novv stands charged to be a harlot vvilbe her ovvn judge and decide the controversie her self If you grant Mahomet but this one ground for himself I vvarrant you he vvil vvin the feild And if you can prove unto me but this one ground vvhich being the question is here begged by you I vvill soon receive alâ— doctrines traditions ceremonies that your mother church propoun â—eth But I have shevved you a more certaine playn and infallible vvay the old and good vvay vvherein our Fathers* vvalked to decide all controversies by vvhich is the holy oracles of God vvritten by his Prophets and Apostles vvhich if you vvil not yeeld to vvalk in but continue in your catholik aberrations you and your church shall perish in the hovvr appointed and then shal be sayd O heaven rejoyce of her and ye holy Apostles and Prophets for God hath given your judgement not her ovvn upon her 3. You have as you say Gods divine veracitâ—e speaking by the mouth of the church which formally makes you beleeve But vve say I to you have Gods divine veracitie speaking by the mouth of his holy Prophets vvhich have been since the vvorld began and also the comandements of the Apostles of our Lord and saviour vvhich effectually make us beleeve through the spirit God vvhich is given unto us That God speaks in them is pâ—ayn and your selves grant that undoubted veracitie is in his vvords is evident and your selves dare not deney by this divine veracitie vve submitt our selves our churches our faith our actions to be tried of all But your church lifteth up her self to be her ovvn judge and lavvgiver and vvil not suffer her self to be tried by the holy scriptures Thus glorifieth thâ— her self and liveth in pleasure and sayth in her hart I sit a Queen but strong is the Lord God vvhich vvill condemn her 4. You have as you say a supernatural judgement to beleeve in common at least in that all people all nations have so beleeved You need no supernaturall judgement for this for it is a popular carnal reasoÌ„ which the natural man easily receiveth But the spiritual man by supernatural light from the law of God beleeveth in particular though all people all nations should depart from Christ because he hath the sure word of God in the scriptures and the spirit of God by a covenant froÌ„ the Lord. Isa. 59 21. And by this means he discrieth in the wildernes that woman and her mysterie how she sitteth upon many waters or peoples of whose wine the nations having drunk therfore they rage Lastly through all these you have as you say a pious affection through the working of Gods holy grace to beleeve hir et 〈◊〉 hoc et illud and that without any difficultie since you first beleeve there to but one true church and that church cannot err c. I confesse in deed you have the broad and easy vvay wherin yow run on with great facilitie if God of his grace stay you not unto your perdition For by these false grounds your minds are so bewitched that with her great craft she hath caused you to yeild with her flattering lipps hath entised you and ye folow her straightway as oxen that goe to the slaughter and as fools to the stocks for correction til a dart strike through your liveâ— as birds hastâ—â—â— to the snare not knowing that it is for their lives For by beleeving this and that as your catholik mother dooth propound and not trying nor daring to trie her propositions by the book of God you have quite lost the ancient catholik and Apostolik faith vvhich was in the Churches of God in Rome Corinth Galatia throughout all nations as whensoever you bring your opinions to the trial by Gods authentik writings will appear And though you glorie of S. Peter for your Rock as your ancestors gloried of their Father Abraham yet wil you not folow his holy playn Apostolical counsels when he referrs you to the sure word of the Prophets and to the commandements of them the Apostles of the Lord giving you warning of false teachers to come after which privily should bring in heresies of perdition whose damnable wayes many should follow by whom the way of truth should be evil spoken of What remayneth then if you proceed in this evil course but as yow cleave to your late fathers synns so you be partaker of their plagues And if you will not hearken to that voice from heaven Goe out of her my people you shall hear and feel the effect of that voice which the Angel standing in the sun crieth so lowd to al fowles of the heaven to come unto the supper of the great God wher they shall eat the fleshes of Kings and high captayns and of mighty men and of horses and horsmen of freemen and bondmen of small and great when the beast and the false prophet which deceived with miracles them that received his mark shal be cast alive into the lake of fyre burning in brimstone To save you from this perdition loe how large a letter I have written unto you this second time testifying unto you the word of God and against the erroneous grounds or quicksands rather wheron you build your faith God offring me this occasion by your self I have out of the love of my hart endevoured to save your soule froÌ„ death by shewing you the way of life choose life therfore that you may live Look into the book of God wherin you seem to me to be a stranger and pray unto him for understanding in the same so shall you find more light to your eyes more coÌ„fort to your hart then the caâ—t lodes of later Doctors Fathers Councils c. can give unto you And if you will not be warned I shal lament your estate yet whiles I may I will doo you good and as for all reproches taunts vituperies which you hav already uttered or may yet further utter against me I shal willingly bear and bury them and use all good means I can to save you from the damnation of hel God open you eyes and perswade your hart unto the sight obedience of his most holy faith â— once given unto the saincts Amen From Amsterdam this 16. of April 1610. Yours if you wil be Christs Henr Ainsworth If you have sayd what you can against the scriptures of God their alsufficiencie for mans faith you may if you please shew your strongest argumets for your Roman catholik church as you cal her and her definitive sentences Or procede if you think good to some other grounds and mayn controversies between us Onely be advertised to folow the good counsel of him whom you count the Rock of your faith If any man speak let him speak as the words of God 1. Pet. 4. 11. There being no reply
faith if it be as it ought that is if it be accomodated proportioned vnto the object end of our faith as it is necessary vnto salvation deth eyther require a particular motion of the Holy Ghost or an infused habit of faith as it appeareth out of the 7. chapter of the Aransicanum Conc. and out of the Trident Sess 6. c. 5. et canone Where it is affirmed that without Gods preventing grace and the illuminatioÌ„ of the holy Ghost no man can beleeve things reveled as he ought that is that Gods justifying grace be given him 141. Fourthly I affirme that this certaine and inevident iudgment of the truth of our faith into these humain reasoÌ„s and motives as into the moving applying and impulsive cause but not as into the formal motive of beleeving And the selfe same judgment is resolved into the supernatural light as into the true efficieÌ„t cause of that certitude and proportioÌ„ which it hath with his adequate object and end both being supernatural 142 If I be demaunded therefore whie I beleeve â— persoÌ„s and one God or any other thing I answer if you aske of me the formal reason whie I assent I answer I beleeve because God hath revealed it If I be thenasâ—ed how I know God hath revealed it I answer I doe not evidently know this though certainly I know it for the same revelation and infalible authoritie which the church of God as an intrinsecal condition or application applies to me to be beleeved 143. But if I be further questioned since the revelation of God and the proposing are both obscure and inevident how cames it theÌ„ that I certainly and evidently doe beleeve 144. I answer then I returne vnto the motives of