not disclose these things to the rude people So that we see God writ in Moyses heart many thinges that he did not write in the tables of stone This made St. Paul to speake the bidden mysteries in secrett and to give the little ones milk in that their weake stomackes could not brooke other meate And yet by pour rule Mr. H. Ainsw new borne babes like Ostreches should devour proÌ„ in freclie reading applying and epplicating the difficult places of scripture 24. Now since the second and third question are so neerely confined that the ending of the one is the begining of the other the ending of my reasons the begining of your answers and so requiring a resutation of them I thought good having in generall proved the necessitie of tradition besâ—des the written word to end my second part and with my particular proofes to begin the third poinct in interlacing the reasons answers replications together in order but both as breifly as I can 25. My first Reason to prove that the written word of God without the vâ—written word of God Tradition and the definition of the â—h is not the rule of faith in summe is this 26. That which is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knowen for Gods word go scriptures by themâ—â—lves are not the rule of faith 27 My Major is most certaine since nothing can be the indeficient rulâ— of all truth revealed and to bee revealed but the word of the first veritie God which is eyther the writteÌ„ word of God conteyned in the Prophets and the Apostlâ—s or the unwritten word of God coÌ„tained in Apostolical traditions definitions of the church and the uniforme consent of holie Councels and Fathers For still it is Gods or a Kings word whether it be immediately spoke by himself or by the mouth of another whom he authoriseth to speak or whither it be in writing And nothing else caÌ„ be unto us the rule to direct our faith except it first be knowen to be the word of God 28 My Minor is also true proved out of S. Augustine contra epistolam fundament Manich c. 5 Ego Euangelio non crederem nisi me ad haee commoveret Ecclesiae authoritas I should not beleeve the gospel except the authoritie of the church should move me thervnto Lanchius in his confess c. 1. and Brentius in his Prologo Kemnitij in examine CoÌ„cil Trident. Whitak contra Stapl. lib. 2. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policie lib. 1 pag. 84. et lib. pag. 200. et 142. doe all affirme that tradition of the church is necessarie to distinguish what bookes of scripture be scripture and what not And reason it self teacheth us since we doe not heare or see God or his knowen Prophets to write or speak this that is proposed unto us for the word of God most coÌ„venient it is least we wander in infinituÌ„ in proving the word of God by the private spirit and the private spirit by the word of God that there must be one certaine rule or depositum fidei and therfore St. Paul to Timothie â— 6. ch 20. Oh Timothee keep the depositum avoiding the prophane noveltie of voices and avoiding the opposition of falsly called knowledge which certain promising have eâ—red about faith and what that depositum is S Paul in his 2. to Tim 1. v. 13 â— 14 showes Have thou a forme oâ— sound of words which thou hast hâ—aâ—d of me in faith and in the love in Iesus Christ. Keep the good depositum by the holy ghost which dwelleth in us showing that Timothie and Christians ought to keep a certain platform of words delivered to them over and above his epistles which rule of words appropriated to high mysteries and matters of our religion as Trinitie Person Essence Consubstantial TransubstantiatioÌ„ froÌ„ one beginning Sacrament which the Apostle calls soâ—â—â—d words verba sana â— 29 You in 〈…〉 this my first a gâ—â—neÌ„t say that things may be belâ—â—ved though not gathred out of â—he written word understaâ—â—â—ng thâ—rby a humane and a common beleefe I know not what you mean by this except you would have Gods written word onely to be bâ—leâ—ved by a humane faith And therfore when I took you at your word and â—athered thâ—nce that some tradition or as you will terme it traditum is necessarily beleeved besides the written word For whâ— wee speak absolutely of beleefe in divinitie it is to be understood of a divine and not of a humane beleefe and when you speak of the cheef rule you say it may be bâ—leeved without the written word I might inferr that necessarilie it was to bâ— beleeved since you hold that the word of God is the word of God and that necessarily and so to be beleeved So that you may see that your water hath rather wet your shoes thâ—n that myne was spilt on the ground 30. 2. Wheras you say I doe vnjâ—stly condemn your assertioÌ„ that nothing to be beleeved is necessarie for salvatioÌ„ that is not taught by the written word I say most justly and I convinced you of falshood sufficiently when I sayd nothing is so necessarie to salvation by you as the written word which word is not proved by another written word of God To infirme which proofe of mine you produce two texts of scripture John 20 30 31. That
compared vvith Tob. 15. 18. 1. Maccab. 6. 16. vvith 2. Mac. 1. 16. 2. Macc. 1. 19. vvith 2. King 25. Iudith 9. 2. 3. vvith Gen. 49. 5. 6. Esth. apopcryph 12. 5. 6. vvith Esth. can 6. 3. and 3. 2. Esth. apoc 11. 2. vvith Esth. can 2. 16. besides their Popes determinations for making and vvorshiping of similitudes or images of silver and gold wood and stone hethenlike for having the vvorship of God and scriptures in a barbarous tongue vvhich the people understand not and many the like are expressly contrary to the commandements of God as any man of common judgment may evidently preceive yea some of their Popes have repeled the decrees one of another as before hath been manifested Eightly The summ of our faith learned from holy scriptures is to trust on God and Christ alone for mercy and salvation not on creatures as Angels and souls of men nor on our selves or humane merits vvhereby vve resting on God have and doo profess to have ful assurance of our salvation and so have peace of conscience in life and death But Popish faith learned by tradition teacheth men not to trust on God and Christ alone but on the intercession of creatures and Pardons of Popes and on their own merits also for salvatioÌ„ vvhereby their coÌ„sciences accusing them they neyther have nor profess to have such peace by full assurance that they are heyres of God unto salvation as vve nay they rage against this truth as against an heresie Ninthly The holy scriptures vvhich vve rest vpon are of such power and authority that many thowsands in their ages have given their lives for the defense of them and of the things taught onely in them yea even hereticks have dyed for things vvhich they have erroneously thought to be in the scriptures reveled But for Papists they cannot shew many if any that have vvillingly given their lives for such doctrines as have onely bene taught by men by unwritten popish tradition and not in their judgment by the prophetical and Apostolical scriptures Tenthly the Holy scriptures vvhich are the rule of our faith have prophesies of things to come and due accomplishments of the prophesies as they vvere foretold vvhereby vve are confirmed of the truth and infallibility of those vvritings But the vvritings of Doctors Councils Popes on vvhich Papists rely are destitute of this confirmation Neyther dooth the Pope use to prophesie though it vvere necessary if he vvould as Christs vicar obtrude his ovvn decrees for divine oracles seing the testimony of Iesus is the spirit of prophesie as the Angel sayd Rev. 19. 10. Nay rather the prophesies of scripture plainly foreshew the Church of Rome to be the whore of Babylon and her Lord the Pope to be Antichrist Which he fearing it wil come to light forbiddeth therfore his subjects the reading of Gods book Eleventhly Papists themselves are forced in disputing against Iewes which were once Gods church and from which they themselves with us received the books of Moses and the Prophets to use onely the holy scriptures and prophesies to convince them for their Romish church traditions the Iewes doo not regard With these scriptures the Papists doo rightly think the Iewes are sufficiently convicted Even so doo we much more having the scriptures of the new Testament added to the old rightly hold it sufficient to convince the Papists by the written vvord vvhich they acknowledge to be of God and they have no more reason to refuse this and draw us to their Popes decretals then the Iewes have to refuse the Bible and draw men to their high preists Rabbies and Thalmuds or the Turkes to their Alkoran 12. Finally grace vvisdom and divine majesty appeareth in the holy scriptures to all that read them except they have a reprobate sense even by the confession of our adversaries But no such vvisdom grace or majesty appeareth in Popes decrétals more then in other humane vvritings yea they are full of ignorance grossnes barbarisme error favouring of the Popes private spirit as any of understanding unless they be the Popes bondmen vvil confess and no singular grace appeareth in them more then in the books of H. N. or Alkoran of Mahomet For all vvhich and sundry other like reasons vvhich might be alleged every reasonable infidel vvhom God vvill save vvill rather incline to our grounds of ancient Christianity then to the other of late Iesuitisme or Popery Let him that readeth consider and give sentence By this vvhich hath bene vvritten you may see M. I. A. that we fly not for proof to our privat spirit as you often slander us but we say a Papist may be couvinced by the wisdome