was no private but the most publik spirit of God without which no scripture can be vvel interpreted And vvhere you say S. Peter was head of that council you passe the boundes of the text vvhich shevves no such thing Christ vvas the head and he guided them by his holy spirit Peter after much disputation shevved his mind grounded upon the vvorks and lavv of the Lord Barnabas and Paul confirmed the same by their ovvn experience then Iames confirmed Symon Peters speech by the vvords of the Prophets thereupon gave sentence or judgment vvhat should be doon vvherto the Apostles and Elders vvith the vvhole church agreed Wherefore if any man vvere head reason vvould lead us to think lames rather then Simeon vvas the man Thus the decree had povver and force from Gods vvord vvhich by the holy Ghost vvas serched scanned manifested of the Apostles and Elders vvas approved and consented to of the vvhole Church there the Apostles Elders and brethren all vvhich and not Simon alone sayd It seemed good to the Holy ghost and to us And that all care and diligence should be used to decide controversies by the vvord of God I acknovvledgâ— but to deney Gods vvord vvhich you call bare and naked though it be gloriously arayed vvith al ornaments of the spirit to be an infalâ—ible rule of truth is farr from my hart and farr from being proved by these your allegations But you shut up your argument thus Therfore let S. Peter himself conclude that no prophesie of scripture that is no interpretation as the holy Fathers interprâ—t to made by a private spirits interpretation But the Apostle concludes not your purpose that Gods word or scrâ—pâ—ure is not an infallible rule of truth therfore you are nothing hâ—lpenâ—â— this text though you constreyn it to spâ—aâ— otherwâ—isâ— then the auctor 〈◊〉 it downe which was not is you say by a private spirit 〈…〉 but of ones own interpretation or of it own explication or 〈◊〉 This speech dooth no whit disprove the auctoritie sufficiencie or iâ—â—â—llibilitie of the prophesies of scripture which the Apostle before did approve vâ—râ— 19. Therfore this standeth still firm against you thâ—t Gods bare word meaning without the raggs of mens inventions is aâ— infallible rule of truth but how this infallible rule is to be used interpreted applyed c. is a second consideration And though I would not swery from the question yet to help you what I may I will speak a litle of that which you allege If by 〈◊〉 spirit you mean an humane spirit or the spirit natural in man I grant it no prophesie of scripture is of private or of a mâ—â—s own interpretation he can not by all his wâ—t learning or industrie explane it without the spirit of God If you mean a private mans interpretation as that no privat man can interprete any prophesie I deney it For the publick man with you is the Pop he interprets all having his supposed soveraigntie from Peter But if all other be private men save Peter and his successors the Popes then doe you injurie to all the other Apostles Prophets Evang lists Pastors and Teachers at that time and in ages since as if they without Peter or the Pope could not interpret any prophâ—sie of scripture It is also against your own Bishops Preists Iesuits and against your self for none of you but the publick spirit of the Pope onely can interpret any scripture which if it be so why medle you now with controversies about the scriptures against me seing you can give but a private spirits interpretation which the Apostle in your own judgment condemneth If all Church officers be exempted from the private number and are amongâ—th publick and may all interpret then will your Pope have â—â—le privilege from this place above other Bishops Or if you think that no private that is as you speak no 〈◊〉 man can interpret any prophesie of scripture you doo injurie to Gods people or lâ—itie For were not all the laie oâ— people of the church in Corâ—â—th willed to covet spiritual gifâ—s and rather that they might prophesie which all of them might perform in the church Doth not the wind blow where it lysteth Gods spirit breath on whoÌ„ he pleaseth Prophesies of scripture never were of propre or private interpretation yet Christ a carpenters son brought up unlettered nâ—yther Preist nor Levite but a laie man in Israel was permitted to interprete the prophesies of scripture publikly and Câ—iaphas himself cavillâ—d not against him as being a private spirit The Apostles also were unlettered and private men yet were they not for that forbidden to interpret scriptures but if they lived in your church it seemes they should Consider I pray you of these things and the Lord give you understanding But you procede with this matter and thirdly you argue and by your argument as you say break the force of a pretended answer thus Not onely scriptures by themselves are not sufficient to prove what is canonical and what is not but also that scriptures helped by private mens interpretation are not sufficient to prove the same I see this your proposition but I see no proof in sted of that you digresse to complayn that the poorest handycrafts man c is allowed to interpret the hardest places of scripture But all this proveth not the point in hand namely that the scripture is not a sufficieÌ„t rule of our faith For this it may be and is how ever men err in expounding it Of this point I have spoken before your assertion is not an argument and if ther were but a pretended answer yet your bare position would not break the force of it the yron is blunt and you have not whet the edge therfore you must put to more strength Fourthly you argue thus That which by the lights and lanterns of your opinions hath been wronged in the highest degree to bolster vp heresies cannot be a true and indeficient rule of faith The assumption is a rhetorical flourish for what more 〈…〉 quent say you with hereâ—iâ—s then at their fingers ends to 〈◊〉 places of scripture c. And here you mention divers points and persons and then without conclusion passe on to an other argument The assumption which is personal touching Luther Calvin c and unjustly bâ—nt against us I leave to strive about and could requite you with the like of your Popes and Prelates who have wronged the scripture not in the least degree Your proposition I deney for though men wrong the word of God never so much eyther ignorantly or wilfully yet is the word never the worse not lesse sufficient rule of faith The Preists in Israel wrested the law by which they should haue taught the people yet was the law in it self a true and indeficient rule of faith to which the Prophets referred the people and blamed those that
bare witnes of him so the Father which hath sent uâ— the scriptures beareth witnes of them Ye have not heard his voice at any time sayth Christ neyther have ye seen his shape his word ye have not abiding in you for whom he hath sent him ye beleev not So say I to you if ye beleev not the scriptures it is because the word of God abides not in you if you hear not them neyther wil you be perswaded though one rise from the dead agayn Luk. 16 31. But loe how you require proof of a received principle for which by lawes of right reasoning you deserv not to be reasoned with as a Christian It is the speech of an atheist to cal for proof that ther is a God of a Turk oâ— pâ—ynim to cal for proof that our divine scriptures are of God Professed Christians grant this why should we then warr one with an other about our own received grounds The books that I hold to be inspired of God authentik canonical your selves grant â—o to be Cease therfore I pray you to â—ight against God least by your own mouthes you â—s condemned But as yet you cease not for demanding how I prove without tradition the scripture to be inspired of God and my interpretation to be onely true you say I have my answer ready coyned viz. the things of God no man knoweth but the spirit of God It is wel my answer hath been coyned in the Lords mint and it shal be wel with you if you receiv your money from no worse coyners But what fault find you with this coyn you ask how I do proov that I have the spirit of God For my self first I answer with th'Apostle what man knoweth the things of man but the spirit of man which is in him I cannot make proof of that to an other which can be known but to my self onely as the tree is known by the fruits so may my spirit by the fruits thereof be discerned whither it be of God or no. For my interpretatioÌ„ I answer it may be truth it may be error let it be tried by the scripture it self of them that have the spirit of God Further proof ther is none on earth till the great day come when all secrets shal be made manifest But for the scripture vvhich is the thing you should keep unto it needs not my proof that it is inspired of God it hath proof in it self of God then vvhich can be no greater It is as if you should ask me proof that there is light in the sun my ansvver vvould be all vvhose eyes have the spirit of life and sight in theÌ„ doo see it the blind and senselesse can never discern it So is it much more in the things of God Learn it I pray you of our Saviour vvho saith that the vvorld cannot receive the spirit of truth because it seeth him not neyther knovveth him but yee my disciples knovv him for he dvvelleth vvith you and shall be in you and he shall teach you all things and he shall testify of me he shall glorifie me for he shall receive of mine and shall shew it unto you Now this Anointing or holy spirit all that are Christs have none other in the world and it dvvelleth in them and they need not that any man teach them but as the same Anoynting teacheth them all things and it is true and is not lying If you say with Nicodemus how can these things be I answer with Christ Verily verily we speak that we know and testify that vve have seen but ye receive not our vvitnesse If ye cannot perceive the vvind that blovveth nor knovv hovv the bones doe grovv in the vvomb of a woman with child how should ye know the work of God that worketh all If you see not Gods spirit in the script â—res it is because the eyes of your hart are blinded yet the light shines in darknes though the darknes comprehends it not If you still call for testimonie and proof of the spirit you have been answered it is the spirit which testifieth that the spirit is truth and if you refuse to walk in this light you must grope in darknes till you lye down in sorow But you still object as having a mist before your eyes that the Manichie Montanist Arian and all other haeretiks will vâ—aâ—â— of this private spirit c. be â—t â—o and cannot you trie the spirits as the Apostle biddeth whither they â—e of God doubtlesse if you were of God you should not onely trie and find out but overcome them for greater is he that is in the Saincts then he that is in the world this promise have we received from the Father 1 Ioh. 4 4. Againe you consider not though you were put in mind that Ievves Turks and Ethniks vvill beat you with your ovvn vveapons For the Iâ—vv resteth upon the books of Moses and the Prophets vvhich are the ground of our Christian religion and from them he reasoneth against â—esus of Nazareth our hope To allege novv against Ievves the authoritie of your catholik church or Pope is no more then for them to allege against youth authoritie of Annas and Caiaphas and the church of Israel If you confound not the Ievv by scriptures as did the first Christians by demonstration of the spirit and of power your self vvil turn back and be ashamed for no other weapons vvill vvin the victorie in this feild And the same vvill foile all Antichristians and heretiks vvhosoever for though they take up the sword of the spirit which is the word of God yet the true spirituall man vvhose eyes are in his head vvill return that svvord into their ovvn harts and slay them thervvith For the vveapons of our vvarfare are mighty through God to cast dovvn holds and a vvise man goeth up into the citie of the mighty and casteth dovvn the strength of the confidence thereof Prov. 21. 22. I but the Romane catholik church you say can shew Turks their beginner beginning increase and declyning estate And vvil not the Ievv say as much against us Christians that they can shevv our beginner beginning increase c. If this be your best defense the Turk vvill laugh you to scorn And IVLIAN the Apostata vvould not have his mouth stopped by your slight answer because he himself went out of the catholik Ch which was more ancient then he for then if a Ievv should novv come to your catholik church his brethren Ievves might stop his mouth by your yeason because he goeth out of a church more ancient then himself Iulian pleaded not for his own person but for Paganisme as much more ancient and universal then Christianisme vvhich if they be unfallible demonstrations of the truth our faith vvill perish unlesse vve deduce our antiquitie from paradise vvhere in deed Christianitie did beginn And so
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