evident credibilitie that maie induce any prudent man to beleeve that saith and that church warranted by so many motives 145. Neither is here coÌ„mitted any vitious circle between the authoritie of God the church as I have before convinced you in your grounds to commit For first the authoritie of God revealing in vertue of which the infailibilitie of the proposition is beleeved and the selfe same infallible proposition in vertue of which we beleeve that God â—â—ies and reveales hath two diverse objects For the object of the infailible proposition is that God reveales And the object that God reveales or of the revelation of God is the veritie beleeves 146. â— I saie in that when out of the authoritie of God revealing is given the formal reason of our beleeving the motive is given by the formal cause But when out of the infallible proposing of the church a reason to given whie we beleeve the divine revelation If it be vnderstood aright it is not to be given by a formal cause or motive but by an intrinsecall and requisite application of the motives whie we beleeve which is doone by the proposing of it by the church so that ther is no circle ab eodem in idem secundum idem which Aristotle only coÌ„demns 1. Post. text 5. as I have shewed before 147. Yet to goe one degree further in shewing how we are free in another regard from this mere circular and fruictless resolution of theirs I presuppose that then is coÌ„mitted a circle when the selfe same is proved by the selfe same to him that graunteth neither or doth aequallie deny both or doubteth of both For proofe of which we learne out of Aristotle that we ought to proceed from that which to knowen to that which is not knowen or at least from that which is graunted to that which is not graunted for so we shall proceed from that which is knowen after a manner to that which is not knowen 148. Whence I inferr that he should coÌ„mit this circuler discourse that to an Ethnick that equally should denie both scripture and the infallibilitie of the church should prove that the scripture were of divine authoritie in that the church teacheth vs it and the church of infallible authoritie in that the scripture teacheth vs it But to a protestant that admits of most of the scripture it is no circle to prove the infallibilitie of the church which he denies from the scripture which he admits of but first you do not give a resolutioÌ„ of your faith as I doe that is powerful against Ethnick or heretick 2. though wee admit of scripture yet wee cannot be vrged therevnto by you that receiving from the church the scripture will not beleeve all that she proposeth alike to be beleeved 149. The foresaid manner of proof is vsuall both in the scriptured and in ancient Fathers The Pharisees did admit of Moses and denie Christ. Therfore our Saviour convinced them with these words Joh. 5. 46. If you did beleeve Moses you would beleeve me for he gave testimonie of me Againe contrariwise the Manicheies did admit of Christ and the gospel did deny Moses and the Prophets therfore S. Aug. contra FaustuÌ„ ManichaeuÌ„ in his book lib. 1. de moribus Ecclesiae Catholicaec 1. et seq did convince the Manichees The like manner of proceeding wee take to instruct a Catholick that should denie any parcel of scripture wee convince him by the judgment of the church to whom he submits himselfe And Hereticks that denie tradition the church and the Popes authorâ—tie wee convince them out of scripture out of the writings vniform consent of the holy Fathers thowsands of whom M. â— A. saies he preferres for wisdom truth and holiness before himself whose vniversall consent of them living in all times being most expert in tongues neare our Saviours times many of them being the Apostles schollers not partiall to eyther of our causes writing so long before many delivering matters of facts that doth prove or coÌ„firme many poiâ—â—â— of our doctrine I cannot see how you can denie them especially since you saie you admit so farr of them as they agree with scripture For S. Hierom translated it S. Ambrose S. Aug. S. Greg. S. Barnard interpreted it and they all cite many places of scripture to prove fundamentall points of doctrine of our religion But I shewed how the holie Fathers agreed with scripture to which you are silent 150. But that you doe not proceed after the self same manner is plaine For though you abound with wrested places of scripture which we admit of all in their true sence Yet you denie the interpretation of the Fathers interpreting the scripture that by common consent and your owne graunt should better vnderstand them then you And wee doe not admit of scriptures as a sufficient proofe by themselves but togither with the interpretation of the holy Fathers of whom by your own words you should admit of since you prefer their wisdome truth and holynes before your selfe 151. Wherfore then M. H. A. would you have me beleeve you alleaging onely scripture for your self iâ— sense depraved before the holy Fathers that cite scriptures both for them and
his preface locorum commu for catholick church in the creed reade christian church â— Motive 6 Motive the power of myracles â— Motive 8. Motive 9. Motive 10. Motive 11. Motive 12. Motive The first Demostration of the Catholick truth The secoÌ„d Demostration To faith two judgments required Into what one evideÌ„t judgmeÌ„t of credibilitie is to be resolvediâ— to That this evideÌ„t judgment is to be had before an act of faith In to what our certaine mevident judgment is to be resolved into Whie I beleeve any article of our belâ—â—se Whie I certainly and evidently do beleeve That theâ— is coÌ„mitted no circle herein Two diverse objects Whiâ—in our opinion ther is no circle Wee are free from a circle See 1 â—â— That M H. A doth not vrge any graunted ground against 〈◊〉 see 143. That I should not beleeve him himselfe perswades me M. H. A. woven vp in an endless boâ—â—oÌ„ Catholicis praedicâ—tibus The 6. Paâ—â— The mayn question might for 2â— Mr. H. A. argument have bene transferred How the judgmeÌ„t of the church in what sense is infallible The Catholick church is the rule of faith in manifold sences Hervaeus interpreted vide n. 165. Mat 10. 2. Mat 17. 1. Marci 9. 2. Marci 4. 33 Luc. 8. 51. et 18. Ioh. 21. 2. 18. 11. Ioh. 3. 1. Ioh. 8 1. 10 Mat. 2. Marc. 3. Lucae 6. To be named stil first rather argues primacie of authoritie then of order The 10 of S Mat. 2. examined S. Andr. â— der called before S. Peter Whie S. Paul mentioneth S. Iames 〈◊〉 21. of the Apoc. 19. makes against himself if it prove ought in reference to that of Exo. 28. 1. 18. 19. 2. S. Peter walkes on the water â— He is caled by our Saviour the rocke So Hervaeus is to be interpreted â— 155. â—â— 5. Ambrose serm 6â— gather out of S. Peters working of the first myracle that he was head of the church Mat. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 1. Ioh 4 â— Ioh. 2◠〈◊〉 S. Mat. 23â— c. v. 9. Cephas signifieth a head and that which is the fouÌ„dation to a house is in proportion a head to a bodie S. Leo. defended That the Pope is not called the Lord God the Pope What wee hold of deposition Proofes out of holy scripture to prove S. Peters primacie Epistola 1. 2â— lacobâ— The Greek fathers affirme the Popes primaciâ— The Greek FaÌ„thers allso affime it That S. Petes authoritie must bee derived to his successors The Pope is not antichrist 2 Thes. â— 2. vide Irenâ—um lib. 5. c. â— Hyppolit in the yeare 2â—â— in oratione de coÌ„summatione mundi D. Athams in the yere 340. quest 29. Cyrillus Hierosol 300. cateches 15. Greg. Kazâ— orat 14. et 4â— D. Chrysost orat 4. in 2. Thes 2 Cyrillus l. 3 in Ioh. c. 6. Divus Hier q. 11. ad Algasiâ— My generall reason for the Popes primacie His answer refuted They part See before aâ—n 117. vsae ad n. 135. See before â— 123. See n. 123. By this hâ— would with Beza avoide the name Catholicke which he cannot does if he grauÌ„e the article of beleife I beleive the Catholicke church See before n 117. adâ— n. 135. Mr. H A. snatchetâ— but doth not fasten on my motives The Catholicke religion grounded nether on the spirituall or temporall profite or pleasure Not by the the policie of the clergie established Noâ— by the policie of the temporall The fearefull resolution of their religion His plea examplfied to be most ridiculus His stile of salutation in the fotâ— front of his Pamphleâ—â— 1. Pet. 1. 