and majesty of God shining in the scriptures and other arguments forementioned more easily then an Atheist can be convinced by the wisdom and majesty of God shining in the creatures And if this later were sufficient by th'Apostles testimony to condemn the hethens the former must needs be more sufficient to condemn you especially seing you confess the scriptures to be of GOD vvhereas the Atheist will not confess the world to be of God and yet you dare not abide the trial of your religion by this book of God without your own traditions and decrees also Whereas if you graunt a Turk to be tried by the Bible and his Alkoran or a Iew to be tried by the Prophets and his Thalmud you will betray all Christianity And when one ask you a reason vvhy you beleeve the scriptures or any doctrine to be of God you answer that extrinsiâ—ally that is outwardly and in respect of your selves it is because your church that is the Pope vvho is head of your church telleth you so and not by your own private spirit Which is as if one should ask vvhy you beleeve the sun to be the light of the vvorld and you should answer extrinsecally because the Pope tells you so and not because of any private sight or discerning in your own eyes Ask you agayn vvhither you know the Pope to be a man of God furnished vvith his grace and spirit that he cannot deceive you You answer we hold not that the Pope is necessarily indued with Gods holy grace for in matter of faâ—t he may syn as wel as any other Ask you agayn how then you trust such vile ungracious Popes as many have been by your own mens testimony you answer you hold the Pope hath a necessary assistance of the holy Ghost as he defines ex cathedra out of his chayr as the head of the church Ask you a proof of this paradox and you cannot bring any one line of Gods holy scriptures to confirme it you can neythâ—r find the Pope nor his chayr there mentioned any more then Mahomâ—t or the Alkoran Then you flee to late humane testimonies of Doctors Fathers Councils vvhich also you vvrest Yet ask you vvhither those Doctors vvere necessarily indued vvith the spirit of God could not
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
this Peter was first I confesse in many good things for which he deserveth praise but that he was first in this you prove not When they had the infasion of the holy Ghost they began sayth the scripture to speak It may be Peter was indeed the first for he was first in order among them and as is like in age but not in office above the other Apostles 8. The first miracle in confirmation of our faith is made by S. Peter And you shal work another miracle in confirmation of my saith if from this though it be granted you can by sound argument coÌ„clude him head as your Pope expounds the head ship Howbeit the first miracle was the speaking with strange tongues for that all men admired who was first in that neither I nor you can tell 9. He as supreme judge condemned the hypocrisy of Ananias and Saphira And Paul as supreme judge condemned the blasphemie of Hymenaeus Alexander delivering them to Satan and the forcerie of Elymas striking him with blindnes If miracles prove supremacies the church shall have many supreme heads 10. He first discovered Simon Magus and condemned him If the Pope vvould doe so too Simonie at this day vvould not be so rise When Sergius tertius Benedictus 4. got the Popedome with briberie and Alexander the â— bought the voices of many Cardinals whither was Cephas or Magus their predecessor If the vertue made Peter head the contâ—arie vice made your Popes the taile How be it your Prelates if writers say true have been more ready to receive with with Iudas then to give with Simon All these and other circumstances concurring in S. Peter showes you say manifestly that S. Peter had preeminence above all the other Apostles that he is the rock and head of the churchâ—â— They are showes in deed circumstances standing a farr off but never a one of them have striken a stroke in this your â—â—lâ—tation Peter had for the most part preeminence in order I readily grant but his office and auctoritie was one and the same with the other Apostles Mat. 28. 16. 20. Ioh. 20 21. 22 23. Paul relating the offices ordeyned of God in the church saith first Apostles secondly prophets 〈◊〉 and agayn he gave some Apostles and some Prophets but the scripture no where sayth first Peter the head of the church then Apostles And that Peter was neyther head nor Rock I proved in my former writing if you will admit of proof from Gods book if not then keep your showes and circumstances still but make no such conclusions with a manifest-lye You proceed and say that Peter was particularly pointed out by his ovvn name his fathers name and his new name Cephas that no cavil might be took at a legacie so stronglie particularly firmed unto S. Peter His legacie is no way by me impugned I know it is firme though not so great as you would make it But you impugne the legacie of the other Apostles unto whom in Peter vvas promised and after to them all generally performed whatsoever power Peter had in the ministerie of the gospel Mat. 28. Ioh. 20. Act. 2. yea you impugne the dominion of Christ himself whiles you would make Peter the Rock and Head of the catholik church contrary to the scriptures 2. Sam. 22 32. 1 Cor. 10 4. Ephe. 5 23. And whither you have answered all that I brought to prove Christ onely the Rock let the equall reader of my former writing judge you make bold and bare affirmations without proof of holy scripture or humane learning Petros you say signifies eyther a Rock or a stone but what learned auctor doo you shew for it and he was called Petros you say not Petra because the masculine gender best fitted the name of a man as if Christ were not a man unto whom the title Petra Rock is by Peter himself given 1. Pet. 2 8. But he is unto you the Rock of scandal whiles you stumble at his power and headship and give it to his enemie the Pope vnder the pretence of Peter And that your church hath made shipwrack against this Rock not onely of faith but of learning also appeares in this that you make Cephas upon Optatus credit in Greek to signifie a head as Christ you say is called the head Isa 8 28. Dan. 2. Psal. 117. Mat. 21. Rom. 9. 1. Cor 10. Ephes. 2. What doo all or any of these scriptures shew that Cephas signifies a head nothing lesse You that entwite we with my private spirits interpretation should have been better avized then thus openly and directly to oppugn the publik interpretation of the holy Ghost Ioh. 1. 43. wher Cephas is interpreted Petros a stone not Cephalee a Head Or if you think the Apostle had also a private spirit and knew not Syriak and Greek so well as Optatus yet mought you have preferred the publik approved learning of your owne linguists who interpreting Cephas a Rock shew that Optatus head wanted wit in this that he sayd it signified a head and they want conscience that upon this false ground apply these scriptures that speak of Christ the head unto a mortall creature wheras the Rock is the creator God himself as the Lxxij Greek interpreters if you wil learn of them wil teach you But let me follow your arguments You say my objection that S. Peter answered as the mouth of the Apostles and therfore had not these promises made to himself alone makes much against me for to be spokesman of all the rest the master-spring of all their judgements seems to grant him superioritie If every spokes-man were master-spring of all their judgemeÌ„ts for whoÌ„ he speaks it were something that you say but ask a jurie of any 12 men in England whither this be true in the foreman of the quest The spokesman in a Council the speaker in a parhameÌ„t are they the master-springs of all their judgments with whom they sit When Thomas when Philip when Iude spake unto Christ in the name of the rest were they master-springs of all the others judgements I perceiv your Rock the Pope hath but a weak foundation that is born up by such sandy conclusions If S. Peter could not have the prerogative of place given unto him in that he represented the church no more you say could the sonns of Abraham be two sonns in that they represented two nations You want help to make up your argument thus But Abrahams a sonns were 2. sonns stil though they represented 2. nations therfore S. Peter was S. Peter still though he represented the Church Very true all the Apostles were Apostles still though they represented the Church And so Antichrist shal be Antichrist stil though he take upon him to represent the Church yea and God himself You grant me that all the other Apostles were a foundation Apoc. 21. but not the principal Neyther