But the Lordship which your Pope claimeth is to be a true ecelesiastical prince in the whol church of his own auctority without coÌ„sent of the people or counsel of the preists to make lawes which bind the conscience c. with other like exorbitant power which hath neyther proof nor colour of proof from this 15. of the Acts but the contrary is playn by the scripture as in my former writing I shewed and leav it to the judgment of the prudent Your 3. arguments force you would reinforce by a long speech of privat spirits interpretation of errors and heresies unfit translations manifold and ambiguous senses c. where I must acknowledge you have put to more strength but you have not whet the edge as I sayd unto you so that your purpose is not effected For al that you say may with as good if not better right be retorted upon your selves and the Pope himself who hath as private and erroneous a spirit as al other Byshops hath given as absurd and erroneous translations wrested the scriptures broched as deadly errors is as unable to prove his mission froÌ„ Christ as any prelatâ— or preist in Christendom So in al your discourse you have neyther proof from scripture nor argument upon ground of reason therfore I need not spend labour in vayn and the points some of them are before handled othersome belong not to the matter in hand With like successe you repete your 4. argument that the scriptures have been wronged by our men to bolster up heresies c. you say I grant your assumption but deceiv not your self or others I did leav to strive about it because it was personal touching Luther Calvin c. who when they lived were able yenough to mainteyn their cause against Rome gates though as men they had their infirmities I told you the like charge mought be returned upon your Popes and Prelats Your proposition I deneyed and shewed reasons of my denyal from the scriptures You replie as your manner is with your popular carnal reason that al sorts of hereticks alledge scriptures boast of the spirit unlesse there be a supreme judge strifes can have no end You have been answered that so it must be and so it was in the Apostles times who yet referred not Christians to the Pope as supreme judge but laboured to compose controversies and correct errors by the scriptures Strife wil continue without end til the world have an end then al warr shal cease in the mean while the church is militant under her head Christ. and no other He alone walketh amids the 7. golden candlesticks al churches have their several Bishops and Pastors and onely Christ is Archpastour at his appearing shal supreme judgement be In the mean time they be Antichrists that usurp his office and place But why alledge you this against the divine scriptures onely for doe you not think that men have wrested the late Fathers also to bolster up heresies yea and councils too yea and the Popes own decrees Now if whatsoever be wrested to bolâ—â—er up heresies can not be a true rule of faith then the world wil soon be without rule and so that Anomos that unruly and lawlesse fellow foretold of wil be fittest to be their captayn even as he hath been now too long a day sitting in that citie which in S Ioh is time reigned over the kings of the earth and fayn would mainteyn that regiment stil. Your 5. and last argument was for vnwritten traditions You affirmed that many mysteries of our faith are beleeved that are not explicitly declared nor infallibly deduced from the scriptures I deneyed that any mysterie of our faith was without due sufficient proof from the scripture Now you recken up divers matters as before and ask of me proof for them otherweise then by tradition My answer was and is that some are your own inveÌ„tioÌ„s I wil not undertake to approve but to reprove them by Gods word others that are truths I can prove by Gods word better then you can by mouth tradition But you find great fault think it goes hard with me since I prove not one particular of them all therfore desire me to answer distinctly to ech point as it lâ—es c. I marvel you would expect proofs of these points now Would you hav me enter into battel with Arrians Antitrinitarians Anabaptists other like hereticks and shâ—w how I can convince them by scripture I list not so to digresse When thâ—se matters in hand are ended if you wil take up their buklers I wil fight against you by the scriptures onely if you wil adventure the credit of your unwritte traditioÌ„s in the battel In the mean time make you proof as order requireth of your argument and seek not to turn it away by setting on foot new questions The scriptures that you brought to prove unvvritten traditions I answered In this your reply you say that I dispute as if you made traditions the total rule of faith whereas you would inferr onely that it was a partial togither with the word of God Then belike you graÌ„t some word of God without unvvritteÌ„ traditioÌ„ vvhere is that but in the scriptures If vve have Gods vvord in the scriptures vvithout unvvritten tradition hovv is it that vvhilear you reasoned vve could not knovv scriptures to be Gods vvord but by such tradition Doe not you make mouth traditioÌ„ the total ground of your faith For take avvay this tradition the scriptures you think are lost then Gods vvord is lost unlesse unvvritten tradition give it us So dead tradition is the ground of grounds that must tel us vvhat is scripture vvhat is the meaning of scripture vvhat is true beside scripture and so in effect is all in all Though yet to make it a partiall rule of faith as you speak is too much man may not think to part stakes vvith God his vvord is yenough if vve can be content You say I object that those traditions spoken of in Deuteronomis might make for the Iewish Cabalists which are reiected by S. Peter c Nay I knovv they make neyther for them nor you but as I sayd rather for them then for you I proved unto you out of the Psalmes that the Fathers taught their children vvritten traditions I proved by other divine testimonies that yenough is vvritten in the scriptures for faith all good vvorks As for Gods acts in al ages fathers are to tell them to their children such tradition I allovv We tel our posteritie novv by tradition the great vvork of God in confounding the Spanish armado that came against England in the yere 1588 If I in my dayes should see Rome â— become Rumee as Sibylla prophesied and the Pope like Nabuchodnoâ—or turnd out to graâ—â—e or like Pharao drovvned in the sea I vvould hold it my dutie to tel
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
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
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
not understand the scripture vvithout a master I ansvver as before this proveth no insufficiencie in the scripture but in the reader I vvil further confirm it by your ovvn position vvher aftervvards you undertake to prove That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith But these definitive sentences say I are some of them hard to be understood at least by the ignorant and many cannot understand them vvithout a master if therfore your argument be good your position is naught and you must seek a nevv rule in matters of faith Your humane testimonies say no more then is alreadie heard and ansvvered if they did say more and you pressed it I vvould make ansvver as to you but leave the Fathers to sleep in peace You procede vvith the second branch of your antecedent saying that the scripture hath many senses literal many senses spiritual vvherupon you gather siure is the old law when any difficultie happened the Preist was to decide it therfore with a farr greater interest the Prâ—ist of the new law that hath the spirit of interpretatioÌ„ redoubled and ratiâ—ication of his doctrine assigned and confirmed by Christ Jesus himself is to eâ—pound the hidden senses of scripture I ansvver first that ther be so many senses literal spiritual as you doo say resteth for you to prove in your next for in this you make none I hold the sense of scripture to be one though applied to many tymes places and persons Pentheus in the Poet thought he savv tvvo suns in the firmâ—ment when ther was in deed but one it was but the difâ—â—râ—perature of his own senses that made him so to think You suppose the word which shineth as the sâ—n in the firmament of the church hath many meanings when it is but the dazeling of your eyes Secondly though it were granted to haue many senses yet the law in Deut. 11. maketh nothing against my faith For I graunt the scriptures are to be expounded by the Preists and Ministers of God Deut. 33. 10. Ephâ— 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet not by mans owne judgment or at the wil of any mortal 〈…〉 but by the spirit of God and by the scripture it self as did the 〈◊〉 in Israel For no minister of Christ no not the Apostles haue deâ—â—â—nion over our faith but are in declaration of the teach to approve themselves to every mans conscience in the sight of God as Paul sayâ—th Neither mought the Preists of old decide controversies as they 〈◊〉 themselves their words were not oracles but they were to inform the people according to the law which the Lord explaineth by the preist Ezekiel thus In controversies they shall stand to judge and they shall judge it according to my judgements c. Ezek 44 â—4 Thus Gods law is the rule of judgement and the scriptures are not so bare naked as to need the raggs of mens inventions to array them If you yeeld not in this I pray you what answer will you make to the Iewes that shall plead vvith you against Christ and alledgâ— how their high Preists and Rulers which were to decide all controversies Deut. 17. decided this controversie of Iesus of Nazareth thus that he was a seducer a blasphemer a traytor therfore to dye the death If the bare and naked scripture as you call it help you not against their pontifical decrees and expositions you wil hav but a bare and naked faith the shame wherof no â—igleaves wil hide But the Preist of the new law you say is to decide vvith a farr greater interest I grant it for Christ being come the high Preist of good things that were to come hath farr greater privilege and power then any legal Preist and him we are commanded to hear But he is not the Preist you mean for you allege from Iohn 2â— that Christ biddeth S. Peter and his successors feed his flock with the spirit of interpretation c. I marvel hovv this wil make for your opinion that the bare word of God is not an infallible rule or square of truth For doo you think in good â—arnest that Christ would haâ—â—â—th Apostle feed his flock with ought save Gods word because he bad him feed then all other Pastors must doo so too For the same Apostle writeth afterward thus The Elders which arâ— among you I besâ—ech who am a coâ—lder c. seed the flock of God another Apostle sayth to the Elders of an other church Take hâ—ed to your selves and to all the flock wherof the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God c. If the commandement to feed privileged S. Peter above the law and word of God then all Christian Bishops or Elders haue like privilege because they haue like commandement But I deny eyther that Peter alone was to feed Christs sheep or that he mought feed them with any thing save Gods word For the Apostles doctrines were the commandements of the Lord. 1 Cor. 14 37. not their own counsels and if S. Peter or any other taught or practised contrary to the word he was to be withstood and reproved Gal. â— 11. Whâ—rfore â—ven Peter himself who knew wel the meaning of his coÌ„mission taught the church that their new birth was not of mortal feed but of immortal by the vvord of God and that was the word which was preached among them and which he exhorted them stil to desire that they mought grow therby willed theÌ„ that if any man spake it should be as the words of God and referreth them to the sure word of the prophets as to a light that shineth in a dark place that strange it is you should gather any thing against the auctoritie or sufficiencie of the scriptures because the Apostle was willed to feed the sheep of Christ vnlesse you think they should not have wheat but â—haff to feed upon And if your châ—if shepheard of Rome use so to feed his flock gather such doctrines from Christs commandement I will never goe over the Alpes to setch my food from him You next allege Act. 15. where the Apostles meaning to decide a coÌ„troversie repayred not you say to their private spirits interprctatioÌ„ but to a council gathered in Jerusalem where S Peter was head wher al was concluded with It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to vs. I answer you hold not to the point which you took upon you to prove viz. that the bare word of God is not an infallible rule of truth the scripture you cite maketh against you for the Apostles were publishers not of their own word but of Gods 1. Thes. 2 13. 1. Pet. 1. 25. 2. Pet 1. 16. They confirmed their sayings in this Council by the former scriptures Act 15 15 16. They expounded and applyed the scriptures to their present questioÌ„ by the same spirit which wrote them which
speak playn to simple mens understanding but al the holy Prophets and Apostles could not or would not speak to the capacitie of the simple so you make them the greatest deceivers of soules in the world a pagan mought justly scorn our heavenly law if it be a leaden rule a nos◠of wax◠as some have blasphemed it But hogs esteme draffe better then pearls though the wisdom of God powreth out her minde unto them yet in them is fulfilled the true proverb wherfore is ther a price in the hand of the fool to get wisdom he hath none hart Prov 17. 16. But where may we think to find the place of wisdom if it be not in the Prophets Apostles writings For touching these points you speak of if a man read the late Fathers Augustine Ambrose the rest he shall find them often dark difficult intricate contradicting themselves sometimes and one another And if he compare your Popes determinations with the holy scriptures he shall find as good agreement as between harp and harrow For example Gods plain law sayth Thou shalt not make to thy self a graven thing or any similitude of things that are in heaven above or in earth beneath c. thou shalt not bow down to them neyther serv them and agayn Cursed be the man that shal make a graven or a molten thing the abomination of the Lord the work of the hands of the artificer and shal set it in a secret place al the people shal answer and say Amen These evident scriptures may perswade every simple hart that it is a fearful syn to make worship similitudes of God of Christ and of Saincts departed or any the like Now let him come to your catholik churches interpretation and read your Cardinals glosse that such scriptures reprechend idolatrie that is to say the worshiping of images which are esteemed for Gods or by which they are worshiped for Gods which indeed are not but as for the Images of Christ of saincts they are to be worshiped and not onely by accident unproperly but also by themselves and properly so as they doe terminate or end the worship as in themselves they are considered and not onely as they bear the part of the exemplar or person represented and let him read your learned distinctions of the worship latria the worship dulia and hyperdulia and other like schole points digged out of the abisme of the rock of Rome the man wil be amazed to find such comments upō such a text and make him ween his witts be not his own But I make no doubt ther be thowsands and ten thowsands upon earth that if they read Moses law and your churches comments upō this point they wil say Moses is surer and playner easier to understand then your Cardinal a great deal And as of this so of other things many that to leav the scriptures and rely upon your church determinations were to blow out the candle that men may see by the snuff Moreover if that cannot be an indeficient rule of faith wherin some things ar hard to be understood then doubtlesse your ◠assertion is overthrown which sayth that the scriptures expounded by the catholik church is a true indeficient rule of our faith For by the catholik church you mean the Roman Ch◠and in the Roman church you restreyn al to the Pope now his expositiō dooth often times as wel clear the truth as a cloud before the sun Yea even the playnest places which in holy writ are as bright as noon day your church hath enveloped with AEgyptian darknes as Mariage honorable among al and the bed undefiled sayth the text Heb. 13. 