〈◊〉 S. 3. ◠〈◊〉 Deut 〈◊〉 31. The 1. part of your treatise S. 7. p. 99. v. 25. 27. * v. 8. 31. †◠Tim. â— 2. ‡ S. 8. p. 9â— L. de pâ—radis c. 12. * CoÌ„ment in Mat. 23. S. 9. * S. 10. p. 100. †Deut â— 24. 25. ‡ See pag. 55. 56. ‖ S. 11. pag. 100. * Chrysost Gal. 1. †S. â—â—â— S. 15. * S. 15. †Isa. 33. 22. Iam. 4. â—2 ‡ S. 18. p. 102. 2. Part. S. 〈◊〉 p. 1â—◠†Iob. 38 1. c. ‡ Gé 22 11. c. 2 Pet. 1. 21 * Exo. 20. 21. â—2 * Gé 20. 7. †Gen. 49. ‡ Num. 12. 6. 8. Iob. 4. 16 33 14 15 16. 2. SaÌ„ 23 2. ‡ Sess. 11 12. †S. 10 p. â—02 * p. 10◠†See pag. 25. 26. 72. ‡ as in Ps. 44. 78. c. 2 Tim. 3. 1â— * or as you recken 43. 77. †Mal. 4. 4. Isa. 8 20. * 2 Thes. 2 9 †S. 23. p. 104. ‡ 2 Esdr. 14. 21. 22. chap. 4. 23. S. 23. * Mat. 10 27 †RoÌ„ 16. 25 26. ‡ Colos. 1 23. Ephes. 3 4 * 1 Thes. 5. â—7 “ 1 Cor 3 2. Heb 5 â— * Act. 28 26 2â— The 3. Part. †◠26 pag. 105. “ S. 2â— * S. 29. †S. 30. p. 106. ‡ See pag. â—7 18. 59. â— 31. * S. 32. c. p. 106. †S. 3â— 3â— 34. ‡ S. 8â— S. â—5 “ Ioh. 14. 17. * Mark 3 30 †S. 36. * S. 37. p. 108. †S. 38. ‡ 1 Cor. 2. 14. Ephes. 1. 17. 18. “ Colos. 3. 10. * S. 3. †S. 40. Ioh. 9. 22. ‡ S. 41. “ S. 43. * Mar. 7. 5. c. †S. 44. c. to 54. p. 109. ‡ See before in p. 62. 63. S. 45. 46. 47. c. p. 110. “ S. 54. c. p 111. * S. 57. 58. †S 56. ‡ pag. â—4 2. Argument ◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 112. “ pag. 〈◊〉 “ S. 66 p. 113. * Prov. 9. 13 †Pro. 9. 17. ‡ â— 18. ‡ S. 67. * Exod. 20. Cruâ—â—m â—â—am adorâ—mus Domine * Psa. 119. 105. †S. 68 p. 114. ‡ S. 69. 70. 71. See pag. 29. 30. 80. 81. “ Rev. 13. 2. * S. 72. p. 115. †S. 80. ‡ Synechdoche * S. 73. †S. 74. 7◠‡ Krino S. 76. p. 116. “ Act. 10. 20. * Act. 22. 10. †Anastas ‡ S. 77. 78. Act. 5. 34. “ S. 79. p. 117. * S. 80. idias epiluseos †Propria interpretatione Englished by Mr. I. A. private spirit interpretation ‡ S. 80. S. 82. “ S. 83. * S 85. †S 88. S. 89. p. â—19 3. Arg. †2. Pet. 3. 10. ‡ S. 91. pag 120. see p. 70. 5. Arg. S. 92. †In those things that are plainely set doâ—n in the scriptures al such things ar found as concern faith hope charity Augustine de doct Christ. l. 2 c. 9. * S. 94 The 4. 5. parts after handled S. 153. c pag. 134. * S. 157. * S. 160. †V. 20 S. 159. Homil 5â— in Math. ‡ S. 〈…〉 pag. 135. S 162 16â— * S. 164. pa. 13◠†Colos. 1. 17. 18 ‡ 1 Cor. 2. 16. ‖ Rev. 9. 11. “ S. 165. * S. 166. †S. 165. ‡ 2 Ioh. 1. 1 ‖ Act. 20. 17 †S. 167. pa. 137. S. 168. * S. 169. †S. 170. pag. 138. ‡ S.
the Israelites discerned canonical scriptures from others so doo we for we Gentiles are coheyrs with them and of the same body for there is one body and one spirit as there is one Lord and one faith But they relyed not on the Church or on the Highpreist his council for had they so doon their church must haue had privilege not to err as you think of yours which if you grant a Iew he wil overthrow your beleef in Christ seing their Preists Elders people condemned Christ his Apostles and their writings As you would answer a Pharisee for this point so mind the like answer to your self Finally your plea is overthrown confounded by your own practise for you will have us receive the scriptures for canonical because your Church of Rome sayth so they are we must beleeve upon her word Tobie and Iudith to be canonical but the third and fourth of Esdras not the first and second of the Machabees to be canonical but not the third or fourth If any make question of this for conscience sake you seek to resolve him by the definitive sentence of the Pope who cannot err But if he ask why the Pope of Rome may not err aswel as the Patriarch of Constantinople you then allege as after to me in this your letter Christs promise to Peter Mat. 16 and there you scan every word and presse every circumstance of the text to make him beleeve that Peter was the Rock and head of the Church and consequently the Popes his successors Ask he you againe how he shall know that Matthewes gospel wherin this promise is written is canonical rather then Nicodemus gospel you will answer because the Pope hath so determined Thus the very entrance and ground of your religion bringeth men into a maze and Labyrinth for we must beleeve the Pope cannot err because Christ sayth such words to Peter which the Pope expoundeth and applyeth to himself we must beleeve that Christ sayd them words because the Pope hath determined that he sayd them Thus the foundation of our faith must rely wholly upon man a clod of clay whatsoever he telleth us is scripture that must we so esteme how ever he expound scripture so must we take it what he sayth is tradition or Gods unwritten word we must so regard and keep it be it never so absurd against the light of nature against reason against the grounds of faith against the evident testimonies of the prophets and Apostles we must captivate all our understanding faith and conscience under the Popes wisdome and all because he telleth us we must so doo Otherweise if we may trie this principle of yours by the scripture through the light of Gods spirit in us then may we doe the like of other which be of lesser moment Consider I pray you this first point seriously and the Lord give you understanding in all things And let me here put you in mind though I be not yet come to the end of the last motive in your letter where you tell me how wheÌ„ you shal be demanded at the tribunal of almighty God why you beleeve in the Roman catholik church you can answer by reason Christ himself teacheth you so saying He that heareth you heareth me c. But deceive not your own soul for when Christ shall ask you at that day why you have worshiped images sung masse and Dirige prayed to Saints and soules departed and transgressed many other of his fathers coÌ„mandements by your traditions you will answer because the head of your church the Pope did teach you so when he shall ask you how you knew the Pope to be head of the church and to haue such authoritie over your conscience you will answer because Christ himself spake such words to Peter as are written Mat. 16. When he ask you agayn how you knew that he spake those words or that they extended to the Pope of Rome above all other your answer vvil be according to the grounds of your religion because the Pope himself vvith his senate of Cardinals did tel you so Then vvil your hope be the vveb of a spider and your house novv seeming upon the Rock vvil be found upon the sand you shall hear the Curse pronounced upon the man that trusted in man and made flesh his arm and vvithdreâ—v his hart from the Lord and that all such vvorshiped him in vain as had their fear tovvard him taught by the precept of men The Rock of my hart vvho is my portion for ever preserve me and deliver you from those syrtes and quicksands vvhere men make ship-vvrack of faith Your second argument to prove that the bare naked vvord of God cannot be an infallible rule or square of truth is this That which is difficult and includeth many fenses at least to the ignorant cannot be a certaine rule of faith But the scriptures are thus Your antecedent you seek to confirm by Luther Teâ—tullian and S. Peter also vvho as you vvrite sayth that in S. Pauls epistles ther be many things hard to be understood which the vnlearned and unstable deprave as all the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition To this of the Apostle I answer first you set the holy text on the centers to stretch it out for your usâ— The Apostle sayth some things are hard to be understood you vvould haue him say many things he sayth they deprave these as the rest of the scriptures you say as all the rest Secondly this testimonie though it vvere as large as you extend it proves not your antecedent but onely the first part of it and scarce that too For to gather because part is