the Martyrs of the primitive church yoâ— will allow of for your Martyrs whether of S. Laurence or â—o 7. Whether you allow of Constantius the first Christian Emperour to be of your religion 8. Whether you will allow of any of our three conversions of England to have been to this religion which you now professe 9 Whether you hold that those that have died or shall die resolved Romane Catholicks have bene or shal be saved 10. Whether you will graunt the Church of Christ or the synagogue of the Jewes to be more visible or less subject to ruin and subversion 11. Whether you allow of the last edition of the protestants Bible or else what edition you propound to your flock â—â—â—etest to be folowed 12 Whether sufficiencie onely since I take you hold ordering or imposition of hands not to be vsed is to be required to make one of your teaching Elders or if onely that sufficeth not to assigne what more is required To these questions I intreat you Mr Henry Aynsworth that earnestly to give an orderly breife and distinct answer to ech one of these questions for on the resolution of these many fruitfull consequences may be gathered to make easie any poinct hereafter to be controverted betweene vs. But now breifly to set downe my arguments which I maintain stil you have not satisfied in no one poinct I will therfore breifly set them downe in forme desiring an answer as breif yet as solid and as substancial as you can affoard onely graunting denying or distinguishing which in deed is to answer in forme like a scholler Your conclusion as I take was this The written word of God contained in the Bible is the onely sufficient rule of our faith My reasons were these in substance to prove the contrary though the same in word I can not affirme not having one line of yours or my conference That which is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the onely rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knowen for scriptures go the bare scriptures which is the written word of God can not be the onely rule of faith My Major is most certaine and evident My Minor I proved out of Dr. Whitaker Hooker Zanchius Brentius all holding traditioÌ„ necessarily to distinguish scriptures froÌ„ no scriptures Also I take I proved this out of the holy Councells out of S. Augustin contra epistolam fundamenti Manichaeic 9. Ego Euangelio non crederem c. I would not beleeve the Gospel except the authoritie of the church should move thervnto Neyther did you answer my Minor when you said scriptures â—r knowen by themselves For first you slight and let slip the authority of those that in common reason I should beleive assoâ—ne as your self 2. You doe not answer to the authoritie of S. Aug 3. your answer is against common sense Since if scriptures were as prime a principle as that the sun shines or that honie is sweet no man could beâ— ignorant thereof that had all his naturall faculties and if more then the natural faculties and the object disposed be required you eats your owne words For then it is not so knowen a truth And how shall I know I have this spirituall eye of discerning truth more theÌ„ my adversarie that accepts of some things for no scripture that I do allow of as scripture c. Why had not S. Aug this â—ie that with whole Councel of Carthage accpted of the bookes of Machabees as divine and Canoricall scripture why had not S. Hierom that translated the holy scriptures Another reason that I urged was thus Many things were beleeved before the written word of God many things are now beleeved that are not expressely taught in the written word of God go the written word of God is not onely the rule of faith The first part of my Antecedent is easily proved For the church of God till Moses tyme was well governed and yet had no written word My second part was proved I giving instance that the Sacrament in the old law for expâ—ating of original syâ— in women The mysterie of the B. Trinity that God the holy ghost did proceed froÌ„ God the father and God the sonne as from one beginning That Easter day should be celebrated on Sunday and not on Saturday That the Creede of the Apostles is to be beleeved and yet no one of these is expressely taught in holy scriptures you sayd yes but you cited no place of scripture for probation thereof Moreover you have not satisfyed the places of holy scripture I cited to prove traditions especially you have not answered to that place of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. v. 15. nor to the authoritie of S. Chrysost. homilie 4. iâ—â— Thes. 2. wherin Dr. Whitaker sayes he speaks unworthy of so holy a father nor to the place off Basil or S. Hierom or S. Aug. De Genesi ad literam lib. 10. c. 23. where he tearheth many fasts feasts solemnities to be kept and beleeved onely through tradition and he testifieth there that in no wise we could beleeve the baptising of childreÌ„ without vnwritten tradition Another which I vsed was this That which is most difficult hard and almost for occurring difficults inexplicable can not be to the unlearned at least a certaine and unfallible truth But the scriptures are thus as well witnesseth your own conscience and divers places I set downe that seem to contradist one another go Moreover how should an artificer know whether this Bible be well translated or no since he can neyther conferr it with the original or the vulgar Latin And I showed how these difficults are not trivial Amongst other places I cited that place of S. Peter the â— chapter v. 16. In which are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the unlearned and vnstable deprave as also the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition No doubt S Peter meanes of those things S. Paul delivered touching vocation grace justification and predestination In which I showed how parvus error in principio magnus est in sine to which the words of S. Peter alludes to as also the rest of the scriptures meaning that an error in some one transcendall poinct of these doe cause error in many other places that depend hereupon But is these and more plainly examplified I had nothing but quotations imâ—ertinently alleged and no determinate answer to the difficult That whose onely the hath been defective and erroneous yea to the greatest Elercks to every one howsoever unfâ—ilfull and unlearned can not be a certaine and unfallible rule of faith But that the bare scripture is so I showed by diverse seming plaine piares cited by the Arrians Pelagians Semipelagians Donatists EutheraÌ„s Anabaptists â—t All which vie scripture for scripture If you give an interpretation of their place of scripture that they bring to confirme their hereste they will give also an interpretation
For first and formost you doe not distinguish what are scriptures and what are not by the authoritie of the church For so you should admit of all that she dooth receive and if ye reject any thing that she hath doubted of you should as well as yow refuse those bookes called Deutrocanonici of the old Testament you should as well reject those Deutrocanonici of the new testament as the epistle to the Hebrewes Judas epistle and the Apocalyps but the touch of your triall is the private spirit and the unction not of the holy Ghost but of an addle head and a self conceipted phancie 100. And that you like a blind baiard walk in this round though you may apprehend you have gone many a mile and to show that you have confined your selfe in the selfe same circle I prove 101. For first I aske how you know the scripture of the Prophets and Apostles is Gods word you answer the spirit of God the testification and witness of the spirit the annointing of the spirit doe testifie to you that they are written by God But then againe I demaund how you prove that you have that spirit of God this spirituall annointing You answ what maÌ„ knoweth what is in him but the spirit of God that is in him 1. Cor. 2. He answers again that he can make no proof of that to another that is onely knowen to himself againe no man knoweth how the wind bloweth or knowes how the bones do grow in the wombe of a woman Eccles. 11 5. it is the spirit that testifies 1. Joh. 5 6. So that we see you prove the scripture by your private spirit and your spirituall annointing and you prove you have this spirit by the scripture As if a child should prove he were no bastard in that his mother sayes so and she likewise prove that she her selfe were honest in that he saies so Or prove the Church of Amsterdam to be a true church in that the Amsterdamian spirit interpreting the scripture saies so And that the Amsterdamian spirit is a true spirit in that the AmsterdamiaÌ„ spirit sayes so So I demand of you how you doe know the scripture to be Gods word you answer out of the testificatioÌ„ of the holy ghost And how you know the internal testificatioÌ„ is froÌ„ God you answer likewise out of the scripture interpreted by the Spirit My sheep heares my voice and how doe you know how it is the scripture You answer by the testification of the inward spirit so that we see your discourses like puppets have their motioÌ„ froÌ„ one string speak by the mouth of the same interpreter 102. But now to show the falshood and unprofitablenes of your circular discourse I demand what you hold the testification of the inward spirit to be For you must hold that it proceeds from God as wel as your inward habit or act of faith and then againe I aske whether you be certaine by the certaintie of faith that you have this inward act of faith that you have the testification of the spirit Then I argue this certitude must proceed from an other testification and that from another and the other from another so wee shall runne headless in infinitum 103. Besides I ask whether that testification of the spirit since it can not have his residence in the will being a certaine perswasion or speech of God belonging to the understanding and so it must be a certain notice or cognitioÌ„ If it be obscure I aske how it is distinguished froÌ„ faith if it be clear evident how is it to be distinguished froÌ„ the knowledg or vision of a thing so that wee see you affirme a thing that indeed you doe not understand what it is 104. But before I gathered your mind when you said the scriptures of themselves are so cleare that by themselves they appeare for scriptures so that you seeme to resolve that which you beleeve in to the holie scriptures and the formal reason why you beleeve it into the testification or perswasion of the spirit yet this also you doe not hold to alwayes For other times you resolve both the