4. If among all sayth * your glosse comprehendeth al men wholly then mariage shal be honorable also between father and daughter betweē mother and son between brother and sister c. Drink ye al of this sayth our saviour Let a man examine himself sayth the Apostle and so let him eat of this bread drink of this cup. We yet see not sayth your quick eyed Cardinal that place of the gospel wher we be taught that both parts of the sacrament of our Lords supper are to be ministred to al Christians For our Lord sayth not Drink ye al Christians of this but drink ye al of this c. Such catholik expositiōs doe illustrate the scriptures as the smoke of the pit did the sun aier Apoc. 9. 2. But me thinks you deney that the Pope hath dominion over your faith neyther can make what he wil as a matter of faith or tradition He dooth not make a matter of faith you say but beelareth onely that such and such a thing is to be beleeved It is wel if you can keep you here for if he be but a declarer of the faith he is by office but as al other Bishops and ministers of the Gospel and Peters primacie wil be no more then Pauls who sayd Let a man so think of us as of the ministers of Christ disposers or stewards of the mysteries of God But if the Pope have not indeed dominion over your faith then I trow men may trie his declarations by Christs word who hath dominion over our faith and sowles Then are not the Popes declarations authentik canonical of necessitie to be beleeved unlesse he prove them by the scriptures which himself acknowledgeth to be divine and canonical And thus the scriptures wil be found a sufficient rule of the Churches faith men must by the word and spirit trye the spirits of the Popes as wel as of other Bishops Otherweise when Pope Stephen the 6. repealed the decrees of P. Formosus and condemned his acts and contrariweise P. Romanus and other his successors justified Formosus and condemned Stephen and yet after that agayn P. Sergius the 3. allowed Stephen and cōdemned Formosus as your own records doo report how should men know what Popes decrees to follow if they may not examine them by the book of God nor have better stay for their faith then the wethercock of the Vatican And wheras you speak of all humane helps that the Pope useth of counsel and consultation with the learned they be fayr shewes but your Cardinal tels us that the catholik church hath alwayes beleeved that he is a true ecclesiastical Prince in the whol church who can of his own auctoritie vvithout consent of the people or counsel of Preists make lavves vvhich bind the conscience can judge in causes ecclesiastical c. and that vvhen he teacheth the vvhol church in things perteyning to faith he can not err by any hap or chance and not onely in matters of faith but in preceps of manners also prescribed to the vvhol church he cannot err What marvel is it then though your Lavvyers say His bare vvill must be holden as a lavv and that whatsoever he dooth no man
of any place of scripture that you shall bring to refute them if your interpretation be a correspondencie to scripture theirs also shall be so The fift Argument of mine I framed thus God is as provideÌ„t for necessarie meanes to direct his church as he is provident to Empires kingdomes common wealthes and families But all these besides the written law have ever some one decyder vnweere or tribunall to â—hoke controversies or diffentions in the seed to mowe them downe in the flower to eâ—tirpate them in the verie roote go the word of God is not sufficient in it self to settle all controversies Thus as I remember ran the sum of my reasons which you has not answered in your last or in any other replie of yours Now since my reasons remaine in their ful force I can not see any reason why I should be bound to spend much tyme in answering fruitless and impertinent allegations But here as I remember transcending the boundes of this question now controverted though I confess the matter you proposed is in the confines of this present you brought a place out of S. Augustin that on S. Mathewes wordes c 16. sayes that Christ did build his church on the faith of Peter not of his person on Christ Jesus not on S. Peter First to this place I answer that in one sense S. Augustin sayes the first yet I denie that ever S. Augustine dooth deney that the church of Christ is built on the persoÌ„ of S. Peter And well map the Church be sayd to be built on the faith of S. Peter and yet also on his person because the person of S. Peter touching his faith is no fraile mortal creature but is a stroÌ„g unshaliable rock as the faith it self In that Luk. 22. It is sand I have prayed for thee Peter that thy faith may not faile Since we beleeve that this prayer is obteyned we must beleev that by the warraÌ„t of Christs prayer the person of Peter his faith shal never be severed so S. Aug calling sometimes S. Peter the roch of the church and somtimes his faith doth mean one thing The which S. August himself testifieth for remembring that he had taught that in the person of Peter the Church was fouÌ„ded quod in eo tanquam in Petra â—â—â—data sit Ecclesia in which sense it was fong by many in the hymâ—â—s of S. Ambrose Hoc â—â—sa Petra Ecclesiae canente culpam dâ—â—uit At the crowing of the cock the rock of the churâ— Peter lamented his fault he concludeth the whole matter of these two expositions Harum duarum sententiarum quae sit probabâ—â—â—or eligat lector Of which two expositions which to the probabler I leave to the readers choice What have you not by this allegation of S. Augustine Nay what will you loose if you should come to answer the holy fathers that affirm the church to be founded on S. Peter That you write you are sorie for my error I wonder you should bee so carefull for my soules good that are so negligent of your own For as I take in the last of myne I showed how ful of feare the last resolution of your faith would be when you should give account at that eternal tribunal In that all you can answer for your self is that your owne phancie apprehended so your private spirit interpreted so Where my faith is warranted by Gods word driivered by the holy catholick church confirmed by General and Provinstall Councels sealed by thowsand of Martyrs blood authorisâ—d by antiguitie of Historie ratified by holy Fathers Doctors and instructors of holie orders in all ages having the profession of our religion inferted in our naturall â— language churches crosses buildings mony â— most ancient monuments al which motives warrant me that I shal render an answer without all feare or dread All these and 〈…〉 motives you may have to yeeld to us but you could never nâ—t â—â—â—we me the least semblance of reason why I should yeeld to you God send you make right use of them for the good of your soule that you man at length be reduced to the true church of Christ for which I shall heartily pray Iohn Aynsworth I received yours dated the 12. of April the 20. of the same and I end this the 29. of Aprill stylo veteri Justice Hall in Newgate H. A. his answer to the former letter To his loving frâ—ind Mr. Iohn Aynsworth prisoner in Justice hall in Newgate be these in London GRace and mercy from God the father of our Lord Iesus Christ â—e vouch safed unto you 1. Wheras you gâ—ve me to vnderâ—tand Mr. Aynsworth that my writings among others were taken from you so that you could not answer them as you promised and that if yow had my last papers in a few lines you could answer any thing that urgeth you therin c. I have out of my love towards you and in compassion of your estate sent you a copie of my last writing not urging you to answer unless you think the goodness of your cause will bear you out but desiring you to yeild unto the truth there shewed you You brought for your defense C. Bellarmines reasons I have manifested the weaknes of them If you can fortifie them or your cause by any other I am willing as I have begunn to take notice thereof eyther to refute them or yeeld you the Victory If you leave off I also will rest and let the prudent judge what we both have sayd 2. You as if you would beginn a new combate propound 12. questions for me to answer I told you before I would not digresse to by matters for so we might run into confusion fruitlesse and endless Also your questions most of them are of Fathers Doctors c. since th'Apostles times by whom I shewed you that I neyther might nor would trye any religion til the Divine scriptures be proved insufficient which will never be 3. You then propound the controversie a new as if we were now again to beginn when we are almost at an yssue so might both of us weary our selves in vayn Your first long writing to me hath made my answers the longer for I desired and stil doo brevity with perspicuitie Least through want of your papers you should swarve from the questions in hand I wil set them down in the words that they have passed My assertions were question weise when I should enter into dispute vvith you to see if you vvould grant 1. That our differences in religion should be tryed and composed by the verdict or vvord of God not of men 2. That Gods vvord is to be found in the scriptures of the Prophets Apostles vvho vvrote originally in Hebrevv and Greek By these I offred my faith to be tryed and to make trial of other faith proposed Yours were vvhich you sayd you vvould prove and so indevoured 1. That onely the bare text of the scripture is not a
horrible errors go the scriptures though directed by the private spirits interpretatioÌ„ cannot be a rule of faith My major is most certaine My Minor is also certainely knowen since ther was never yet any heresie so absurd or monstrous that did not pretend to vse for his weapon cited places of scripture and their collations as the Arrians Pelagians Semipelagians Lutheranists Calvinists go that private spirits interpretation cannot be a certain rule to all 90 To this Argument you saie I have put to much strength but you say I have not whet the edge All that you can bring against me is that you saie you can retort it on the private spirit of the Popes determinations and definitions but you can not deme but that the churâ—h hath more promises and so consequently her visible head as I shall prove And so I see howsoever you would not be cut with the edge you care not much to admit a fore bruife by the blowes And it is the greatest disgrace a man can have still to be drie beaten as you confesse you are and are sure to be But for your virtuall retorsion I shall actually answer you in his due place 91. That you object out of the 1. Cor. 11 19. Act. 15. 1 2. Act. 15 15 16. etc. proves rather that there must be one visible supreme judge to decide controversies As for your calumniations they are most proper to men of your coat and ranck and when time place and paper wil scarse give sufficieÌ„t vent to our reasons I wonder you should blow abroad these glassy bubbles breathed against the Sea Apostolick But the best that you can answer is that they will serv your children of Amsterdam to run after I never return your jests but provoked by you Where you say that counsels and Fathers may be racked to favour heresie as well as the scriptures I deney that they can be but that the vniforme and generall consent of the church may easily distinguish them 92. My Fourth Argument as I take was this THere be many things we beleeve by a divine and not by a humaine art of faith which are not revealed in holy scripture nor with such evideÌ„ce deduced out of holy scriptures if you exempt the authoritie of the church My antecedent I proved by instances that we beleeve against Helvidius our Ladies perpetuall virginitie that God the holy Ghost proceedes from God the Father and the sonne as from one beginning the twelve articles of our beleefe as they â—â—e the abstayning from strangled meat baptising of infants relebration of the Sabaoth on Sunday and not on Satterday the receiving fasting and kneeling â—c All which I did urge against you You answer you have sufficient proof of these things that ar of faith but you show neither scripture or denie them to be beleeved with a divine aâ—t of faith or give reason why we practise other things out of scripture contrarie to the practise of the primitive church 93. And when I have twice or thrise desired a distinct answer â—o eaâ—â— particular you would satisfiâ—â—â—e with your marvaile that I would have you enter battaile with the Arrians Anti-Trinitarians 〈◊〉 and have you convince them by scriptures And with great reason I prove I urge this For since you adventure to assigne an adâ—quate rule of faith you are bound to show me how this rule of yours is able to mainteyne it self against whosoever and to distinguish truth from falshood as I offer to doe by my assigned rule So that this is not to put on foot new questions but it is properly 〈◊〉 presse the footing of our cheife questions answer 94. You proceed and would have me to mainteyne Tradition to be the totall and not the partial rule of faith togither with the written word of God Hence you inferr that I graunt some word of God without tradition to be knowen I answer the word of God as it is extrinsecall the word of God and to be knowen of vs depends of tradition and the authoritie of the church Though intrinsecallie and in it self it is the word of God though it be knowen to none so that you may see in what sense I make tradition to be the rule of faith and apostolicall tradition also I affirme to be also the word of God though unwritten 