difficult therfore the vvhole is is more then eyther his vvords or good reason vvil bear The later part that the scripture caÌ„not be a certayn rule of faith follovveth not upon the former it may be a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 though some part of it be difficult though many men doo deprave it Our ignorance or perversnes cannot make crooked that vvhich is most streight no more then our unfaithfulnes can make the faith of God of none effect The artizen that vvorketh by rule and squire maâ— through vvant of skil or heed vvork amysse but himself is to blame and not his rule Againe though some scriptures be difficult yet many be plaine and easy and God hath so tempered them togither that the vvisest should haue vvherin to exercise their vvit and admire Gods mysterios and the simplest should haue playne documents vvherby to grouÌ„d their faith It is our fathers vvil also that to some his vvord should be in parables that hearing men may hear and not understand vvhen to others it is given to knovv the secrets of the kingdom of God vvho hath vvritten his vvord to give unto the simple sharpnes of vvitt to the child knovvledge and discretion Again you allege the Eunuch Act. 8. vvho confesseth that he could
having fayled in his fidelitie is in special excited unto duty diligence al the other should be excluded Doe you not see hovv after this Paul shevveth Eph. 4. not Peter onely but Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers to be given of Christ for the building up of his church Your conclusion to be inferred hereupon if you conclude the question wil be much more unreasonable The point you undertook to prove vvas that not Gods vvord in the Bible but the catholik churches yea the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith To confirm this haeresie you produce here Christs charge to Peter Freed my sheep Behold Novv the strength of your argument If Peter vvas to feed Christs sheep then not Gods vvord in the scriptures but Peters definitive sentence and consequently the Popes is an indeficient rule of faith But Peter vvas to feed Christs sheep Iohn 21. Frgo c. The unreasonablenes of vvhich consequence if the bare rehearsal of it doo not convince may be shewed by the like thus If the Bishops of Ephesus vvere to feed the church of God then not Gods vvord in the scripture but their definitive sentences vvere indeficient rules in matters of faith But the Bishops of Ephesus vvere to feed the church of God Act. 20. 28. Ergo. If the Elders of the churches of Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia were to feed the flocks of God then not Gods word in the Bible but their definitive sentences were indeficient rules in matters of faith But the Elders of those churches were to feed the flock of God 1 Pet. 5 â— 2. Ergo. Behold what deep waters you have digged out from the Rock of Rome their spring I trow comes from the bottomlesse pitt If you say those Elders were under Peter as a head therfore they were to feed with his definitive sentence not their own First I deny that so they were under him and you shal never prove it whiles Rome gates doo stand though I grant their office was inferiour to the Apostles Secondly if you could prove it yet would it make against you for if because Peter was their head therfore they must feed with his doctrine onely then because Christ was Peters head Peter was to feed with Christs doctrine onely But Christ was Peters head acknowledged by Peter himself to be Arch pastor so taught by Christ himself Iohn 10. Therfore Christ definitive sentence onely not Peters much lesse the Popes is the indeficient rule of our faith And thus my cause is confirmed and yours overturned by your own weapon Yet you procede and say besides Christ speaks to S. Peter that he should feed his general flock though he may speak unto the other Apostles that they should feed their particular charges I would we might once have an end of words of wind You say al things but prove nothing unlesse your definitive sentence also must be taken for a law But then I am sure it is against Christs law for as he neyther used the word general to Peter nor the word particular to the other Apostles so wheÌ„ he sent them with their charge al indifferently it was unto al nations yea into al the world to preach the gospel to every creature and as the Father sent him so sent he them And where now I pray you were their particular charges But let it be as you say let the Apostles and al Christian Bishops their successors have these precincts in al nations in al the world and what place is over and beside let your Peter the Pope have there to menage his supremacie But here you bring your S. Leo to speak for S. Peter and I know he was his freind for I shewed before how he placed Peter in the fellowship of the indivisible unitie so making him a God I know also have shewed that in the same 3. anniversarie sermon which you cite he speaketh more for S. Peter then you bring here how be it though the Lion roreth he hath got no prey For the headship hath been proved to be Christs not Peters the Apostleship to be Peters with the other Apoltles And though you again and again doe barely affirm S. Peter was head of al the rest of the Apostles yet I must tel you again again that I hold not your definitive sentence nor the Popes neyther to be a right rule of faith but if you can bring the word of God for you that thrâ—ugh his grace I wil gladly receive In the end of this your velitation you leav me to impuâ—ne â— B. â—armines doctrine as it heth c. But your captayn comes not into this feild he lyes intrenched within the walls of Rome and triumphes in the Vatican It is you that have bid me battel and as you entred not these lists without an alarme so you wil not depart I trow without an io triumphe Yet to say the truth in answering you I have answered your Cardinal for your reasons be his you have taken them out of his skoncâ— Onely you have culled them out here and there in other order have taken the most pregnant arguments that he hath Which being by him and by you propounded by me now answered you are to look whither the propugning of them shallye upon him or on you against this my impugnation Or if you wil let them dye you may sound the retrait The 3. and last thing which you promised to prove was that this rule the indeficient rule of faith is onely found in the Roman Catholik church sentence and not in privat mens illuminations or motions of a priâ—â—t and unseen spirit Both parts of this your divided proposition I disallow and mainteyn a third viz that this rule is to be found in the writings Prophetical and Apostolical because as your Cardinal hath wel sayd nothing is more known nothing more certeyn then the holy scriptures which are conteyned in them and this is a most certayn and a most safe rule of beleeving Before vvhen you came to shew your proof it was that your Roman church is the true and onely catholik church of God Which though I doo deney yet if I did grant it it would not prove your assertion For it is the voice of the bridegroom not of the bride which is the ground of mens faith the catholik church is to receiv lawes and rules from her head Christ not to prescribe lawes or rules to her members There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy But because your church must first be proved true catholik before her sentence can be approved therefore I was content to look into this first branch requiring proof that your Roman church is the true then the onely catholik for I deney both What proofs you brought before how I answered them I leav to indifferent consideration and wil now again take