one and the other into the testification of the inward spirit with you most often which showes your great inconstancie grounded on seare 105. But admitting that you had onely sayd the things to bee beleeved or fides externa were to be resolved into the holy scripture onely Yet so you should admit of as great an absurditie For so you should say the gospel of S. Mathew or the whole scripture taken totally togither are not canonical and authentick nor that Mr. H. Aynsw is predestinated or that his sinns are remitted All which Aprove For nothing he is to beleeve for which he hath not the expresse word of God But none of these are expressed in the word of God If he will say he will gather these by necessarie consequence his adversaries may oppose him and he can show no certaintie If he flie unto the inward testification of the spirit theÌ„ I inferr that the things to be beleeved ar not to be resolved into the scriptures alone So Mr H. A. eates his own word though without one graine of salt or pretence of reason Yet to show this a little more plaine I reason thus Is the scripture the word of God you answer it is and that without all question But I demaund how you know it is the word of God if you answer by the testification of your inward spirit you ride your first circuit If you say it appeares by it self this is not so plaine since most parts and parcels of scripture have bene doubted of and that by schollers Yet admit scripture were so cleare a light by it self yet you cannot avoid as great a difficultie For I aske whether you will prove the whole scripture by the whole and then every one will see you â—â—ie for refuge thether which you ought to defend If you say that the whole scripture is proved by some particular parcell of scripture you are bound to show me that which you can never performe viz. that any part of scripture dooth affirme the whole scripture and every part and parcel thereof to be scripture 106. And if I should graunt you this yet another absurditie at the suit of reason hath arrested you For by what will you trie that particular parcel of scripture that so authoriseth al the rest to be scripture Thus you see in defending your private spirit you have undergone the labours of Hercules the difficulties arising as Hydraes heades two for one as one is dissolved 107. Besides this opinion of theirs doth not onely lead a man into these endlesse windings but it makes against coÌ„mon sense that God should leave his holte scriptures so carelesse at six and sevens unsettled that every hereticli might challenge to himself to be taught from God so that he might reject 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
faithful vvay of reasoning If as your maÌ„ner is you vvould have me to vnderstand it in the first I vvill so Then it is thus That which is not by it self known for Gods word cannot be tâ—e rule of faith This now I deny and your proof is vvanting The proof vvhich you make for it as you had set it down I admitt of concerâ—ing the vvord of God onely vvhere you extend Gods vvord to the definitions of the church c. I run not so farr vvith you But require you to prove your churches councils fathers definitions to be Gods vvord vvhich you doo not Your 2. proposition I deny for the scriptures by themselves vvithout your traditions may as easily be known for Gods vvord as the Sun in the firmament may be known to give light vvithout a candle This I vvill manifest hereafter Yoâ— seek to prove your aâ—â—ertion by authority of men That I refuse as insufficient by authority of Christ vvho theweth their religion to be vayn vvhich teach for doctrines the precepts of men Mat. 15. 9. Secondly you allege a reason Since we doo not see or heare God in his known Prophets to write or speak the word c. there must you say be one certayn rule or depositum fidei As 1 Tim. 6. 20. 2. Tim. 1. 13. 14. have thou a form of sound of words etc. whence you gather that Christians must keep acertain platforme of words delivered to them over and above Pauls epistles amongst which you name for one Transsubstantiation I answer first God his vvisdome power majesty truth c. are to be seen as evidently in the vvritings of the Prophets and Apostles as his eternall power and Godhead are to be seen in the creatures of the vvorld Rom. 1. Ps. 19. although Atheists cannot see these in the one nor Papists in the other Secondly as men doo not hear God vocally in his Prophets so if they did hear him in them or in Christ his sonn yet could they not beleeve vnless Gods spirit illuminated their harts Iohn 12. 37. 39. So your reason is against Christ himselfe as vvel as against the â—…pture Thirdly the church whereto you vvould send us when 1. â—ayth this is Gods vvord how shall men know it so to be any more then they knew the vvords that Christ spake to be Gods unless you lift vp your church above Christ. Fourthly vvhat church mean you Greek or Latine or AEthiopian and how shall men know Christs Church from Antichrists And if the Latin church tel us the fables of Tobit and Iudith are Gods canonicall scripture and the Greek church say they are nor but apocryphal vvhich of these shall vve beleeve Thus you vvould draw us into a vvilderness vvherein vve may loose all stay of faith and fall eyther into despayr or atheisme To those vvords of Paul I have answered before and to let pass your mistaking as if he did inioyn a sound of words as you vvrite further I vvould have you manifest if you can vvho are Timothees successors and vvith vvhom he left Pauls depositum as you call it And how a man may know your kenophonie and monstrous vvord of TraÌ„substantiatioÌ„ to be one of Pauls holsom vvords rather then the Lutherans Consubstantiation Your contending against the distinction vvhich I gave of beleeving things necessary to salvation and other things not necessary as whither Peter were ever at Rome or no and the like I leave to the judicious reader seing you cannot or vvill not vnderstand and rest in the truth Your marginall argument that The written word is not proved by an other written word therefore by tradition I reject as false and inconsequent so proved in my former vvriting You in reciting the scriptures vvhich I brought doo maym the texts to ease your shoulders In Iohn 20. 30 31. you leave out these words and that in beleeving you might have life through his name So in 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. you neyther mention nor answer this that by the scriptures the man of God may be perfect and perfectly fitted vnto every good work Whereby â— proved that faith vnto life and every good vvork may be learned out of the scripture as I inferred When you cannot answer you call me the perverter of the holy Ghost Let the prudent judge Vnto your answers made to my evident demonstrations by the book of God that the scriptures and spirit of God are sufficient to prove and approve themselves to every conscience I need not make any replye but leave it vnto judgment But to help you if it may be I vvill breefly note your oversights 1. You allege my words sundrie times as if I had sayd Gods spirit is in all people vvhich I never spake nor thought but proved the contrary by Ioh. 14. 17. I sayd Gods spirit is in all his people vvhich if you doubt of see Rom 8. 9. 16. 1 Ioh. 2. 27. You barely say and prove not that in actu 2. the scriptures need testimony of others besides God and his spirit and themselves meaning your Church and Pope you seem to say the like of Christ himself as others of your side hâ—ve playnly spoken By which blasphemie God must be beholding to men Christ to the Pope that by their witness men may beleeve in Christ and his vvord The contrary is evident by Mat. 16. 17. flesh blood sayth Christ hath not reveled it vnto thee but my father vvhich is in heaven See also Gal. 1. 16. 17. and 2. 6. 9. 3. You are often vp agayn vvith your bastard phrase of the private spirit vvhereas al Gods children have the publick or catholick spirit if you vvill so call it as I playnly proved in my former vvriting you have nothing to say against it but that the spirit worketh otherwise in the head then in the foot vvhich is a manifest tergiversation vvhereof in due place 4. You cary your self in this passage about the spirit of God as a sish out of the element as having no relish or feeling of this heavenly grace whereat I much marvel not though I am sory for it Enter into your self and see by vvhat spirit you doo discern the Pope to be Christs vicar as you suppose and his traditions to be Christs oracles Will you not say it is by the spirit of God Now vve are assured that Christ is more able to furnish us vvith the spirit of God then the Pope is to furnish you That you perceive not Gods spirit to be in us but reproch us it is not strange for the vvorld as Christ sayth seeth him not neyther knoweth him Your fathers also could not perceive Gods spirit to be in Christ himself but sayd he had an vnclean spirit and we his servants are not better then our Lord. 5. So for the majesty of the scriptures shining as the sun in his strength by their majesty vvisdom harmony c. proving approving themselves one an