95. Here make you a long digression and you show what acts kept by tradition are to be kept and to be remembred to children after ages as you say to see the destruction of Rome but we knowe certainly the opposers by their oppositioÌ„ will work themselves their destruction and confusion of their Babylon And we know that Balaam in stedd of cursing Gods people did blesse them John Fox was your Nabucodonosor turned so out to grasse that he durst not come neare the wall by reason of a deep mellancholie apprehension for feare of being crased like an vrinall As for the spanish Armadoe whatsoever the Spaniards intended to doe here in England our Countrymen did performe much at Cales howsoever they ded speed at Lisborne before I answer onely this God and St. George for my religion King and Countreymen I would doe that which befitted a good subject but these your instances are malitious and odious 96. To that plaine place 2. Thes 2. v. 15. Therefore brethren stand and hold the traditions which you have learned whether it be by word of mouth or by epistle This place is so playne that S. Chrysost affirms S. Paul herein to have meant of unwritten traditions that Doct. Whitaker sayes his speech is herein very unworthy so holy a father And that which you bring out of S Chrysostom against me showes that all sufficient precepts of manners and good life are set down in scripture That which you bring out of the 26. of the Acts 22 we say that in tradition nothing is spoken besides that is contrarie to the Apostles speeches As for that which you bring the 1. of the Cor. 14 37. is nothing to the purpose For we doe not deny but those things that are written are true But if you would have more plain places of scripture in defense of tradition â—â—s the 15. of the Acts 41. Where he in confirming of the church commands them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and what precepts S Paul meanes he explaines himself chap. 16. v. 4. He delivered unto them to keep the decrees that were decreed of the Apostles and auncients that were at Hierusalem which deliverie without question were by word of mouth what these decrees were it is uncertain by scriptura though they may be kept by the help of tradition 98. The fourth thing that I am to show is to prove how you walk in a vitious circle proving the selfe same by the selfe same as the authoritie of the scripture by your private spirit and your privat spirit by the authority of the scripture by which manner of proof you may prove any thing 99
vs and whose judgment you saie you preferr before your selfe For first you intangle your selfe in an endless circle For you prove the privat spirit to be true in that the written word saies as interpreted by you that it is true and you prove the writteÌ„ word to bee true by the private spirit both which wee denie since we will have neither the writteÌ„ word alone or privat spirit to be the rule of our faith And you doe not only coÌ„mit a circle but perswade against your owne perswasion since you would have me to beleeve you onely citing scriptures before thowsand Fathers citing scriptures also whose worth by so many titles you preferr before your selfe suerly suerly you have no guift in perswasion 152. And not onely thus vnreasonablie doe you proceed but as the Manichies to S. August you object many places of scripture whose infereÌ„ces still â—re Nolâ— Catholicis credere doe not beleeve the Catholicks I can then returne you this answer with St. Aug. noÌ„ rectè facies per EuaÌ„geliuÌ„ me cogere ad Manichaei fidem q. ipsi EvaÌ„gelio Catholicis praedicantibus credidi You doe not wel by scriptures cited from the gospel to vrge me to beleeve your Brownisme against the Catholick faith For this Gospel out of which you cite these wordes and wrested places I received froÌ„â—he Catholick church from whence you would diâ—â—wade me 153. The â— thing that I am to shew is that the Popes definiâ—tive sentence at least with a generall counsel is sufficient to determine all controversies and is a sufficient groundworke of faith This you saie I propound faintly in that I did alleage I did not of purpose dispute it though as you object it was the maine question 154. I answer most true it is according to my answer wherin I did voluntarily yeild to this to which by force of argument I was never vrged so it is the maine drift of the question But in regard of the satisfaction of you or your arguments it is not the maine question For when I saie there is something els required besides the writteÌ„ word to make it a compleat rule of faith I did not answer faintly when I graunted more then that to which I was vrged For your Argument required to know how the judgment of the church and in what sence might be infallible might have a manifold sence For if you take the definition of the church for the consent of all the fathers doctors of the church so it is infallible If you take it for a general CouÌ„cel coÌ„firmed by the Pope so it is also of infallible authoritie If you take it for the definition of the Pope with the councel of Cardinals defining ex cathedra so it is of infallible authoritie And since in all these sences the Catholick church is an indeficient rule to determine a matter of faith and to interpret the scriptures I did not therefore faintly answer when I insisted on the last 155 As for your rhethoricall flourish and forged resolution of my faith I have sufficiently excluded our opinion from that circle in which you stick fast Nervaeus wheÌ„ he saies the Pope is virtualy the whole church meanes nothing else but that he is the spiritual head to direct the whole church by the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost 156. As for my vellitation those few that I brought were sufficient to overthrow your groundles opinioÌ„ As for my reasons in the armadoe of mine as you terme theÌ„ that you saie wil never enter the feild It may be well they scorn to oppose one that lies at their fellowes mercie already 157. Now you come to examin the prerogatives of S. Peter Out of the whole series of which the circuÌ„stances therof not onely out-of each particular I drawe an infallible Argument but you in an swering them rather seeke to shun or avoid a blow then to give any 158. First you graunt that ever almost S. Peter is named first of the Apostles you except some 3. or 4. places but you cite none though otherwise most frequent in multiplicitie of cited places to no purpose Hence you graunt that primacie of order and not of authoritie maie be gathered You saie this gratis But since the holy Ghost both not repeat this prunacie to no purpose surely there his authoritie above his other brethreÌ„ is argued thence And since to be named still first through the whol scripture rather argues primacie of autority then of order Why should not wee rather iâ—ferâ— the vsual then the vnusual significatioÌ„ especiallie since in all records wee see the prioritie of the place is given to the preheminencie of the person 159. But let us examin one place the 10. of Mat 2. And the names of the 12. Apostles be thâ—se The first Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother and so Marci 3. Luc. 6. he is still named first Which cannot bee vnderstood of prioritie of your order you vnderstaÌ„ding therby prioritie of yeares or vocatioÌ„ Since S. Andrew that is named next excelled S. Peter in yeares was first called As S. Ambr. witnesseth on the 2. of the Cor. 12. and he inferreth then that although S. Andrew was his elder yet S. Peter was his superior This place made so much for this that Theodorus Beza although he coÌ„fessed all copies agreed herein yet he would have this word first to be â—oisted in see Beza in the annotations of the new testameÌ„t 556. As for that of the Galatians where S. Paul not numbring or reckoning the Apostles of set purpose as the 3. Euangelists doe meÌ„tioneth first S. James Bishop of Jerusalem whom first he met and who led him vnto the other Apostles as it appeareth Act 21. I. Calvin seing in his conscience the force of this Argument at which you wink grants that hence may be gathered that he was first of the 12. Apostles but not the head of the whole world 160. As for that which you object the 21. of the Apocalyps 19. where the foundation of the wall of the citie is described to be adorned with pretious stones And then you inferr in that in the Preists habit or ornament the Jasper which is as you say the stone of Benjamin by his place makes against you if I would plaie the part of a Cabbalist or naturalist But the scripture it self Exod. 28 v. 18 19. confutes you For there in the first place is said to be placed the stone Sardius Topazius and Smaragdus In the second the Carbunâ—â—â— the Saphyrus and the Jaspis So that we see the Jaspis or the stone Benjamin by your doctrine should not have the first place 161. Secondly against my congruitie alleaged for S. Peters primacie Math. 14. 29. where S. Peter walkes vpon the water Out of which place S. Chrysostom homil 57. and S. Bernard lib. 2. de consider ad EugeniuÌ„ doth inferr S. Peters prerogative above the other Apostles you saie rather argues his
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
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.
eâ—r deceiv you You dare not say this nay in deed you deny it whiles you refuse any doctrine or expositioÌ„ give by Doctor Father or Council vvhich the Pope approves not of and this is ordinary to be seen in yourbooks Follow you now still vpoÌ„ vvhat assurance you stay it is your Pope is Christs vicar caÌ„not err ex cathedra because himself sayth so And this is to make him a God For onely God is the ground of truth on whose word al creatures should rest And so by this argumeÌ„t alone if there were no more your Pope is proved to be that maÌ„ of syn which exalreth himself above al that is caled God you are of those upoÌ„ vvhom God hath sent strong delusioÌ„ to beleeve lyes as the Apostle prophesied 2. Thes. 2. 4. 11. Besides it is against al reasoÌ„ to take a mans witness of himself The law of God and Christ is against it the law of maÌ„ coÌ„demns it Nemo in sua causa testis esse vel jus sibi dicere possit l Generali C. Ne quis 2. q. 1. C. de manifesta Behold M. I. A. this third time I have vvritten unto you God by me warning you of your fearfull estate Take heed and despise not the mercy of the Lord calling you to repentance Be not unsensible of your calamity extreme peril as he that sleepeth in the midds of the sea on the top of the mast and sayth they have striken me but I vvas not sick they have beaten me but I felt it not To day if ye vvil hear the voice of God harden not your hart least he swear in his anger that you shall never enter into his rest My prayer shal be against your evil and that you may finde mercy unto life if such be the vvil of God Amen From Amsterdam the 6. of November 1613. Your freind that vvisheth your vvelfare Henr. Ainsw I. A. his 4. and last writing to H. A. To his loving friend Mr Henry Aynsworth these At Amsterdam Mr H. Ainsworth AS small hope have you in deed of the former viz. the defense of the truth as you graunt you have of the second â—â—tendement of yours viz. my conversion For trust me your allegations your prooses are so weak though many in 〈◊〉 ber that I wonder that he that professeth himself to hunt after the light onely should content himself so in the dark like Senecaes poore blind woman who accounted all others to be blinde and that onely she did see But if you would as well have taken paines but even to have summed my reasons and proofes faithfully as you vainely repeate so often your owne Mine and yours indifferently paralleld would have manifested long ere this the truth But you conceale so my proofes and so magnifie your own that it is no wonder your seâ—tarâ—â—s prifeth yours as things of worth when in deed they are but gaâ—die glasse and plaine Bristowes stones in sted of Diamonds And therefore as I remit you for all your slight replie to my former answer in so many sheates of paper delivered so I remitt your auditorie but to compare both for their satisfaction and manifestation of the truth if they bee intelligible It being a tedious thing to take so often such fruictless paine as to plough 〈◊〉 so many sheetes the barraine sands A short answer especially being not compatible to many vnjoincted and scattered citations were not your vanitie therin sufficiently vâ—â—asked in the former And since you doe confess to bee tyred as indeed I profess I am but to reade your slight stuff I shall content my selfe to poinct out how you have satisfied me in no one poinct referring my selfe to my former defence which doth and shall stand in force for ought therin that you can justly oppugne To the first of mine wherein as I showe that your reasons vanish of themselves you keepe a greate pudder to no purpose Naie you overthrow your selfe graunting the vnwritten word of God to deepde controversies that the law must bee explicated by Preists For as traditions the vnwritten word are included and implied in the written word or belonge to the explication or performance of the same so also fasts feasts and ceremonies of the Church are virtuallie included in those generall precepts and prerogatives of the Church as I expressed in my former Now to add that which is gathered thence or to explicate that which is included is not contrarie as you doe in your replie not obscurely confess as I show in my 12. parag as also the 16. 17. parag is to answer Where as you charge me that you have often answered that which I object parag 20. I referr to the indifferent reader But verily I maie speake and not from my own judgment that your writings deserve no answer I answer Apostollicall traditions are to bee taught as the word of God and to bee expounded what then In answering my first reason faine you would reâ—aiâ— we with a spllogisme of your owne seing that which is known for Gods word is the rule of faith which I denie not But holie scriptures are knowne for Gods word which in your sense I denie For they are not knowen by themselves but by tradition and the authoritie of the church For many paâ—â—ells of scripture have bene doubted of by those that bragged of the spirit of God to discerne scripture And you neyther save your self from an infinite process in that kind if you could doe that how can you prove the whole Bible to be canonicall as I have proked In my 32 parag I fullie satisfied your tortured places and if I doe leave out som places it is in that they are virtuallie answered in other places expounded For if a man should examine each place you bring wee should never have an end And if the scriptures bee as cleare as the Sunne to be distinguished it followes that they must bee knowne of all if you saie of all his you doe petere principium since everie one will pretend to bee his I proved also by the authoritie of S. Aug that scriptures in Actu 2 to bee knowne to others requireth necessarily the authoritie of the Church to which as to verie manie places more you never answer You wrong your self and not I you since you giue just occasion to me to terme the guide of your religioÌ„ your privat spirit for the word â—pâ—ly befitts your grounds as I prove effectuallie and I doe convince that our faith is not subject to any such circular vagarie I resolving my religion into no other grounds then St. Cypr did his S. 55. And you might see if you would that the Pope doth not make what he wil a matter of faith but onely doth declare it parag 69. And to what end should I answer him that never answered me as I did procede but onely by snatches which is not to answer me but his owne phancie and