that there is more Majestie in Ecclesiastes then in the Ecclesiasticus How will Luther demonstrate against the whole church that S. James epistle is strawie the epistle to the Hebrewes Apocalyps etc. to be doubted of 40. When I object against you that the Maniâ—hâ—i Montanist Arrian Peâ—agian and all other hereticks will boast of this private spirit Nou answer that I have a mist before my eyes or else I would discerne them I answer I doe distinguish them and leave them 〈◊〉 by the church of God to the pit of hell but not by my private spirit but by the ordinarie meanes the definitions and declarations of the church whose office is to distinguish these spirits infalliblie whose doctrine wee are punctuallie to follow if wee will have in all things this spirit of truth and with one answer I satisfie the multiplicitie of places of scripture he apâ—d vp to no purpose 41. Wheras you would whet the edge of the Jewes sword against mâ— in that they may object against Christians the lawe and the Prophets yea and antiquitie I answer the lawe and Prophets yea antiquitie it self promising our Saviours coÌ„â—ing and fulfilled by his coÌ„ming in each particular cirstumstance prophâ—â—ied and promised doth rebat the edge And I could show out of the 〈◊〉 â—abbines themselves Sâ—hillaes prophecies preaching of S. John Baptist conversion of S Paul the destruction of Jerusalem their â—â—rse and continued dispersion onely to be justly inflicted on them for truâ—â—fying of our Saviour I could shew strange motives of their 〈◊〉 errouâ— Neither can the Jew as you object as we against the â—urk or and Hâ—râ—sie our beginâ—er beginning increase and declyning estate For the Jewes can show our beginner their Messias our beginning he buriall of the cerâ—monial law propheâ—ied and performed by all titles of truth but who can justly shew our declining estate 42. Neyther is the objection of a Jew against a new Christian because he went out of them of such force as our is against Julâ—an or any other Apostata For they cannot defend themselves with any show of truth as we can defend our cause with evident motives of â—râ—dibilitie as I shall hereafter show And Julian might object that Paganismâ— is more ancient then Christianitiâ— but not then the 〈◊〉 law which was compleat and â—erfected as it was prophecied and promised by the coming of the new lawe Where you say Gods word and spirit in the scriptures must be the bulwark I answer a bulwark but not able to defend you from gun shot and a sâ—onse onely for your selves For as yet there was never any of your sects protestant or any other heretitâ— that was able to convert any nation to their religion But men of our religion haue converted all nations doe still convert as well witnesseth both the Judges Japonia yea and Câ—ina it self 43. I showed you one way how the high preisthood did not erre in the condâ—mnation of our Saviour in that the Preisthood was â—â—served in Christ Jesus person True it is the Hipghpreists Scribes Rulers questioned this but their ignorance was most viâ—â—ible by their own lawe and by that lawe he should live since that law declared him to be the sonne of God 44. Against your forced rock and running over many wrâ—sted places of scripture to prove the church of God invisible it were sufficient for me to oppose many evident and clear places of scripture interpreted by the holy fathers Greek and Latin for the pepetuall visibilitie of the church 2. 〈◊〉 â— v 13. 1. Paâ—â—l 22 10. Psal 4â— 17 Psal. 45 5. Psal. 47. 9. Psal. 86. 1. Psal. 88 29 Psal. 101 17. Ps. 128 1. Psal. 131 14. Cant. 3 4. Isa. 9 7. Isa. 33 20. where the perpetual flourishing of the church of God is described Isa. 40 8. Isa. 59 21. Isa. 60 â—9 where it is said the Sun and Moon of the church shall not cease Jer. 6 16. Dan. 2 44. Ose. 2 19. where God is described to espouse eternally his espouse unto him Mich 4 1. wher the church is described to be a high seated mountain to whom all people have recourse Mat. 5 15. where the citie seated on a hil can not be obscured Math 26. 18. where the church is described to be built upon a rock against which hell gates shall not prevaile 28. Math. 2. Our Saviour sayes he will be with his disciples to the end of the world Luâ— 1 32. Luâ— 21. 32. Luk. 22 31. Where Christ sayes he prayed for S Peter that his faith should not fail him Joh. 14. 1â— He sayes the father shall give them another spirit which shall remaine with them eternally John 17 11. Act. 5 38. Ephe. 4 11. yea and the Creed made by the Apostles doth acknowledge the perpetuall flourishing of the church of God I beleeve the catholick church whose generalitie can not stand without visibilitie 45 I answer to your contrarie doctrine that the church of God never since it was a church hath erred If Genes 6. ther was then a church AdaÌ„ the head did err in fact not in doctrine if we should graunt that he did err our adversaries are bound as wel as wee to answer since not onely the visible church then with us but the invisible church with them should have erred But true it is that thers was then no perfect church but onely a materiall and a formall beginning of a church 46. To that of Gen. 6. where all their harts are described to be set on mischeef is not to be understood that all then were naught For not long before Mâ—â—husalem and divers holy men died Sem Jâ—phet also were zealous of Gods honour and their wives also most religious in whom the church of God might be preserved 47. I answer also In the time of Moses Aaron and the people did commit idolatrie in worshipping the golden â—alfe yet Moses the head of all and all the Levites were free from that sinne So that wee read Erod 32. If there be any of God sayes Moses let him joâ—ne with mee and all the sonnes of Levi were gathered vnto him 48. I answer In the time of Judges after Josh. The Israelites are described as though they had sinned al which is an usual figurative speech of Syâ—echdoche of the whole for the part as Exod. 9 6. wher it is sayd all the beasts of Egypt are dead Isa. 2. v. All nations shal flow unto him Phil. 2 21. All men seek their own Ioh. 3. v. 33. And no man did receive his testimonie 49. To that of the Prophet Elias 3. Reg. 19. where Elias complaines that he is left alone I answer that then the people were divided into two kingdomes the one of the Jewes and the other of the Israelites Aâ—hab did govern the Israelites but holy Josaphat did govern the Jewes the one did destroy altars and kill Prophets the other did heare Prophets erect altars And
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
1. S. Paul was caled to his office not by S. Peter but by Iesus Christ Gal. 1. 1. 2. S. Paul received the doctrine vvhich he preached not from S. Peter but by revelation froÌ„ Iesus Christ Gal. 1. 12. 3. S. Paul laboured in preaching the gospell more then S. Peter did 1. Cor. 15. 10. 4. S. Paul went and preached vvithout so much as conferring vvith S. Peter or the rest Gal. 1. 16. 17. 5. The gospel over the vncircumcision that is the Gentils among vvhom Rome vvas cheif was committed to S. Paul Gal. 2. 7. 6. S. Paul had upon him the care of all churches 2 Cor. 11. 28. 7. S. Paul hath vvritten and opened clearly the great mysteries of Christ in his Epistles more then S. Peter or any Apostle 8. S. Pauls vvritings are by S. Peter himself reckned among the holy scriptures 2 Pet. 3. 15. 16. 9. S. Paul rather then any other Apostle vvas caled of God to preach at Rome Act. 23. 11. 10. In his voyage to Rome he vvas marvelously saved from shipwrack and very memorable accidents fel out besides in that journey Act. 27. and 28. 11. S. Paul preached the gospel and suffered persecution in Rome and stood for the truth vvhen no man there assisted him Act. 28. 30. 31. 2 Tim. 4. 16. 12. S. Paul preached at Antioch where the name Christians vvas first given Act. 11. 26. 13. S. Paul vvithstood S. Peter to his face and blamed him vvhen he did amyss Gal 2. 11. c. 14. S. Paul first casteth out the Divil of divination Act. 16. 16. 15. He striketh Elymas the forcerer vvith blindnes Act. 13. 8. 11. 16. S. Paul in visions vvas taken up into the third heaven into paradise 2. Cor. 12. 2. 4. 17. S. Paul in nothing vvas inferior to the very cheif Apostles 2 Cor. 12. 11. 18. He vvas of that tribe vvhose precious stone is the first foundation of the heavenly Ierusalem Rom. 11. 1. Rev. 21. 19. Exod. 2â— 10. 20. 