Peter the office of an vniversall Pastor saying pasce ovâ—s meas feed my flock which sounds as much as have care of my sold. But in S. John the 10. it is sayd that there is but one flock and one shepheard and therefore since he bids him thrise feed his flock he honors him thrise with the stile of an universall pastor And therefore all the fathers joyntly interpret this place of an especiall charge and dominion assigned unto S. Peter investing him thereby in the supreame seat and government of his church and by him he is installed that had all power given him in heaven above and in earth beneath Now lastly and breifly to showe that our Romane Church is the true and onely Catholike Church of God that it is that holy citie Apocal 21. v. 20. that fruitful vine Psa. 79. v. 9. that high mountayne that direct path Isâ— 35. vers 8. that onely Dove Cant 6. v. 8. that kingdome of heaven Mat. 13. v. 24. that onely spouse Cant. 4. v. 8. that mysticall body of Christ Jesu Ephes. 5. v. 23. 1 Cor. 12 v 12. that foundation and rock of the truth 1 Tim. 3. v. 15 that holy multitude to whom such speciall directions of the Holy Ghost is promised Ioh. 14. 26. that Church against which hell gates shall not prevayle Mat 16. v. 18. the which Church was prefigured by the Arlie of Noe out of which none were saved from the all drowning deluge that is that tabernacle posuit tabernaculum suum in sole a tabernacle placed in the sunne conspicuous of all to be seene It is that citie that cannot be hidd S. Math. 8. All which properties belong onely unto our Romaine Catholike Church First our church is Catholik For in my memorie first we onely are catholiks in so much that the name Catholick was hatefull to a Puritaine or a Protestant And therefore Beza in his preface novi testamenti 1565. calls the name Catholicke a vaine word D. Humfrey in vita Iuelli pag. 113. calls it a vain term Sutliff in his challenge a fruitlesse name not unlike GaudeÌ„tius the hereticke who termed the word catholick a humane fiction Vt D. Aug contra Gaudentium lib 2 c. 25 though it be against the article of our beleefe whereas S. Hier Apol. 1. adversus Ruff sayth if we agree with the Bishop of Rome go Catholici sumus â— where S. Hier makes an vnfallible note of a catholicke man to agree with the sea of Rome 2. Our Church is an auncient church and God is more auncient then the Divill truth then falshood the good seed theÌ„ the bad cockle Christs seamless coate then his rent peeces that is Christs Church concording then the division into schismes And if you graunt that once our Church was the true Church but since it hath swarved from her auncient purity and incorruption shewe I praye you which Pope first gave place to the defects by what doctrine first in what age of our Lord on what motive and occasion who openly repugned it how that defect increased But all these points we can prove on your religions and sects Wee can shewe that there was neyther Wicliff Nuss Zuther Calvin of your religion Zuther and Calvin seeme first to have broached it though with in this hundred yeares we can trace theÌ„ forth the yeares motives places increase of their religion as you may read in hystories Wee are not ignorant of the motives that made King Henry the 8. first oppose himself to the Romane church though notwithstanding in his â—ir articles he held and ratified seven sacraments of the Church and conformed himself to al points of the Romane Catholick church onely excepting the point of supremacie Wee can show so that lawful in his dayes and sworne to which of some was held blasyliemy in the latter end of King Edward the 6 dayes That also which was allowed of in his dayes in his coÌ„munion book was defâ—ed in Queen Elizabeths dayes And that in her daies that is rejected in K. James And that in his Majesties dayes now whose Highness offers his religion to be tried by the united consent of the Fathers and the 4. or 5. generall Councells whose triall both his Bishops and you we are assured dare not stand to That which the Protestants now held to be a true lanterne and touchstone of the truth you repute oâ—â—iy as a stumblinâ— block and a stincking snuffâ— We can show that interrupted duration of the Romane catholick church according to that in Daniel the 9. Regnum quod in aeternum non dissipabitur and 5. of the Arts si ex hominibus consilium hoc aut opus dissolvetur si vero ex Dâ—o non potest dissolvi Wee can show the propheâ—y of the psalmist fulfilled Dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam et possessionâ—m tuam tâ—minos terrae Psal 2. Et dominabitur a mariusque ad mare Wee can show multitudes of people converted to our religion in the East and west Indies in Iaponia and China by men of our religion and sent by an Apostolicall mission Wee can show how that S. Peter about the 63 year of Christ came hither into EnglaÌ„d Camden in sua descriptione Brâ—tanniae pag. 52. et Nicephorus ut pse refert We read how Pope Eleutherius sent hither anno 156. S Fugatium et Damianum who baptized King Lucius and lastly S. Augustin and his companions Moncks were sent into England and wrought the conversion thereof and that S. Gregorie whom D. HuÌ„frey so farre extolleth p. 2. â—eâ—uitis rat 5. pag. 624. Gregorius nomine quidem magnus revera magnus vir magnus et multis divinae gratiae dotibus exornatus was with his followers of our religion shall moninifestly be proved by D. Humfreys owne assertion p. 2. ratione 5. p. 626. In ecclesiam vero quid induxerunt Gregorius et Augustinus nisi onus caeremoniarum Missarum solennia et Purgatorium so that we see they held those opinions of Masse and Purgatory that of ProtestaÌ„ts is so extreamly condemned Now if we should urge you to showe the succession of your interpreters and teachers from S. Peter you will be mute but we can shewe who succeeded each Pope how long he lived what doctrines he established Lastly we can â—now all sanctity vnitie and conformity of doctrine Out of all which notes we caÌ„ gather our church to be Vnam Sanctam et Apostolicam But you can prove no one of these notes in your church And when you shal be demanded at the tribunall of Almighty God why you hold this faith you now profess you can onely answer the holy and your privat spirit told you it was so though against all antiguitie of â—yme just interpretation of scripture consent of Fathers Greek and Latin But when we shal be demanded why we beleeve in the Romane catholick church we shall answer by reason Christ himselfe teacheth vs so He that heareth you heareth me and he that contemneth you contâ—netâ— me the
therfore unlesse you vvil renounce Christ and make Peter your Rock your God your Saviour that layd down his life for you to give you eternal life you cannot make him that one Pastor over the one fold of Iewes and Gentiles Wherfore neyther thrise nor yet once is Peter honoured with the stile of universal Pastor but onely is charged to feed Christs sheep as other Pastors also are required our Lord Iesus the great Pastor of the sheep hath given not one but many Pastors for this work Ephe. 4. 11. Having heard your reasons for Peters headship I exspected somewhat for your Popes pretended primacie but for this you shew no evidence froÌ„ Gods book you have none I trow so ancient Wherfore your position That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith is farr as yet froÌ„ being proved And though this preeminence were yeilded for Cephas yet would I not grant the like for Caiaphas though Peter vvere the Rock on which Christs Church is builded yet your house may be situate on the sands for ought you have sayd to perswade the contrarie But let us see what the 3. point in your letter wil afford which now next foloweth Lastly and breifly you take upon you to shew that your Romane church is the true and onely catholik church of God that holy citie Apoc. 21. c. And first your church you say is catholik for in your memory you onely are catholiks in so much that the name catholik was hateful to a puritan or a protestant citing Beza D. Humfrie Sutcliff c. Your reason hath no weight What if others should say your church is the whore of Babylon Apoc. 17. because in their memory you only are lovers of that whore in so much that the name whore is hateful to a puritan or protestant Would you approve of this argumeÌ„t Yea but it is you say against the article of our beleef to deney the catholik church I answer we beleeve ther is a catholik that is an universal church no puritan or protestant I think denyes it But that your church of Rome or any other particular church in the world should be the universal or catholik church neyther faith nor reason dooth perswade Wherfore the auctors whom you cite mought vvel blame you for taking to your selves that ambitious title which never was given you of God If therfore you speak let it be as the words of God and if by his word you can say any thing to help you shâ—w it and by his grace I will hear Otherwise your assumed name Catholik moves me no more then the name Apostolik Prâ—â—tegiani corruptly called Prester John among the Ethâ—â—pians I know the Apostle Paul gave the church in Rome no such swelling title when he wrote therunto and if you would have your church called by a new name you should let the mouth of the Lord name it as sayth the Prophet Isa 62 2. except you would have it noted to be none of his Secondly you say your church is an ancient church and God is more ancient then the Divil truth then falshood c I grant your church is ancient but I deney it to be the most ancient Seing then the most ancient by your own grant is the most true bring â—orth the testimonies of your antiquitie and if in the particulars I shew more ancient testimonie then yow I will yeild But you procedâ— say If yow grant that once our church was the true church but stâ—ce it hath swarved from her ancient purity shew which Pope first gave place to the dâ—fects c. I grant there was a true church in Rome in tâ— Apostles dayes so was there in Ierusalem in Ephesus Corinth Colosse other cities many What their faith estate vvas I see in the most ancient records the