as the holy fathers interpret is made by a private Spirit interpretation Thirdly I argue and by my argument I break the force of a pretended answer thus Not onely scriptures by themselves are not sufficient to prove what is Canonicall and what is not but also that scriptures helped by private mens interpretation are not sufficient to prove the same For they doe not onely allow of private learned mens interpretation but the poorest handycrafts man or the sillpest huswife that is they doc allow to interpret the hardest places of scripture to shoulder the vniforme consent of all the fathers Doctors and schoolemen with some fond toyes of their owne braine and invention yea to give their glosse of those places of S. Paul where he speakes of justification and predestination whereas they should â—â—y Oh altit ido sapientiae et scientiae Dei quaÌ„ incoÌ„prehensibilia sunt judicia ejus â— When as they should rather rely on the auncient Fathers exposition S. Hierome in his old yeares went as farre as Alâ—randria to heare Didimus S. Hier. ad Paul Epist 103. c. 5. 67. vsed such hard discipline retirement into the desert abstineÌ„ce for obteyâ—ing the tâ—ue interpretation of the holy scripture How should we beleeve each private handycrafts manns censure and his silly interpretation against the vniforme consent of the holy Fathers against the streâ—me of the learned of all ages But admit they should have iâ— warâ—ly that speaking spirit to satisfy themselves how should a man be perswaded they it to be a lanterne unto others stepps Nay how will they prove against their adversaries that they also have not that motion of the spirit and though we should graunt they be illuminated in the truth of oneâ—â—ysterie how shall we know with like certainty all other different mysteries But you will answer out of the 1. Cor. 2. Spiritualis autem homo judicat omnia ipse autem a neminejudicatur a spirituall man judgeth all things and he is judged of none To which I answer admit that a spirituall man knoweth something yet it doth not follow that his supernaturall insâ—â—â—â—ts extendeth it self to all things but onely to the knowledge of those for the obteyning of which that illumination was inspired For Deliseus that had a redoubled spirit of Elias sayth Domiâ—â— celavit hoc a me et non indicavit mihi Our Lord did hide this from me and did not shew it why then may not these simple soules rather feare that their private spirits defect in the declaration of some mysteries rather then the redoubled Prophet confesse â—â—s ignorance in some things Yet let us graunt that some few men should fully comprehend and penetrate the mysteries of our beleefe yet for a twofold reason we denâ— to give unto them a definitive sentence and censure of matters of faith First in that we are not so certified who these particular men be that have these especiall illuminations and illustrations and therefore we are to preferr the definitive assertion of the Popes holynesse and his counsell before uncertainty of mens inventions 2. Since that the effects of this particular illumination and assistance of the Holy Ghost is not manifested and warranted by any extraordinary workes or miracles or the like in the it were to make a desperate tender of Gods truth to point this or that man whole vinpâ—ore of any controversy in that many other men in the pretence of some few mens illuminatioÌ„s might challenge unto theÌ„selves the like prerogatives of interpretation Fourthly I argue that which by the â—ights and lanterns of your 〈◊〉 have ben wroÌ„ged in the highest degree to bolster vp heresies cannot be a true and indeficient rule of faith For what more frequeÌ„t with â—eretickes then at their fingers ends to â—ite places of scripture to back their heresies as the Arians Pelagians Luther aÌ„s and Sacramentaries The Lutherans and Calvinists both disagreeing in a maine point of the real presence the one holding Christs pretious havy and blood to be really and corporall in the Sacrament though with a certayn companation and the other holding Christ to be present with a signification onely and yet both cite scripture both of theÌ„ yet â—â—â—ing scripture for scripture John Knell of Kent led with this private spirit denyed Christ to have tooken flesh of our B. Lady William Cowbridge sayes Bishops have no more authority then Priests pag. â—70 and yet by and by ledâ— vp the selfe same spirit sayd that Christs name was a filthy name Alanus Copus Dialog 6 c. 17. John Mesel denyed the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father pag. 1151. Frith the excellent Martyr of John For pag. 942 943 944 affirmeth the reall presence to be no Article of beleefe affirmative or negative John of Teurbury that the Iewes of good zeale did put Christ to death pag. 9â—5 Fiftly and lastly Iargue many mysteries of our faith are beleeved that are not 〈◊〉 declared in the word of God nor so infalliblie prescinding from all traditions of the catholike church deduced thence so that they are sufficient to make one beleeve that witâ— so firme an act as our faith requireth therefore that which makes those mysteries worthy of constaÌ„t beleefe is a rule of faith as wel as the written word whither they be traditions Divine or Apostolicall My antecedent may castly without all just contradiction be proued in that till Moses the virtuous steps and perfect acts of Noe Abraham Melchisedech was guided without the helpe of any written word by the hand of tradition derived from mouth to mouth from man to man yea after the witteÌ„ word it appeares by Erod 14. Narrabis filio tuo in illa die dicens hoc est quod fecit Dominus c Deut. 32. Interroga patrem tuum et annuntiabit tibi majores et dicent tibi Iob. 8. Interroga generationem pristinam et diligenter investiga memoriam patrum And not onely they of the old law but also they of the newe even after the coÌ„ming of our Saviour were without a written word the Apostles and disciples being busied in preaching and instructing viva voce Besides many things we beleeve though we have not the warrant of a written word for it viz. that there was a remedie for women children as well as for men to purge them of originall sin and something to be used to men children if they were ready to â—y before the 8. day which was the prefixt time of circumcision and that such a parcell of writing was scripture and such not Moreover wee beleeve constantly against the condemned heresy of Delvidius yea and against as it were the seeming letter of the scripture where it is sayd that Joseph knew not our blessed Lady til she brought forth her first sonne Now every one knowes the phrase of the Hebrue word know as Abraham knew Sara and yet we fâ—â—â—nly beleeve according to the prescript of the church that she was a perpetual Oirgin ante partum in
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
Then descending more particularly he answereth that my Major is too generall For he sayes many things may be beleeved though they be not gathered out of the written word so that we see he holds some tradition necessary besides the written word for he sayes to be beleeved that is with an act of faith now that which is to be beleeved must be certaine and must have also infallible most certaine motives proportionable to so firm an act and must be beleeved of those at least that are schollars who are more precisely to examine the articles of beleef then laiemen so that wee have drawen water out of the rock since you graunt that tradition is necessary to your own beleef which afterwards you deny when you say there is nothing necessarie to salvation but is taught by the written word For now I ask those many things that may be beleeved without the written word eyther have their motives infallible and sufficiently propounded so they shal be faultie if those schollers to whom they are sufficiently proposed beleeve not or else the motives that are propounded are not certaine infallible and constant and so they shall onely cause an opinion or at most a humane beleefe and not a most firme constant supernaturall art of faith that is ever most certaine and infallible caused by the written and the vnwritten word of God and the church propounding Moreover your answer is found halting when you say that there is nothing necessary unto salvation but is delivered by the writteÌ„ word which is most false since nothing with you is more necessarie unto salvation then the written word which word is not proved by an other written word for so that also by an other and so we should never have an end so that hence you must coÌ„fesse though against your position that something most necessary vnto salvation is to be belâ—eved and that without the written word now if that which is most necessary and the rule of all the rest be beleeved in that it is delivered by tradition surely things of lesse consequence though necessary to salvation may also be beleeved though ther is no written word of God to affirme it having tradition which is Gods vnwritten word tyme out of mynd to deliver it As for the proof of my Minor proposition you put down these words I cited though not learned out of Mr Hooker For if any book gives testimonie to the rest yet the scripture that gives credit to the rest would require another scripture to be credited neither could we come to any pause wheron to rest or assurance that way and if you answer that all scriptures are theopneustoi that is in pired of God I will graunt you that but I wil demaund how you prove that this book or this parcel of scripture without tradition is inspired of God For to say it is inspired of God by reason it is scripture and scripture by reason it is inspired of God is to prove idem per idem and petere principium to suppose that provâ—d which is given you to prove And besides I would know of you how you know that your interpretation is onely true But you have your answer ready ceyned you say the things of God no man knoweth but the spirit of God But how doe you prove you have the spirit of God How doe you prove you have the effect thereof in your conscience piercing more sharply then a two edged swoâ—d For the Mamchei Montanist Arian â—estorian Pelagian Semipeâ—agian Lutheran Calvinist Familist will â—ll boâ—st of this private spirit will all say they are illuminated of God that they have the spirit that discerneth all things they are able as wâ—l as you to uphold their religion with wrested peeces of the scripture Now whereas you object that the Turk câ—n urge against us their Allcoâ—ans antiquitie I answer no siâ—ce the Romane catholicke church can shewe their beginner beginning increase and their declining estate And wheras you object againe that Iulian the Apostaâ—a may offer plea with us for antiquitie I answer no since he went out of the catholick church to whose faith he was Apostata and therfore supposeth the catholik church to be more ancient then he as he particularly opposed himself against her And if it be here objected that the heatheâ—â—sme he â—â—lo is anciâ—â—ter then our Christianitie I grant all but not ancienter then Judai me For God is more ancient then the Divil truth then falshood and so those Christians that are most ancient have the most true religion Your second Objection made against this point I answer that the high Preisthood that was judge did not err in that Moses was never â—viltie of Idolatrie Moses was joint Priest with AaroÌ„ as it is recorded in the Psalmes Moses et Aaron in sacerdotibus ejus et Samuel inter eos qui invocant nomen ejus All which appeares and is most manifestly showen also in that he ordered Aaron Exod. 29 And in that there Moses is coÌ„manded to sacrificâ— Applicabis et vitulum etc. maâ— abis euÌ„ in conspect Dei etc. offeres incensum super altare And that Moses did execute al this it appeares out of Levit. 8. Likewise I answer that when our Saviour Iesus Christ was condemned the high preisthood did not err in that the high preisthood remayned in our Saviour for he was then cheif judge and decider or â—he the high preist was our Saviours superiour which ye wil not grant For that prâ—â—sthood was infallible onely till Christs coming being also clearly foretold that at his coÌ„ming the highpreist should concurr vnto his death and condemnation and so not to be directed by the holy ghost Finally wheras you would confute me by my own practise in that I râ—solve all things by the definitive sentence of the Church grounded on Christs promise to S. Peter Math. 16. that his faith should not faile and that he being converted he should confirme his brethreÌ„ all the other Apostles I answer that as our Saviour was of infinite grace and mercy to promise so he was of infinite power and fidelitie to perform Now wheras you object that I know onely this promise by Mat. 16. that by the Popes churches sâ—ntence I knovv onely S. Matthevves gospell to be canonicall and that the gospell of Nicodemus is not authenticke I grant all but I deny that here there is any maze or circle that you would fayne from hence inferr since this mutuall reference and reciprocall dependence is in diverse kindes and then Aristotle will tell you that it is no circle or vitious argumentation to demonstrate a causa ad effectum et ab effectu ad causam and a younge Philosopher wil tell you that the materia and the form doe mutually depend and reciprocally cause one an other but the one in genere subjecti and the other in genere causae formalis And as a Iewel in his prize