21. Therefore for all those reasons S. Paul vvas head of the Catholick Roman Church Here I appele unto any unpartial reader vvhither my proofs for S. Paul be not stronger then yours for S. Peter and vvhither the Pope vvas not overseen to choose S. Peter for his patron vvhom he cannot prove by any one title of Gods vvord that ever he set foot in Rome gates to leave S. Paul vvho vvas caled of God to preach there and did so a long time as the scriptures doo confirm Yet for all this you vvil not graunt that S. Paul vvas head of the church therefore say I neyther S. Peter and as for your Pope he hath no more â—ight to shew for the same then Mahomet We have seen your proofs from scripture you add unto them Doctors And here as before you bring in your forgeries of Clemens and Dioâ—ysius c vvith other vvrested testimonies of the Fathers Who al of them if they sayd as much as you vvould have them had no authority to make an head for the church Secondly vvhatsoever they sayd for Peter it proveth nothing for your Pope He must therefore shew better evidence for his usurped prelacy or els he must stil be reputed the adversary that exalteth himself 2 Thes. 2. 4. You proceed and say that S. Peters authority must be derived to his successors lawfully elected and governing at Rome This is the mayn point vvhich I vvould fayn see proved You could prove it by expresse authority of all the fathers cited but let reason you say suffice me Behold here and let all that have eyes behold the desperatenes of your cause vvho for the mayn ground of your religion church vvhereof you so boast cannot allege any one word or title of holy scripture but leave those true and ancient infallible records and betake you to the latter forged erroneous humane testimonies traditions of men I deny that Peter left any such successor in his office as you dream of and for the Pope to chaleng it is to folow the violencie of his private spirit as you sayd of Pope Stephen Now let us hear your reasoÌ„ Christ gave the power of preaching c. you say for the good of others to the worlds end This I graunt So Christ nstituting S. Peter the head you say would have that prehemineÌ„ce derived to his lawful successors All this I deny 1. He made not Peter head much less his successors â— He appointed no such successors after Peter in his office 3. If Peter vvere to have successors the Bishop of Rome hath no more to say for it by vvarrant from Christ then all other Bishops in the vvorld vvho for preaching ministring sacraments and governing their flocks have and ever had equal power with the Bishop of Rome vvhen he was at the best Thus after your long and tedious dispute you coÌ„clude vvith a fayr begging of the question not being able to produce one line of the bible which speaketh for your Pope nor any sufficient ground of reason How soundly now you have proved your sixth part viz. That the Popes definitive sentence at least with a general council â—t is a sufficient groundwork of fayth let any indifferent reasonable man give sentence Here I did not dare you as you say to bring in the arrowes of the fathers c in an other place it vvas that I gave you leave to use their reasons if you pleased but not to press me vvith their bare names as your manner is to doo And in all your long discourse let the reader mind vvhat any one scripture or reason you have had by the help of Doctor Father Council or Pope to prove your assertion that the Popes definitive sentence is to be a ground of our faith You object and that often that unless I wil eat my word you must preferr the uniform consent of the Fathers before me I answer to your often repetitions this First I spake of moe and others then you account holy Fathers yea I included such as I doubt not but you vvould burne for hereticks Secondly I spake and agayn speak it unfeighnedly as is in my hart being privy to my own manifold ignorances and infirmities and esteming of others better then of my self Thirdly therefore I say beleeve not me but beleeve the word of God which I shew vnto you If I speak of my selfe tread it vnder your foot but if I speak the words of God in despising theÌ„ you despise the Lord sinning against your sowl And if you depend on the sentences of Fathers Councils Popes not confirmed by the scriptures you make idols of them and heap up wrath upon your head Leave therefore your disdayning of me and leave your extolling of other men for all flesh is grass and all the glory of man is as the flower of grass which withereth away but the word of the Lord endureth for ever and that is the word which the Apostles preached to the churches 1.
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
the secret and mysterie of the Gospel so as none need to say in his hart who shall goe up into heaven or who shall goe down into the deep for the word is neer us in our mouth and in our hart even the word of faith which they preached And by them we learn that all scripture is the opneustos inspired of God profitable for doctrine for reprehension for correction for instruction which is in righteousnes that the man of God may be artios and exeâ—tismenos perfect and perfectly fitted unto every good work These also after vocal preaching did write their gospel that such as read mought beleeve and in beleeving might haue life through Christs name and that their joy might be full Wherfore as we are referred to the scriptures for assurance of our faith so also are we willed not to presume or be wise above that which is written This being the auctoritie and authentia of the scriptures as we are taught of God let us now weigh your reasons alleged to disable them Your first argument is Nothing is to be beleeved that is not taught or gathered out of the written word But that the Bible is canonical is not directly taught nor by evident consequence deduced out of the same Therfore it is not to be beleeved that the Bible is canonicall scripture The Major as you say is the coÌ„mon assertion of Protestants citing Calvin and the Apologie of the Church of England The Minor you say is approved by Hooker a principall Protestant I answer the pillars of your propositions being earth and ashes the whole frame and conclusion of your argument lieth in the dust I told you before we entred into this feild that it is Gods word not mans that I would trie and be tried by Wherfore you bet the aier in vain if by any mans auctoritie you think to supplant my faith Much lesse will I approve what every Protestant hath written So leaving others I return unto your self Your first proposition is too generall I grant many things may be beleeved though they be not gathered out of the written word but I hold not any thing needful to be beleeved for salvation with God but that which is taught by his written word Which perswasionâ— ground upon these and other like scriptures Ioh. 20. 30. 31. 2. Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17. Eccles. 12 11 12. Your second proposition I deney Your reason learned from M. Hooker 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Fâ—â— if any book did give testimonie of all the rest yet the scripture that gives credit to all the 〈…〉 scripture to be credited neyther could we come to any paâ—se wheron to rest or assurance this way I answer Al scripture such as I rely upon is theopneustos inspired of God and therefore authentik and to be a canon and rule of our faith and actions To discern what scripture is inspired of God none is able but by the spirit of God For the Apostle sayth What man knoweth the things of man save the spirit of a man which is in him even so the things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God 1. Cor. 2 11. Of this spirit God powreth out upon all his children some mesure without this spirit none can say that Iesus is the Lord though men should see all his mighty miracles and hear all his gracious words yet could they not be pâ—rswaded unless God opened their harts Therfore sayd our Saviour to Simon bar Ionas flesh and blood hath not reveled this unto thee that I am the Christ the son of the living God but my father which is in heaven And as of him so of all he sayth No man can come unto me except the father which hath sent me draw him Whither the word therfore be spoken or written it cannot be beleeved to be of God but by the spirit of God which therfore is called the spirit of beleef or of faith which spirit is joyned togither with the word in the Saincts as Isaias prophesieth who therupon are all taught of God have received as Paul sayth not the spirit which is of the world but the spirit which is of God that they may know the things which are given to them of God 1. Cor. 2 12. and it is the Spirit which testifieth that the Spirit is truth 1. Ioh. 5. 