Apostles aâ—s letters unto them What yowr faith estate is I see also by your late council of Trident other bâ—oks of yours maynteyning a religion unheard of in â—h Apostles dayes as in the particulars vvhen they come to be scanned after vve have ended these general grounds in hand I doubt not but to manifest Hovv Rome is come to be Lady mistresse of al churches I knovv not by any ancient record of the Apostles save by that mysterie opened unto Iohn in the vvildernes Apoc. 17. And if your Popes lives vvere in Gods record as were the Kings of Israel I could easily thevv which Pope first gave place to the defects c. but seing they are not recorded by him I vvil not preâ—ume above that vvhich is vvritten If upon mens report I should centure them I mought doo many good men vvrong They that are dead are gone to thâ—ir judgmeÌ„t have stood or fallen unto the Lord you that are livâ—ng must ansvvâ—r for your selves and your present state vvhich if you can not vvarrant by the vvord of God vvho liveth indu â—eth for ever your dead mens bones vvil be but slender pillars co underprop your church This I am sure of and testify unto you Our Saviour and his Apostles forecold of false prophets and of greivous vvolves that should come soon after and not spare the flock Who vvas the first vvolf in Ephesus vvho the first in Rome c I can not tel out if our Lord have given vs a true rule ye shall knovv them by their fruits vve may knovv your Pope not to be head of the Church unlesse of Antichrists your church it self to be Cos bi-bath tsur Falsitie daughter of a rock but not of Christ. Be not offended at my plain dealing vvith you it is a case of conscience and concerneth your salvation and my ovvn and I vvish your vvelfare as my ovvn Your conclusion neaping many praises upon your church many dispraises upon oâ—ns others that have forsaken her remayns hereafter unto due trial vvhen having finished these first questions begun you shall set dovvn arguments from Gods vvord eyther for your selves or against us In the mean time I obsâ—rve your dispute against us to have no more vveight or colour then as if the AEdomites or Ismaelites elder brethren to tâ—â— Israelites should have alleged their outvvard carnal privileges possessions against their poor brother Iaakob in AEgyptian bondage and after a pilgrim in the vvildernes or as if the Scribes and Pharisees should have pleaded for Annas and Caiaphas and their proceedings from Deut. 33 8 11. and other scriptures many against Iesus of Nazareth and his disciples I knovv he magnificence and pomp of the false church dazeleth the eyes of many her sorceries bevvitch many her fornications destroy many but her cup is ful of the vvine of vvrath and her lovers shal be cormented vvith her but those vvhom God loveth shal be delivered from her Wherefore serch in the book of God and read let his law be your light and make
to man children when in danger of death before the eight day they necessarily were to receive remedie of their sinne How prove you that our blessed virgin Marie was a perpetuall virgin ante partum in partu et post partum how ar you able to prove this by the bare letter against Helvidius the heretick for he vrgeth you with the plaine text and with originall phrase viz. That he knew her not till the brought forth her first sonne and the word know you know what it imports in the Hebrew phrase As Abraham knew Sara So that you see we beleeve this perfection of the blessed and perpetuall Uirgin Mary by tradition though the bare text seems to make against it How doe you prove that our sunday should be celebrated on sunday and not on saterday by the bare letter without tradition How doe you prove the celebration of Easter as it is now without tradition How doe you prove the Creede of the Apostles out of the naked word How doe you prove without tradition that you should receive the blessed sacrament kneeling the receiving of it fasting the eating of blood and straÌ„gled meates prohibited in the Acts of the Apostles How are you able to prove all these or any one of these by convincing reasons out of the holy scriptures alone All these you say you can prove not alleaging one place of scripture for any of them though you have bene most copious to prove idem per idem in other pointes to little purpose Now you say onely it would goe hard with you if you could not prove these without tradition and me thinks it goes hard with you since you prove not one particular of them all Therfore I desire you that you would not confound your trace so like the Fore or hare in doubling and turning but that you would answer distinctly to each poinct as it lies if you answer Wherfore to shut up this point I will conclude with S. August Genes ad litt â— 10. â— 23. that as he sayes that the not rebaptising of infants were not to be beleeved if it were not taught by tradition So I say these forealleaged mysteries were not to be beleeved without the direction of tradition Now since we are come to the answering of your arguments which are nothing but allegations of scripture falsly applied me thinks I cannot better compare them then as to so many orient pearles and rich Jewels hung and placed out of order in an Judian or â—thiopians lippes nose armes and legges so these places of scripture in that they are racked and wrested from their right sence and meaning their lustre and beautie is rather a disgrace theÌ„ ornament to the wearer For when you bring the place of Deut. 5 32. to take heed that wee should doe as our Lord commaunded us not turning to the right hand nor the left and of that of Deut. 12. 32. not putting any thing therevnto or taking any thing therfrom I answer first granting that God commaundeth this but I deny that hence can be gathered that in that we should doe as our Lord commaundeth us and that we should not turne vnto the right hand or to the left that the holy scripture should be the onely rule and vâ—ptor of faith Fâ—r as it doth not follow nothing is to be added to the fourth coÌ„maundement and the fourth commandement is to be observed therfore there is onely the fourth commaundement and it is therfore the rule of all the rest 2. I answer that all additions whatsoever are not here prohibited but onely such as are contrary to the word of God For many other Prophets as the penn men of the holy Ghost did adde diverse yea most part of the holy scriptures But now it is plaine that the definitions and traditions of the Catholick church by whose mouth the holy Ghost doth dictat are most consonant to the text of scripture For the holy Ghost speaketh by them though not tanquam calamus velociter scribentis For Luke 10. it is sayd he that heareth you heareth me and he that contemneth you contemneth me Math. 18. If he doe not hear the church let him be to thee as an Ethnicke and a Publican and S. Ambrose expounding the last of S. John 18 v. where S. John saith If any man shall adde unto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues written in this book S. Ambrose saith he makes not a protestation against the expositors of his prophesie but against heretichs For the expositor doth adde nor diminish nothing but onely openeth the obscuritie of the place and sheweth the moral and spirituall sense Now to answer your second argument I wonder how you being a man of vnderstanding should be so much deceived as to think that these places make for you against vs. For wee holding firm our assertion can cite all the self same places Rom. 3. 10. 11 19. that man naturally understands not the things of God that mans wisdome is foolishnes Coloss. 2. 22. For we affirm it the gift of the holy ghost by an infused habit of faith that we beleeve and that by the directioÌ„ of the holy Ghost promised that the Church cannot â—â—r neyther doe we when we allow of tradition make at our pleasure voluntary religion for we acknowledge tradition also to be the word of God the voice of his spouse that is taught in al truth guided up the holy ghost vnto the end of the world Wherfore your argument proves nothing since you presuppose that proved that rests yet to you to prove The like answer I give vnto your third argument viz. that men are dead in trespasses Ephe. 2. 5. Math 15 9. that faith to by hearing and hearing by the word Rom. 10 17. But I deny that the word is the totall or onely rule of faith since we finde many thinges to be beleeved that are not expresslie found in the written word nor thence deduced And to answer breifly vnto your 4 Argument I graunt that the Preists and Prophets were bound to heare the word and that of Ezek. 13. 2 3. that they should not prophesie according to their own heart or follow their own spirit but I deny that they should follow onely the written word or that folowing the voice of the Church the interpretaton of holy Fathers and Doctors they follow their own harts and their own inventions So that you see how weake your arguments be so that they might with more reason bee returned on your self The second thing which you say I take vpon me to prove but more rightly to say onely to propound till the decision of this mayne question be ended which was whether the definitive sentence of the Church and Pope be an infallible rule and guide of our faith Thus questioÌ„ I say I onely inteÌ„ded rather to propound theÌ„ prove that we have not at one tyme diverse proâ—s togither in the fyre But now to handle it by way of vellitation and not of purpose
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