and the Preists did passe togither Wherefore I may conclude with S. Peter this poinâ—t as I did before That no prophesie of scripture is made by a private spirits interpretation and so consequently not by the naked word And therefore S. John also bidds them trie their spirits whether they be of God 1. Joh. 4. v 20. And as for your distinction of private spirits it liâ—le availâ—th you For though the Pope be also a private man yet he is the head of the Church and hath the promise of our Saviour that his faith should not fayle him and though he may eâ—â— in matter of fact or sinn as well as an other man yet in matter of doctrine when as the head of the Church he is to give his definitive sentence he can not err in that he is directed as Christs Dicar in earth by the holy Ghost Yet for all this he dooth not neglect naturall meanes for the decision of any waighty cause But useth all vsuall serutiuie of causes and circumstances takes advice of the learned councells But you though you be also a private man yet you can not showe me any promise of the holy Ghost made rather to you theÌ„ to any other of your adversaries neyther have you greater signes to manifest the truth then the Protestants have Nay every one of your profession thinks he hath that spirit of interpreting which spirit often times proves no other then the spirit of Aâ—niball a merrie companion who when he had deceived poore Bullbrooke the interpreter of the word by casting out thrice Bullbrooke as from God at the mouth of a cave whither his reformed brethren resorted to heare froÌ„ lum delivered the word of the Lord afterward showed unto the whole campany that flocked more and more to this their illumâ—nated prophet the man of God so strangely called how he alone had deceived the poore man saying hang me if any other spirit but the spirit of Aâ—â—â—iball called thrife upoÌ„ Bulbrook Yet admit you should have a spirite to distinguish the truth of one mistery as I sayd yet you have not the spirit to distinguish the truth of all But that you might câ—y out with the true illuminated prophet now and then Dominus celavit hoc a me Our Lord hath hidden this from me that is in not revealing it Besides you see that every false prophet brags of his spiritt how then can a private spirit decide any controversie And for that you bring of the Israelites it were wel if you with them from the mouth of the Preist would learne wisdome And if you had that visible coming downe of the holy Ghost that the Apostles had if you had the giftes of tongues the power to worke miracles if you were taught with them all truth if your followers though illiterated were indowed with all these priviledges of the Apostles then might they with them take upon theÌ„ to interpret the scriptures For S. Luke recordeth That our Saviour opened his Apostles vnderstanding in all truth that they might vnderstand the scriptures but you can not show that our Saviour hath done more to you then to other men You now proceed and begin to ponder my third argument by which I did occure a future answer Not onely scriptures by themselves but scriptures by a privat mans interpretation or comparing one place with an other are not sufficient to be a rule of faith Which you say I dor not prove here to this I answer I did prove it there but the more sparingly in that this point seemes to be partly proved in that which goes before Yet to give you ful satisfactioÌ„ I wil a litle reinforce the force therof For since the scriptures hath diverse senses or as you say diverse references to sundry places persons and tymes how can a private spirit of a man assure one that this and no other is the true sense of this place Or how can you discern that the true spirit interprets this vnto you For the communication of this infused spirit must eyther be by a publick message bee delivered you so that those that are your adherents and followers may be assured by some visible signe that the holy ghost dictates unto you and I think by these visible apparitions and communication of the holy Ghost you wil not mainteyn your spirits interpretation Or else the holy ghost secretly instilâ—eth into you what is the true sense But here I demand of you how you are assured of this working of the holy ghost since there was never yet hereâ—ick so senseless or error so grosse but would tell vs of this private assuraÌ„ce of the holy Ghost And though the communication of the true spirit should be manifest to your self yet you could give no warrant or assurance thereof to vs to the Protestant adversaries or to your own followers How would you be able to convince an AriaÌ„ that wil thwart you with that of S. John my father is greater then I If you say this place is to be vnderstood in regard of his humanitie and not in regard of his divinitie he will bid you show scripture plainly to affirme that How wil you answer an Anabaptist that will have no man to be baptized before they come to the yeares of discretion to give a reason of their faith How will you answer us Catholiks or the Protestants when we demaund of you why you follow the vulgar translation in saying Elder when the originall and all other languages almost hath stil the word Presbyter which signifies Preist to all Nay since the holy scriptures admitteth divers senses and doe not explaine themselves how should a poore artificer perswade himself that this sense which he apprehends is onely the true sense Nay that he is easily deceided herein by a pâ—…dicated opinion I will show For when he comes to read that S. Peter in his first epistle salutes them from BabyloÌ„ he in that he may not admit S. Peter to have bene at Rome will not have Babylon there to be Rome but he will have S. Peter to salute them from that Babylon in Assyria But when he comes to â—â—ad Apoc. 1â— 18. Babylon againe in that he hath rooted mallice against Rome he will have her alone to be that Babylon he will applie all these mischeifs and deformities to the church of Rome Now if you object that comparing one place with another will afford the right sense I ask you how you are certayne of that since that place with whome you are to compare it hath divers senses or references how are you assured to compare it to the right in regard of each circumstance Nay if these spiritual men be the onely decidants why doe they when the word signifies an evil sense translate traditions though it be the self same Greek word Col. 2. v. 20. Why are you ledd with traditions And when in divers places the self same word imports Apostolicall traditions in stedd thereof they read ordinances
institutions c. Why did they in the printed Bible 1â—62 thrust in Rom. 11. Baals image which now Bible â—595 to corrected And if every image be an idoll as they translate it why Genesis the first can we not say God created AdaÌ„ according to his own idol And that all images in the old law were idols Exod. 25. 3. Regum 6. Why doe they make the Hebrew and Greek word that signifies hell when they list onely to signify the grave Though it be against scripture it self Gen. 37. I will goe down to the grave to 〈…〉 mourning which cannot signifie though racked in sense the grave since he thought his sonne to be devoured of wild beasts and so vnburied without a grave But when the self same word Prov. 15. speakes of the danâ—ied they translate onely hell how then can the parallising and coÌ„paring of one place with an other settle all doubts of the ignorant stop the mouth of the contrarie part who shall affirm that it is not the true sense Nay if scripture be a most manifest interpreter of it self Why did Luther that affirmed before this assertion of yours in assertione articulorum 10. damnatorum retraetate and recall that opinion of his before his death in colloq conviviali titulo de verbo Dei No man can vnderstand sayes he the Bucolica of Uirgil except hâ— be first five yeares a shepheard No man can vnderstand his Gâ—oâ—â—icks except he be five yeares a husbandman so let every man know that he hath not tasted sufficiently the scriptures except he hath governed in it a hundred yeares Nay if holy scriptures be so easy of themselves to be understood why doth Luther cal the epistle of S James stramineam and vnworthy of an Apostolicall spirit Why doth Beza writing on the eight chapter call into question the whole book of S. John when he averrs that it was not probable that our Saviour was left alone in the temple with a woman or that he did write in the dust with his finger My fourth argument you being forth thus That which by the lights lanterns of your opinion hath been wronged in the highest degree to bolster up heresie can not be a true and indeficient rule of faith You geaunt my assumption and you instance it in Luther Calvin Beza Onely to answer this you think it sufficient to say it is a rhetorical flourish No flourish that by your own confession hath flonge down your strongest pillars But you say it is the fault in them which willingly I graunt but with this addition that there is the like in you And I pray you tell me if all that have gone over such a bridge being in their right senses perfect judgmeÌ„ts have bene drowned would you think that bridge remayning thus unrepaired as it is a sure safe way So if all or most that have trusted to the naked and bare word of the scripture onely and to their own witts and spirits have grossely and dangerously erred wil you hold it so remayning an vndeficient rule Nay if the bare word so coÌ„firmes them in their errors that without some one common and visible judge they stil remain stiff in their errours can the bare word be the indeficient onely and the infallible rule But that it is so dispute against the Lutheran Calvinist Zuiâ—glian Anabaptist Protestant Faâ—â—list and they wil ell â—ite place of scripture interpretation for interpretation spirit for spirit â—ieng and reâ—ying you with places and spirits dictamâ—ns telling you long stories of the communication of the holy Ghost Wherefore I will conclude breifly this argument that the naked and bare word of the scripture cannot be an infallible rule and judge sâ—…t doth not make the partie overthrowen certaine that the sentence as much as lieth in the judge is passed against him which is the propertie of the sentence of every supreme judge that his decree be plainly seen and that without all contradiction the partie overthrowen in law may yeeld unto it For else there is no end of sentence no end of judgement if the partie overthrowen may with the like probability as before recomâ—nence his suite and offer plea without any â—â—d My fift argument which you put downe thus Many misteries of our faith are beleeved which explicitely are not declared in the word of God nor so infalliblie prescinding from all traditions of the church deduted thence so as they are sufficient to make a man beleeve with so firm an act of â—aith as is required Therefore that which makes that worthy of constant beleefe is a rule of faith aswel as the written word whether they be traditious divine or Apostolicall Now to all the places I bring to prove traditions How the world was onely governed and taught by traditions till Moses tyme who was the first pen-man of the holy Ghost and to that Ero. 14. Deu. 32. 37. c. you graunt that traditions were before necessary but you deny that they are now a rule of faith But you assigne no reason but onely this in disputing as if it were the total rule of faith where I would inferr onely that it was a partial togither with the word of God And whereas you object that these traditions spoken of in Deut. might for the Jewish Cabalists which are rejected by S. Peter 1. Pet. â— Tit. 1. 14 as vain conversation and Jewish fables Is plaine against the holy scriptures Deu. 32. interroga patrem tuum et anuntiabit tibi majores tuos et dicent tibi Ask thy father c. Ero. 14. Narrabis filio tuo in illa die dicens hoc est quod fecit Dominus Et Iob. 8. Iud. 6. Psal 43. Psal. 47. Eccles. 8 where it is plaine that the holy Ghost speakes of such traditions that are good to be followed not to be estemed vain idle fabulous To that of S. Pa to the Thes. is plaine that the Apostle speakes of that which was taught by word of his mouth yea of such traditions as you call humane in vs. For when S. Chrysost. comes to explicate the 2 Thess. 2. he explicates it so plainely for such traditions as wee have in controversie that D. Whitaker de sacra scriptura pag. 678. sayes that S. Chrisost. spoke in this point inconsiderately vnworthy of so great a father Therfore S. Paul and S. Chrysost vnderstood more here by traditions then you would willingly vnderstand And that not onely things of little consequence but of greatest moment are beleeved onely by tradition I prove manifestly since the Bible can not be canonicall without it were delivered by the hand of traditioÌ„ froÌ„ tyme to tyme as authenticke And besides how can you prove the procession of God the son and God the holy Ghost from God the Father as from one beginning or the consubstantilitie of the blessed Trinitie How are you able onely by bare scripture to prove the remedie in the old law vsed to women children for original sinne and