6. The whole word of God being of it self worthy to be credited and having testimony of the same Spirit which spake wrote it is also further confirmed by the power effect therof in the conscience peircing more sharply then any two edged sword and discerning the thoughts and intents of the hart The power majestie excellencie of the scriptures above all humane writings felt in the hart and confirmed by the spirit evidently prove to all that are Christs that they are of God and if from him then are they canonical the rule and mesure of our faith and actions these all doe bear witnesse one to an other the latter Prophets and Apostles commenting upon Moses the first divine writer Iohn the last coÌ„firming and abridging all other from the first in his heavenly Revelation The ear fayth Iob discerneth words as the palat tasteth meat for it self wherfore though the natural man discerneth no difference between Gods canonical and mans apocryphal scriptures yet the spirituall man discerneth all things and by testimonies of the scripture is able for to prove that the Bible is canonical contrary unto your Conclusion although perhaps he cannot perswade it to them which are carnal have not the spirit as the Apostle speaketh It this be not as I have shewed but we must rely upon men for the ground of our faith then would I know how you can perswade an infidel to beleeve Christianisme rather then Mahometisme to be the way of life For the Turk will say swear that the Alkoran is of God as the Pope will say of the new Testament And if mens voices shall cary it away our beleef in Christ is lost If miracles be alleged there is still the same controversie whither they be divine or divilish for hethens and idolaters have had miracles many and Antichrist as it is prophesied shal shall doe great wonders making fyre to come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men Your other allegations of antiquitie Vniversalitie c. wil not stop the mouth of Iuliâ—â— the Apostata but he will bear down Christianitie and restore Paganisme as being ancient and universal So there wil be no setling of the conscience til it come unto God and rest upon him alone and receive the plerophorian the full assurance by his spirit without which men can not discerne between the propheticall writings and the Iewes Thalmud between Christs Testament and the Turks Alkoran or between Gods oracle out of the Debir in Ierusalem and the Divils oracle out of his temple in Delphos Again as
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
though we should graunt that Elias did think himself left alone in Israel yet Almightie God did answer him I wil leave 7. thowsand men in Israel that have not bowed their knees to Bâ—al 50. I answer that Esay the Prophet in his first chapter dooth use the self same fiâ—ure of Synâ—â—hdâ—che also the self same manner of speech is vsed the 4. â—eg 21. For Manasses himself did râ—pent and redeeme mâ—nn and many were never seduced so understand that also of the Prophet here 51. That of which Azarias dooth prophetise 2 Paral. 15. is to be understood of the Israelites that were dificient and not of the Jewes that were constant I graunt also that at the coÌ„ming of our Saviour the church was but a little one yet I say it was preserved in Marie Joseph Zacharie Elizabeth and Anna the Prophetess In just Simeon and the Pastors 52. That of Daniel the 9. the host and sacrifice shall faile is to be understood of the destruction of Hierusalâ—m and the câ—â—â—ing of the Jewish sacrifice Luk. 18. Our Saviour doth not absolutely speak of faith but of an external faith and of an excellent faith 2 Thes. 2. Is to be vnderstood the particular departing of Antichrist and his â—rew from the church And so by these grounds to the usual objections against the perpetuall visibilitie of Gods church wee may answer any thing that hath bene or may be produced 53. Yet to confirm this truth with one short reason I argue thus This church of God if it must be invisible Eyther it must begin to be invisible in the time of peace or in the time of persecution in the time of peace there was no opposition to make her invisible in the tyme of persecution no bodie could persecute an invisible thing 54. Now wheras you sayd you show how the labyrinth of my religion leadeth to the Pope the center of our circle True it is I sayd the vltimate resolution of our religion is to be resolved into the veracitie of God revealing as into the formal causâ— and into the authoritie of the church as into the applying â—ause And I am glad you have traâ—ed me not to your heretical quicksands but to S. Peters rock 55. And that you may see the resolution of my religion is no other but that of S. Cyprian lib de unitate Eccles. where he compares â—ou in regard of the church of Rome as Beames in regard of the sun as boughes in regard of the tree as a river in regard of the fountayn So that he concludes he that separates himself from the church of God he must needs vanish fade and drie up in that they lack their origen by which all unitie is preserved 55. I gave you 2 or three instances to show how the word of God might in a divers kind depend of the Church and the church of the word of God as we prove the self same a priori et a posteriori the operation of the stone or herb depends of the skil and knowledge of the herbalist and lapidarie and their skil and knowledge depends of the innated and inward proprietie of the stone and herbe For neyther can have his effect without mutual help of both except chance which is no regular action be the applier and so I take you have thalked your self a way to a ridiculous building without foundatioÌ„ as I shall shew anone 56. You answer nothing to this but that I prove out of natural philosophie as though divinitie though it excels is not concordant to natural reason whereas we can beleeve nothing that we see implies by the light of naturall reason 57. To the places that you object of the 1. of Timoth. 1 3. rather proves against you then makes for you For it showes all the while that she did not reach otherwise to the church she remained sound And that which you cite 1. Tim 3 15. would make you trest salue if you did daily consider it For there he warnes her that she might conforme her conversation to the house of God the pillar of truth And though the text sayes in the house of God yet it must be understood in the particular church that must have reference to that place as wee shall prove hereafter where S. Peter did establish his chaire Ioh. 14 16. Mat. 16. Math. 28 Ephes. 4 Ioh. 17. Luc. 22. Psal. 2. Ephâ—s 2. 58. When you seeme to drawe out of my speech that I denie for my witness the spirit of God is your error and fraude For I hold that which is taught out of these places 1 Cor 2. 