Now to folow your waÌ„dringes What dooth Gal 1. 8. say against that I set down The word besides meaneth as you think contrary to and not more then they had receaved because he forbidds not any explication or true gloss c. I answer you weary your selfe and others to prove that which none denyeth Explications of Gods law by the mouth of his ministers are allowed of God Nehem. 8. 8. these are not additions such as God forbiddes Galat. 3. 15. Our question is of other or moe lawes or doctrines then God hath taught And vnto those which the Prophets had writteÌ„ and Paul with the other Apostles taught none might be added For he kept back nothing that was profitable but taught the whole counsel of God Act. 20. 20. 27. so then whatsoever men could add more or besides was not profitable neyther any of Gods counsel therefore it was contrary and so may be put among Popes traditions For their doctrines and traditions are as evidently contrary to Gods word as darknes is to light Such be your image worship contrary to Exo. 20. 4. your praying to creatures contrary to Mat 4. 10. Rom. 1. 25. service in a barbarous vnknowen tongue contrary to 1 Cor. 14. 11 16. 28. robbing the people of the chalice in the sacrament contrary to Mat. 26. 27. justification by mens works contrary to Rom. 3. 20. 22. 24. and 4. 2 3 c. and many other idolatrous observations as plainly contrary to Gods law ever vvere the abominations of the heathen Finally Chrysostome a Doctor whome you rely vpon sayth that Paul preferreth the scriptures before Angels from heaven Here then if you wil beleeve him is no place at al for vnwritteÌ„ traditions Whereas you bring Rom. 16. 17. to shew that para meaneth contrary no man denyeth it but that it signifieth no more then contrary in your sense you prove not In Rom. 1. 25. you may see parâ— ton ktisantâ— meaneth any thing â—â—sides the creator onely But our strife was not about para or Gal. â— You 〈◊〉 as the Prophets additions to Moses law were Gods so the churches definitions are Gods not mans I deny your 〈◊〉 the churches additionâ— which you call definitions are not Gods as the Prophets writings 〈◊〉 were added to Moses books you are not farr froÌ„ blasphemie in making such a comparison If that were true you might read and expound as authentick scriptures your churches additions and Popes traditions as Christ read Esaias the Prophet and expounded hiâ— in the synagogue Luk. 4. 1â— 21. The proofs you would bring are Luk. 10. 16. he that heareth you heareth me c. Mat. 18. 1â— 18. tel the church c. Deut. â—9 15. or 〈◊〉 they shall stand before the Lord before the Preists c. I answer these scriptures shewe not that they might add any thing to the word of God but they prove the coÌ„trary For they were sent to preach the Gospel Mark 16. 15. that was Gods word not any creatures Thes 2 2. 4. 13. So they were not additions not definitions of their own such as your church makes Also the Preists were bound to teach Gods lawes not their owne Ezek. 44. 24. And so the hearing of them that teach Gods word is the hearing of God himself in his ministers But the contrary to hear the churches traditions is not to hear God for they were many against God as you may see Mark â— 3. 4. 9. 10. c. For els behold what strange doctrine you wil bring in viz. that everie church yea every preist and minister may make additions to Gods law and the people must be bound so to receive them as Gods word Here to helpe your selfe you retire to your old skonce saying it is true of particular churches but so farr as their doctrine accordeth with the Somane catholick church A meer fiction of your own head what one title of Gods word doo you or can you bring for this stuft did Christin Luk. 10. 16. speak to the church of Rome more then to the Church of Corinch Ephesus or any other you make your Roman Church an idol by putting her in Gods place to give lawes you make her a monster whiles being a particular Church you proclaym her for the catholik that is vniversal Church And her doctrine if it accord not with Christs as it dooth not is with her to be abhorred and accursed Gal. 1. 8. By this which hath bene sayd let the prudent judge how soundly you haue proved that any other word or doctrine then Gods may be brought into the Church for a ground of our faith which was the first thing in controversie The 2. part that you are to prove as you say is that the rule of our faith is not onely the written word but jointly the unwritten word of God tradition and the authority of the Church councils fathers is the ultimate decider of all matters of controversie In this assertion you confasedly shuffle togither for your advantage the church councels fathers By the Church you mean your Romish Church which is none of Christs and therefore can judge no Christian controversie Councils and fathers are named but for a show For â—oâ— regard nothing that Councils or Fathers say vnless your Pope approve it On the contrary I hold that Gods written word is to be the rule of our faith and by it all churches Councils Fathers are to be tried whether they be of God or no. But let us heaâ— your proofe That which was say youâ— the total rule of our faith before the written word of God man be wel the partial rule of our faith after where the written word of God dooth not sufficiently cruâ—â—ss diverse mysteries of us to ve beleeved But tradition was a sufficient and total rule of our faith till Moyses time the first 〈◊〉 of the holy Ghost Therfore traditioÌ„ now together with the written word is a sufficient rule of our faith The firâ— prop. you say 〈◊〉 proved the second you â—aâ— is graunted by me I answer If the writings of God were as dark and deceitfull as is this your writing it were woe with vs all In the first proposition you say it may well be the partiall rule of our faith in the conclusion you say it to so If I should say It may wâ—ll be your argument is deceytfull and conclude therefore it is deceâ—tfull would you graunt the conclusion yet is it truer then yours For that which was a rule before may be a rule still if it please God so to continue it this you need not labour to prove But that which was a râ—â—â— before neyther may nor can be a rule still when God hath taken it away put another in the sted And this is the very truth if you would receive it For before Gods law was written it was spoken and by speech from the mouth of holy persons it was to be learned But now it is written oâ—
vvord spirit Your own hand writing therefore convinceth you of vntruth not me of bad conscience as you charge me I did and doo cal it a bastard phrase as being of your own or of the Popes begetting for th'Apostle Peter neyther spake nor meant so You add to his vvords and therfore are reproved of God Prov. 30. 6. you swary from your authentik Latin translation and therefore are reproved by your own canon law I proved by the scriptures Ephe. 4. 4. Rom. 12. 4. c. 1 Cor. 12. 4. 8. 9. c. that there is but one spirit which al Gods people have though in divers mesures as mans body hath but one soul or spirit to quicken it This you not being able to deny doo vvind away and except though it be the same fowl yet it worketh otherwise in the head then in the foot etc I answer it is very true You inferr then that so it belongs to the head of the church and not to every craftsman to interpret scriptures Why are ther no members in a mans body between the head and the heels that you make such a leap Is there no mean between the head and every craftsman What place then is there for your Cardinals Bishops Preists Doctors Iesuits c. they are not the head of the church yet you think them higher then the feet But if this your answer be good then though Peter were head as you erroneously think I hope the spirit wrought otherwise in him then it did in that divil incarnate Pope Iohn the 22. and in other your monstrous vvicked Popes as your own friends doo vvitnes against them Then had those beasts a private spirit vvorse then any an honest craftsman then it belonged not to them to interpret scriptures No nor to your Preists and Iesuits unless you vvill make them heads A little after touching Pope Stephen vvho repeled the decrees of his predecessor Pope Formosus you vvould have him to doo this not as the head of the church but out of the violencie of his private spirit I like vvell of your answer and think the very same of all the Popes traditions and therefore the privat spirit vvhich so oft you entwite me vvith I return into your own hands to be kept as the Popes Depositum You pretend that for all the vvickednes of some Popes God hath stil preserved the unity of faith in your church And that never any Pope by his definitive sentence did define heresie I answer if the Pope may be judge as vvith you he is I vvarrant you he vvill never condemn himself of heresie But if Gods word be judge many heresies are easy to be found in your late council of Trent and in many Popes decrees Which vvill come to be scanned in particular doctrines after these generall grounds are ended Your digression to another vvriter I omitt you may seek answer if you please of himself And your author â—o vvhom you send me for satisfaction about your Popes power of dispensations I shall read vvhen I have leysure therto Your 3. Argument you set down now upon your memorie otherweise then ever before thus That which hath still been a rule to theÌ„ that have erred cannot be a certayn rule to direct all in faith But the scripture interpreted by the private spirit as every one pretends given from God hath led many into dangerous and horrible errors go the scriptures though directed by the private spirits interpretation cannot be a rule of faith I answer your conclusion I grant though your argument be naught for the private spirit wee found whileare to be the violent spirit of the Pope or his like And scripture directed or rather perverted by such a spirit cannot in deed be a rule of faith Against your 2. Proposition I except it implieth a fallacie putting that for the cause which is not the cause The scriptures never led any into errour but vnlearned and unstable persons pervert all scriptures as the Apostle sayth unto their own destructioÌ„ the cause hereof is not the scriptures but mens corruption The Pharisees perverted the doctrines spoken by our Saviour Christ himselfe yet I hope you will not deny but his heavenly words was a certayn rule to direct all in faith So the proof of your minor faileth you Against your first proposition which you say is most certayn I except as not playn and so deceitfull That which is a rule to them that err understanding of it own nature and properly cannot be a certayn rule to direct all in faith But now to assume that the scripture is such were blasphemie Agayn That which is a rule to them that err to weet a rule by accident through their ignorance or malice abusing it cannot be a certayn rule to direct al Gods people in faith now I deny the proposition and leave you to give proof of these things in your next And whither before or now you have drie-beaten mee as you boast let the lookers on give verdict Your 4. argument you omit through oversight I suppose onely whâ—r I shewed by 1. Cor. 11. 