should blush but lyes hid in silence First you gather a consequence which here I strowed not I spake of God and of his verdict and authoritie not of the scriptures as yet For whither it be by writing or by speaking or any other way that God manifesteth his will unto us it is to me all one and the authority of the scripture is a second point Thus your answer is not here to the purpose Your reason annexed is a fallacie concluding from a part against the whole unequally The scriptures cited speak of Gods commands in generall you take one in particular and because one is not all therfore all must not be all but more then all must be observed which what they wil be I cannot tel unlesse the commandements of men Mat. 15. 9. 2. You answer that all additions whatsoever are not here prohibited but onely such as ar contrary to the word of God for many other prophets as the penmen of the holy Ghost did add divers pea most part of the holy scriptures c. In deed this answer is your own none of Gods you shew no tittle of his word for that you speak But I will shew you the contrary Prov. 30 ◠Adde not unto his words least he reprehend thee and thou be a lyar Lo here all additions and not onely things contrary are forbidden Againe though it be but a mans testament sayth our Apostle when it is confirmed no man dooth abrogate it or addeth therto If you add to your naturall fathers testament civill lawes would count you an unnaturall son your distinction would not help yow much lesse can it help yow for doing such wrong to the will of our father which is in heaven Your reason is direct against yow for the Prophets being penmen of the holy ghost added nothing of their own the additions were Gods own If the Prophets Apostles mought add nothing of themselves much lesse may we Thus God yet reigneth alone And if yow vvould have mans oil to lighten your lamp hear what Chrisostom sayth for this point Every Doctor is a servāt of the law for neyther may he add unto the law any thing of his own sense neyther may he withdraw any thing according to his own understanding but preach that onely which is found in the law Whereas yow add that your traditions are also from the holy ghost for Luk. 10. it is sayd he that heareth yow heareth me and Mat. 18. If he hear not the church let him be to thee as an ethnik and a publican First these are spoken to all Christs ministers of al his churches and therefore make no more for Rome then for Corinth or Ephesus But yow stil keep from the point yeild the cause unawares For be it tradition definition or whatsoever by whomsoever if it be Gods not mans it is yenough al that I would prove in this first particular After it shal be scanned whither your traditions be of God or no. Wheras therfore in answering my secōd agrument yow wonder how I should be so deceived as to think the places that I cite make for me and against yow yow may wonder rather at your own mistakeing that I say no more who when I plead for God onely his alsufficiency by opposing as the scripture teacheth mans corruption folly yow will not yeild though yow have nothing to contradict And even thus yow turn over the 3. 4. reason by denying them to prove that thing which I there did not cite them for Such oversight hereafter I hope yow will amend that yow weary not both me your reader Now to your former ansvver which was with a distinctiō in this plain point whither God onely or some other should be judge lawgiver to his people for their religion controversies therabout the same distinction yow urge here agayn which whither it be a meet distinct answer or argues not rather fear let the prudent judge For yow yeild not plainly to the thing by me propounded which neyther religion nor reason vvould stick at onely atheisme vvil deny For if ther be a God he of man to be served man knovves not the things of God til by himself they be reveled neyther may doe more or lesse then by the Lord is cōmaunded as I have before proved hereupon it vvil folovv undenyably that in al doubts controversies of religion Gods voice verdict must decide vvhat is truth and vvhat pleaseth him Whither he show it by himself from heaven by Angels or by churches or by particular men by writing or by speaking it is ought to be all one to us But the more to convince yovv yovv shal have humane testimonie as of Ambrose vvho sayth The mysterie of heaven let God himself teach me which made heaven not man which knew not himself Whom should I rather beleev concerning God then God himself Or if yow be not moved by this Fathers judgment the hethen shal rise up and condemn yow vvho esteemed true lavv apt to command and to forbid to be the right reason of the great God that the divine mind to be the cheiflavv Cicero de Legib. lib. 2. The second point novv is Wher this verdict of God is to be found whither in the scriptures of the old and new Testamēt as I beleev or in the writings and mouthes of other men To this I had not before neyther yet have your dir 〈◊〉 answer What makes yow shun the light herein is easy to discern To confirm my faith that the verdict and wil of God is to be foūd in holy writt I alledged divine testimonies many to them yow answer not one word neyther yet doo yow yeild to the truth Beware yow wink not vvith your eyes that yow may not see But seeing the holy scriptures move yow not yow shal have candle light to see the sun shine C. Bellarmine to whom yow referr me twise in your last writing to whose learning yow acknowledge yourself a scholar ingeniously cōfesseth saying Neq n distputari potest c. Ther can be no disputing sayth he except we and our adversaries first doo agree in some cōmune principle now we al hereticks agree in this that the word of God is the rule of faith wherby men are to judge of points of doctrine is a commune principle granted of al men from whence arguments may be drawen is the spiritual sword which in this battel may not be refused Behold here the first point plainly yeilded by your champion vvhich you vvithout dark distinction could not be drawn unto The second concerning the scriptures is in effect also yeilded when he sayth That the Prophetical and Apostolical book◠according to the catholik churches mind explaned both by the 3. council of Carthage c. 47. and late council of Trent sess 4. is the true word of God and the certayn and stable rule of faith
may say to him vvhy doe you this and that whosoever obeyes not his precepts incures the syn of idolatrie paganisme You may tell me that the Pope hath not dominion over your faith but your Canonist tel me that he can dispense against the law of God that he can dispense against the law of nature that he can dispense against an Apostle that he can dispense against the new testament yea that he can dispense concerning all the precepts of the old and nevv testament And may vve novv think that he hath not dominion over your saith or may wee think that vvhen he is come which should sit as God in the Temple of God that he wil doe greater things then these But of your Popes preeminence wee are to speak in another place To return therfore to the scripture which you deney to be an indeficient rule of our faith you objected that it had many senses and stil you stand to it as proved well I am content to leave it unto judgement But though it were so yet this is not proved that therfore it is no sure rule of our faith save by your churches exposition For why might not the church in Corinth which were made rich by Christ in all kind of speech and in all knowledge so that they were not destitute of any gift why might not that church I say declare the many senses of scripture as well as the church of Rome Or rather why may not the holy ghost shew any church or any member or Christs church the meanings of the scripture and so it remayn as a firm rule of faith and the Spirit of God the sole authentik expositor of the same But here you urge agayn your bastard phrase falsly fathered upon S. Peter that no prophesie of scripture is made by a private spirits interpretatioÌ„ though I blamed you before for speaking in such sort If you can not perceive heavenly things consider earthly Your one body hath but one spirit which gives life to the vvhole and to every member of the body The same spirit dooth quicken the hand and foot that quickneth the head and hart although a greater measure is in the principal members then in the inferiour Even so by the scriptures we learn that the catholik church is one bodie and hath one spirite and though the many members of this bodie have not one work but have received diversities of giftes yet it is the same spirit To one by the spirit is given the word of vvisdom to an other the word of knowledge by the same spirit and to an other faith by the same spirit and so all the gifts to all the members This is the most publick spirit that the church hath and every member of the church hath the same so there is no privat spirit which Christians have as you by tradition it seemes have learned Now seeing all Christians have the same spirit that the Pope himself unlesse he have the spirit of Satan how is it that he onely must be the publik spirit and interpreter of the word Because say you he is the head of the church and hath the promise of our Saviour that his faith should not fayl him This I deney Now you beleeve it because the Pope himself tells it you for your ovvn privat spirit may assure you of nothing I wil disprove it by your next words and knowen experience For you say he may err in matter of fact and syn aswell as an other man then say I he may goe to the Divil for his facts and synns as vvell as an other man then is he the successor of Iudas Iscariot not of Simon Peter then the gates of hel prevaile against him And thus your Rock is rent in peeces and your building is on the sands You rely upoÌ„ one whom you know not but he may be a reprobate a child of the Divil yea a divil incarnate as Pope Iohn the 23. was found and judged to be by the Council of Constance and then he may lye as well as his father the Divil and then if you take not heed he may murder your soul as well as his father the Divil And how then dare you make him your rock your hope your confidence to beleeve all that he sayth not to beleeve Gods word unlesse he tell you it is Gods word not to beleeve any meaning of the scriptures but as he tell you the meaning is If men were bruite beasts without understanding they could not be more overruled then thus but the Lord sayth be not as the horse and as the mule And if the inhabitants of the earth had not been druncken with the wine of her fornication the great whore could never thus have benummed their senses and bereft them of heavenly light If you deney that your Popes may be reprobates and Heariots though they may syn your own popish records will teach you by as undoubted marks upon them as ever had Cain the dearest lovers of your catholik chaire branding their holy fathers with titles of prodigious wonders monsters for their beastly lives so some of them are knowen to have dyed without repentaÌ„ce or faith in God that eyther they never had faith or els their faith failed and then Christ prayed not for them as he did for Peter so their pretended priviledge lieth in the dust The 15. of the Acts alledged for Peters primacie I have before answered and leav it unto judgment yow urge now againe vers 7. that Pâ—â—er rose up shewing therby that he was head c. a strange collection that if a man rise up to speak in an assembly he must need therfore be head you mought better have gathered so if he had sitten stil spoken for sitting of the two rather argues auctoritie then standing up But tel me I pray you in earnest when Gamaliel is sayd to rise up in the council of the Iewes in Ierusalem would you gather from this that he was the head of them all Or when Paul rose up in the synagogue of Antiochia was he therefore the head If not why dally you thus with the holy scriptures to gather such conclusions as common sense wil not bear But if you would plead for no other headship then this that your Pope may rise up and speak in councils it wil easily be granted but then if others should judge and give sentence froÌ„ the scripture as Iames there did your chair of Rome would soon be overthrown Like weight is in your next words that the first gentils were chosen by his mouth for that you should say God chose that the gentils by his mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and beleev What primacie of power you can build hereon I cannot tell order I am sure ther must be in al things so ther was with them and is with us we grant unto you
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
the signes which Iesus did which signes are written that we may beleeve And the 1. of Timothie â— 16. 17 Where all scripture is inspired of God etc. is said to be profitable for doctrine for reprehension for correction for instruction c. These places prove nothing for your purpose The first proves not that all things or sayings of our Saviour that he did or said are written though those signes were for all the signes the whole world could not contayn see a little after S. John 21. v. 25. 31. And the second place proves no more but that the scripture is good for these ends but it proves not that scripture is sufficient without tradition etc. and ecclesiastical lawes to all these ends And one might deduce out of these wordes to better reason then you each parcel of scripture in the old and new testament were sufficient for al this without any other So that you see I doe not fight with the holie ghost but with the perverter of the holy ghost 32. 3. You desire me to deale distinctly and plainly with your words I answer I hope I doe Then you beginne to answere distinctly to my wordes vidz the written word is not proved by another written word You answer first that the scriptures of God doe approve and confirme one another and his spirit that is in them and in all people doth seale that they are true For proof wherof you cite the first of S. John 5 9. The witness of God is greater and John 8 13. 