10 11. Iob. 28 2 13 22. c. to signifie nothing else but that the holy Ghost teacheth the church in all truth and her members with reference to her and my private spirit I ought not to follow so that if I might be your Pilote I would save you from that bottomlesse gulphe that ghaspes to receive your erroneous soule 59. St. Augustines authoritie you let slip denying him a fit Maister to follow you say he might retractate this but neither you doe nor can show that he did retractate it 60. As for S. Augustines opposition to S. Hierome it was in some smal matter and not in a matter defined vp the consent of the church 61. My second Argument was this in substance Major That which is hard and for occurring places almost inexplicable cannot be to the rud ignorant at least a certain ground of faith Mmor But the scriptures of themselves are thus Conclusion go the scriptures by themselves can not bee a certaine and infallible rule of saith to the ignorant and rude at least 62. My major propositioÌ„ is most certain For a rule must be known and certaine and more fit to our capacitie to bee conceived then that which is to be ruled and certefied therby 63. My Mmor also I prove both in regard of many seeming contradictions of the Hebraimes nature of things therin contained being high misteries 64. In answering of this Argument you say some thinges are hard in the scriptures I proved this difficultie and hardnes was in principal matters which I proved out of the second of S. Peter 3. 16. Our most deare brother Paul according to his wisdome given hâ—m hath written to you as also in all his epistles speaking of them in these things in which are certain thiâ—gs hard which the unlearned unstable deprave as also the rest of thâ— scrâ—pâ—ures to their own destructio Hence is gathered that not on ly the places of S. Pâ—ul touchiâ—g vocation justification sanctification predestination and â—â—prâ—bation inâ—â—pâ—icating which pointes S. Paul is most frequent but also any other place is subject to be depraved as the word implies as also the rest of the scriptures And S. August in his book de fide et operibus c. 14 showes that one of the cheife matters they did deprave was about justifying by faith And I showed you here as erring a little
replie unto Act. 26 22. that in tradition nothing is spoken besides that is contrarie to the Apostles speeches First this is untrue many of your church traditioÌ„s are both besides coÌ„ntrary to the scriptures as when we examine the particulars wil appear and yow dare not subject your church and traditions to the trial by the scriptures but yow wil haue mens fayth extrinsecally to depend upoÌ„ your church Secondly you wind away by terms of your owne besides that is contrary vvhereas the Apostle sayth nothing without or except that vvhich the Prophets and Moses sayd none other thing Your allegation from 2. 2. Thes. 2. is answered in my former vvritings You further allege for traditions Act. 15. 41. 16. 4. I answer all Apostolicall decrees such as are ther mentioned we doo receiv but yours decreed by the Pope are Apostaticall Secondly you may see that those which they delivered vvere vvritten before Act. 15. 23 -25 28. c. You say they are uncertayn let the prudent judge And if so they be then are they not necessary for salvation for all such are vvritten Ioh. 20. 30. 31. 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. Here you interlace 2. other points compâ—â—ing the grounds that vve and that you doe goe vpon and you handle them largely in 55. sections I vvill first follow on vvith your 6. part at S. 153. both because that vvas the course of our former vvritings and the examining of the things alleged for your Pope vvil give light touching these other points which also I vvill consider of after in his place The second of your assertions vvhich now you make the 6. part of your longsome pamphlet vvas That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith To this now as a man fearful of your cause you have added the Popes definitive sentence at least with a generall council And this you say you are to show and vve say I are ready to behold your showes Here I find no argument by you set down to conclude your assertion as vvas in the former points vvhich is an other declaration of the weaknes of your cause Heretofore to help the Pope you fled to S. Peters prerogatives vvhich vvere they as great as you feign them to be yet as I told you there is no more proved for the Bishop of Rome then for the Bishop of Babylon or Patriarch of Constantinople Yet having no better grounds you agayn flee to them and labour to repayr your showes of Peters preeminence vvhich I by the scriptures had pulled down And first you say that out of the whole series of them and the circumstances and not onely out of each particular you draw an infallible argument I answer the particulars I have proved to be by you wrested so the vvhole series and rank of them can conclude not hing soundly for you Your 1 show vvas S. Peters naming first I told you this is usual but not alwayes and to help you because you complaynâ— cited not the 〈…〉 see Ioh. 1. 45. vvhere Andrew is named before him Gal. 2. 9. vvhere Iames is named before him Mar 16. â— vvhere mention is made oâ— the disciples and Peter so 1 Cor. 9. 5. the Apostles brethren of the Lord and Cephas Though if he had been alvvayes first named it proves him not to be the head of the church more then the first foundation Rev. 21. 19. vvill prove Paul as I shewed you Here you boast that Exod. 28. 18. 19. confutes me vvhere the Iasper you think is the sirt stone and so not the 12. for Benjamin I answer an yll translation hath deceived you For Moses there sheweth that the stone Iaspeh whereof the Greek Iaspis Arabik Iasp Latine Iaspis and English Iasper are naturally derived vvas the â—2 and last in the brestplate and so for Benjamin vvho vvas the last born of the patriarchs to be graved vpon Exod. 28. 9. 10. 21. This your own learned Linguists as Arias Montanus and others doo acknowledge and so correct your translation So the best of the Iewish Rabbines as Maimony vvho sayth Benjamin was written on the Iaspeh Misn. lib. 8. Treat of the vessels of the Sanctuary chapt 9 S. â— And thus Paul of Benjamin hath colour to be the head of the church as vvell as Peter You press Mat 10. 2. the first Simon caled Peter Andrew as you think vvas first in yeres first in caling for proof you cite Ambrose on 2. Cor. 12. I answer first Ambroses humane â—uthority is no proof for Peters pretended divine headship Secondly Ambrose saith not that he vvas first in yeres put that therfore amoÌ„g your own traditioÌ„s but ChrysostoÌ„ if you vvil rely upoÌ„ men maketh Peter elder then Andrew That which Ambrose sayth is Andrew folowed our Sav before Peter this I hold true by Ioh. 1. 40. 41. but it is one thing to folow Christ as a disciple an other thing to be chosen an Apostle as reason teacheth and you may read Mar. 3. 13. 14. 16. compared with Mar. 1. 16. Luk. 6. 12. 13. 14. vvith Luk. 5. 8. 10. That Andrew therefore vvas an Apostle before Peter I deny by vvarrant of scripture thus I wink not as you vvrite but vvith Calvin I confess Peter to be first of the Apostles You grant by that I alleged from 2. King 2. Dan. 3. that such miracles as Peters walking on the water prove no headship of the church so then this also you brought but for a show 3 I corrected your error in translating him for it in Mat. 16. 18. restreyning that to Peter vvhich Christ promised to his vvhole church You stand to it stil. But first against humane learning for autes the feminine gender cannot accord with Petros the malculine as it can and dooth vvith Ecclesias the Church You plead also against true religion for I proved by Ioâ— â—0 27. 28. 29. that all true Christians are invincible of hâ—l gâ—â—â—s and not Peter onely Here you burst out and cry that if I vnderstaÌ„d it in the Calvinisticall sense that one once justified can not be again the child of wrath it is you say a most horrible falshood and against the holy scriptures Rom. 11. 20. 21. Rev. 2. 5 I answer I understand plainly as Christ sayth that his sheep shall never pâ—rish neyther shall any pluck them out of his hand but he vvill give them eâ—er â—al life Ioh. 10. 28. that it is not possible the elect should be seduced 〈…〉 Christ Mat. 24 24. for God putteth his fear in their harts that they shall not depart from him Ier. 32. 40 and Gods gifts and caling are without repentance Rom. 11. 29. and they that are born of God cannot syn vnto death 1 Ioh. 3. 9. And these things accord vvell with Rom. 11. 20. 21. c. for by faith we stand but all men have not faith 2 Thes. 3. 2. there is a vayne fayth