19. Act. 15. c. that contentions were in the Apostles times and composed by the scriptures not by setting up a supremejudge or Pope Yow answer barely they prove rather theâ— must be one visible supreme judge to decide controversies Wee are thâ—n at a point Let him that readeth the scriptures and reasons which I there alleged judge whither of the two they doo rather prove Your 5. which yow call your 4. argument is that we beleeve many things which are not reveled in holy scripture c. I told yow and tell yow agayne that I doo not howsoever yow may beleeve any thing needful for my salvation which is not reveled in the Holy scriptures neyther wil I use other weapons against Arians Anabaptists or any heretiks that acknowledge the scriptures to be of God This therfore is no argument to convince me at all You insult for that I will not shewe my particular proofs against those heresies I told you this were to digress from our present controversie Propose yow arguments and I will answer you for the cause in hand els multiplie not words in vaine You now plainly answer that Gods vvord as it is extrinsecal the vvord of God and to be knovvn of us depends of tradition and the authoritie of the church This I reject as an heresie For vvhen vve read or hear the books of Moses or the Prophets vve read that vvhich is spoken to us of God Mark. 1â— 26. compared vvith Math. 22 31. that vvhich the Spirit of God speaketh to the churches Rev. 2 â— 11. novv not to beleeve or rest upon this ground but to rely upon mans record is to make the testimony or man greater extrinsecally to us then the testimonie of God contrarie to 1. Ioh. 5 9. and maketh men lyable to the curse Ier. 17. 5. You
he is the eight and is one of the seaven meaning the Popes vvho by an Ecclesiasticall goverment differ from the civil Emperors and so are an eight yet because they reign togither vvith the Emperours they make as it were one regiment and so the eight is one of the seven as the scripture sayth And that the word King dooth signify a kingdome or regiment appeareth by Dan. 7. 17. where the 4. beasts are sayd to be 4. kings meaning kingdomes as is explayned in v. 23. the fourth beast is the fourth kingdome So this exposition is playn and according to truth And thus notwithstanding all that you have brought the Pope remayneth Antichrist And think it not much that Antichrist is so ancient The Iewes look for Christ and he is come 1600. yeres agoe but they know him not You looke for Antichrist and he hath been wel nigh so many yeres in the vvorld and you are not aware If you read the book of the Revelation judicially God opening your hart you may discern that mysterie of Babylon which yet is hidden from your eyes And for preeminence forbidden to Christs ministers see Mat. 20. 25. 26. Luk. 22. 25. 26. That which you allege of Tit. 2. 15. showes the power authoritie of the word duly preached and applyed to mens consciences and is not peculiar to the head of the church the Pope for you see Titus there had it but it is common to all Christs ministers You turne back to your general argument vvhich I had confuted How good a defense you have brought I am content to let the prudent reader judge Onely where you charge me vvith falshood for saying the Pope with you is above the law which you deny in my sense I answer my sense is according to your own explication that extrinsecally and as it is to be knowen of us Gods word depends on the churches that is the Popes authority He putteth Apocryphal lying books in to the holy canon his interpretation though absurd and hereticall must stand for authentick and a definition of his ex cathedra you reverence as an oracle And he dispenseth against Gods law Is not he now above yea he sitteth as God in the Temple of God as Paul prophesied 2 Thes. 2. 4. The third thing which heretofore the seventh thing which now you should prove is that the indeficieÌ„t rule of our fayth is onely to be found in the â—â—man catholick church sentence and not in private mens illuminatioÌ„s c. I hold neyther of these as I told you before You labour agayn to mainteyn the former First you prove this in that the RomaÌ„ church you say is the onely true catholick church I answer You fayrly beg the question and would prove it is so because it is so You speak vntruely in calling her the true church proudly in caling her the onely true church absurdly in caling her the catholick that is the vniversal church None of all these can you make any proof of you referr in the margin to S. 123. and let men look what proof they can find there I for the present referr you and all to your own Cardinal Baronius testimonie of your holy church as he found it in his ancient records and put it in his Chronicles thus What was then the face of the holy Roman church how filthy was it when most mighty and eke most filthy whores ruled at Rome at whose pleasure seats were changed Bishops were given which is horrible and vile to heare false-Popes their paramours were intruded into Peters seat c. Loe here the bewty of that Catholick church whose sentence you say is the indeficient rule of your faith You are glad that I refuse the name Catholik and I am glad of and content me with that ancient name of a Christian given of God Act. 11 26 keep you your new fangled name of your own divising to be called a catholik that is an Universal I envie you not You are very angrie that I proved unto you the marks of your Roman church by the word of God which you had set down without proof You had cause rather to be thankfull But now the reader may see how having nothing soundly to reply you wilfully persist in your error for which I am sory Your reproches I bear with patience Leaving your former reasons helpless you conclude with a coÌ„mon argumeÌ„t for your church religioÌ„ That seing your faith is coÌ„fessed to be so ancient if it be not froÌ„ God it must be grounded on carnal motives viz the profit of the spiritual or the temporall But it is not you say for the profit or pleasure of the clergie as appeares by their cha â—â—ity vowes fasting praying c. Nor of temporal Princes for how should so many Emperors Kings c. be brought to confess their syns fast c. I answer first your religioÌ„ in som points of it is ancient I coÌ„fess eveÌ„ as ancienâ— as the Apostles daies vvhen the mystery of iniquity begaÌ„ to work 2. Thes. 2. 7. men loved preeminence 3. Iohn 9. many Antichrists vvent abroad 1 Ioh. 2. 18. vvhich vvere foretunners of the great Antichrist folowing Who vvas to be reveled vvhen he that theÌ„ letted viz. the heathen Empire vvas taken out of the vvay 2. Thes. 2. 7. 8. But yet the truth of the Gospel preached by the Apostles vvas more ancient 1 Ioh. 2. 24. which therefore is to be our rule and stay not humane doctrines that came up after Secondly I answer the ambition profit and pleasure of the Bishops and Preists vvere the motives unto this height of evil For histories record the contentions that vvere in churches and among Bishops especially of Rome and of Constantinople vvho should be greatest This made P. Gregory to say the King of pride is at haud and quod dici quoque nefas est an arwie of Preists is ready for him I wish you vvould beleeve this Popes tradition here As for Profits and pleasures vvho seeth not that Christ and his Apostles being poor and Peter himself having neyther silver nor gold to give a needy man Act. 3. 6. Your clergy have gotten such patrimonies falsly purloyned in S. Peters name as they are of the richest in the vvorld their treasures infinite their palaces like Kings their apparel prince like their Kitchins ful of the finest fare the plesantest fertilest lands in all countries being ingrossed for the clergie for church livings Their doctrines of Purgatory and pardons being onely to pick mens purfes Their vowes of chastitie being to desile themselves in filthy Sodonne adulterie and fornication vvitness the 6000. childrens heads that vvere found murdered in P. Gregories fishpond which moved him to reverse his own wicked decree that restreyned the Clergie froÌ„ their wives besides infinite other testimonies of these evils in other places Their fasting being a mere mockery to absteyn superstitiously