14 I answer that Christ needed no testimonie for himself John 5 33. But I receive no testimonie of man meaning that he is greater then man that his divinitie doth not depend of mans witness yet for the benefit of others S. John is sayd to give testimonie of him 1. John through the whole chapter almost Acts 1 8. Christ say unto his Apostles that they shall be witness unto him in Jerusalem and in all Jewrie and in Samaria also Martyrs are sayd to be witnesses But now we doe not say that scriptures in themselves needs any witness for in actu 1. and in regard of themselves they are scripture by themselves proceeding from God but as they be in act 1 secundo and to be beleeved of others so they need testimonie of others 33. After he sees this dâ—fective he flies unto the privat spirit though he sayes it is in all people to unseale the authoritie of his word For if he understand by that spirit in all people that is of all ages times persons then must he accept of those bookes of holie scripture and of that sense and explication that by consent of holie Councills Fathers Doctors and expositors haith bene received 34. If he vnderstand this spirit in all people virtuallie and actuallie if they doe applie themselves to the right vnderstanding thereof This spirit by just reason they can not vnderstand since then wee must rather beleive St. Hierome that spent all his tyme and labor retyring himself to the desert for the vnderstaÌ„ding of the scriptures 35. What must Mr. H. A. understand else then that this spirit is in all the illuminated brethren of the church of Amsterdamâ— and yet this can not bee well understood since I heare Mr. H. A. stiffly maintains by the word of God with his coÌ„panie against Mr. Johnson there and his that this present church of England is not a scismaticall but an haeretical church What is then one of these cleare Eagle sight teachers blinded so in spirit that he can not discerne by the word of God what makes a church or a man haereticall 36. But now to prove that the comparing of one place with another which is your other refuge is not sufficient to distinguish what is true scripture or the true sence therof For if it bee so to bee vnderstood that after the collation of one place to another that by the nature of the scripture compared so the true sence shall bee vnderstood I inferr no but rather by this comparison the difficultie is often increased by a seeming contradiction If it bee vnderstood that by comparing of one that by a little and a little If it bee vnderstood that vy comparing one place with another by a little discourse the true sence and the scripture will be discerned I saie mens discourses are verie erroneous without the especiall assistance of gods holie grace which the church of God hath promised in her defining yea the verie selfe same man in divers times out of the self same confereÌ„ces of places of scripture hath inferred divers conclusions If you say the spirit to distinguish this is to be had by prayer I demand where these infallible promises are to be had for these infallible illuminations and what more certaine whether wee praie as wee ought And since Novatus Donatus Sabellius Arrius Cunomius Macedo Jovinianus Pelag Caelest Nestorius have had for their heresies diverse texts and coÌ„ferences with others to grownde heresies how should one vnfallibly to their judgments overthrow them in this For if you obiect to the Arian I and my Father am one he will object out of the selfe same St. John My father is greater then I If you saiâ— this by â—â—llation of scripture is to be vnderstood in regard of his humanâ—â—â—â— and not of his divinitâ—e He will 〈◊〉 likewise that vnitie signified in the other place is to bee vnderstood by references of other places of scripture in regard of consent and vniâ—y of wilâ— and not of nature 37. 2 And that the seale of your spirit can not distinguish this truth 〈◊〉 yea not so much as probablie I move For frist I aske what this seale of the spirit is Doth iâ— coâ—â—â—st onely of Gods perticular illumination that yee should have this touchstone to discerne scripture If so you contradict your selfe Mr. H A for so you grant that a man hath a divine faith and the spirit of discerning all before he readâ—s the scriptures for this spirit must distinguish them and so you have built without your grounde and guided your faith without your ruler the written word of God 38. If you answer this spirit consists in the evidence of the thing reaveled as you seeme to graâ—nt When you bidd me aske your proof that ther is a light in the same seeming so with Calvin to graunt that the scriptures are distinguished by themselves as light from darkness sweetness from sowrness this is most false for then everie one that had but natural perfection of the organ and free proposing of the object should distinguish this light and sweetness 39. If yee answer this spirit consists in the authoritie of God how will you prove this in particular to bee revealed of God and not the other part of scripture If you replie you can prove it by the Majestie of the writing How will you answer and show to everie particular mans cie
know that of old dayes God amongst us chose that the Gentils by my mouth should heare the word of the Gospel and beleeve In which chapter first we may note by the way verse 6. that the Apostles and auncients assembled to consider of this word which place â—oÌ„futes your proceedings that would have all men to give their voice and to be present in Councel which is the place of the Apostles and auncients and not of many others though holie men that were at Jerusalem according to that of Deut. 17. Malach. 2. Agge 1 2 Lur. 10. 16. where the sentence of the Preist is sayd to settle that which is hard difficult doubtful must keep the law must be heard as God 73. 2. I note the 7. verse that when there was made a great disputation ech partie producing his reasons and arguments for their assertion S. Peter rising up and speaking by his authoritie composed that great disputation that is settled the height of their differeÌ„ce which argues superioritie For what decorum or manners were it if two Doctors of like authoritie disputing the third of the same or of lesse authoritie as Calvin would have should stop the current of their disputation when it touched the point of the difficultie when there was a great disputation when their reasons as the text both not obscurely note were in aequi librio unsettled wheÌ„ there was made a great disputation So that we see it is a signe of great authority to speak so first as to interrupt the great disputation to prefixe an end to firme a definition to the proposed question 74. As for that which you object out of the 13. and 19. verse froÌ„ that of S. James giving sentence from the scriptures shâ—wes that out of your partial affection you would be content to give with Calvin primacie to S. James so to derogate from St. Peters and the Popes authoritie WheÌ„ nothing else caÌ„ be inferred out of S. James but that which S. Hierome epist. 12. inter epistolas Aug inferro that which is implied in the 12. verse et tacuit omnis multitudo and all the multitude held their peace showing thereby the power of his decision and that as Saint Hier inferrs S. James and all the Apostles did passe Who wil not then acknowledge a general authoritie in him that with his sentence composeth different suffrages and motives 75. That which S. James speakes verse 15. and 16. is nothing else but a confirmation or an explication of S. Peters sentence First he approves S. Peters vocation mentioned by S. Peter by the testimonies of the Prophets and nextly he doth as to win the goodwil of the Judaizing Christians moderate that sence of S. Peter that would have all legal ceremonies removed that so they might take that speech better at his hands then at S. Peters S. James being their Bishop of Hierusalem he expouÌ„ds that which he thought most conventent to be done And the whole Councel and not onely Sainct James promulgates determines that decree So that we see the definition of the principal question is onely S. Peters and the prudential Councel to the setling of the busynes to each parties liking is onely S. James 76. But presently after to signifie his willingnes to say something he objects that Peters sitting still would rather argue authority theÌ„ his rising up To which I answer that admitting most true it were his sitting doth argue his authoritie as well as his rising up and S. Peters judiciall and attentive hearing the debating of the question till there was a great disputation and then being noted to begin to rise that to rising the heat of disputation comming to head and the disputers vehemencie requiring a period that he beganne then to rise argue preheminencie of authoritie And it is not sayd that he did speak these words risen but when he was rising what have you then concluded 77. But on goes our subtil disputer to prosecute his great doubt and argues out of the 5. of the Acts 34. where Gamaliel is sayd to rise up in the councel of the Jewes v. 34. But here he conceals what the Church distinguisheth calling him a Doctor of the Lawe and so signifying that it was his office as Doctors that be Cardinals doe in the Popes conclavi to cramine matters by way of argument and not to determine and define then he conceals the immediate cause of his rising up including a farr inferior office then that of the head v. 35. to coÌ„maund the men to be put forth onely a while to signifie that he spake rather like a freind then like a judge And that Gamaliel did secretly favour the Apostles then the very wordes of the text teacheth and notes how your doctrine not grounded on God and reasons as yours sâ—â—â—l come to ruine he bidds them take heed what they mean to doe with these men showing that Thâ—â—â—as and foure hundred men Judas and his companie that followed all perished and here inferring that they should leave to persecute them For if their work were not of God of it self it would come to ruâ— as all other heresies and sects have and shall so that we see the text cited by you is the pronouncer of your own ruin 78. And that Gamaliels sentence was rather a favorable perswasion then a chief Judges resolution appeares that howsoever he was a pollitike statesman yet he was a secret favourer of the Apostles and their preaching For he did procure S. Stephens burial 20 myles from Jerusalem as B Lucianus Martyr notes in the invention of the bodie of S. Stephen Also he receives and nouriseth Nicodemus when he was spoiled and expelled by the Jewes buried him there by S. Stephen as B Lucianus testifieth 79. And that which you bring out of the 17. of the Acts 16 rather hinders then furthers your purpose since we may gather that as S. Paul being intreated by the princes of the synagogue verse 15 to preach took upon himself without any more to doe rising up and with his hand beckening for silence showes there that he was the cheife preacher so S. Peter rising and composing their controversie shewes that in that kind he was the cheefe So that we see we have woven the webbe to intangle flies of your own kind 80. That which you bring before out of the 2. of Peter v. 20 cited by me thus No prophecie is made by privat interpretation you call but doe not prove it a bastard phrase showing that such ill befitting termes proceedes from a bad conscience Your glosse Ephes. 4 4. Rom. 12 4. 1 Cor. 12 4. v. 8 9. urges against your selfe For though there is the very self same soule in the head and foot and in each part yet it worketh otherwise in the head then in the foot as the spirit in the cheese of his Church then his members so as it is the office of the head to decyde
authoritie of all the Fathers which could not chuse but puffe up men with pride 108. Against which men I reason thus Eyther the holie Fathers had this spirit of God or else they had not If they had as surely they should have if Mr H. A. did not feynedly preferr them before him then they infalliblie were instructed by his spirit in matters of faith why are their authorities rejected by Mr Henry Aynsworth as earth and ashes If they had not then this spirit is a new and so not a true spiritt since it differrs from that spirit that ruled the auncient fathers many whereof were the Apostles schollers 109. But that the holy Fathers had this spirit I prove since you cannot deny but that they were of the elect the sonnes of God but they can not be of the elect and of the sonns of God without his spirit John 10 27. My sheep heare my voice 6. Joh. 45. erunt omnes docibiles Dei 1. Joh. 2 27. You have no need that any teach you of ought And here by better reason the places that you cited before for the proving of your privat spirit return on your own head Joh. 14. 17. vers 26. Joh. 15 26. John 16 14. Rom. 8 9 1. Joh. â— 27. Joh. 3 9. v. 11. â— 8 Joh. 1 5. 1. John 4 1. there is no triall of the spirits then to trie whether it be of God but these menâ—s spirit were of God since they were of the elect And if you prescribe the tree of the spirit by the fruit Gal. â— 22 25 these mens virtues learning pietie as you confesse are to be preferred before your self 109. Againe I will not onely prove your spirit to be dissonant frâ— the holie fathers but that it is not Apostolical For if the Apostles had been inspired with this spirit every one had â—â—ayed it so that by himself without the help of another he could have distinguished of truth from falshood what needed then a Conneâ—l to be held at Hierusalem since every one could sufficiently distinguish of this truth 110. And to show further how your spirit is incompassed with difficults I argue thus This spirits testification is ever infallible or not If it doe deceive them it is not of God If it be still infallible how can ther come such various coÌ„troversies in the Church of God 111. If you answer this is ever infallible when it agrees with the word of God to which it is to be compared But then I argue if this spirit doth never testifie but when it is read what will they doe then if they were to dispute with a Turke if he should deny the whole Bible or about a controversie of the whole Bible whether it be Canonical or noâ— But admit that the testification of the spirit were onely to be tried by the written word of God How comes it then that the Lutherans and Calvinists are at such an unreconcïlable diffentien in comparing the scriptures This is my body and this is my blood by their private spirits interpretation every one contends to have this spirit to have the true sense of the word How will you then be able to settle these variances by the bare word to the liking of both 112. And to answer the placrs that you doe or may be produced for the mainteyning of the privat spirit I wil give generall grounds to answer all answering some in particular First then to that of John 10 27. My sheep heare my voice you must mark what sheep he meanes viz. the sheep that he committed to S. Peter as Pastor John 2â— 17. feed mysheep And not content with this he showes how these sheep should hear his voice Luc. 10. 6. He that heares you hears me and he that contemns you contemns me The other place is of Esaie the Prophet 54. 13. I will give all my sonns learned c. Jer. 31. 34. Herafter the man shall not teach his neighbour all shall know me from the least to the greatest Joh. 6. 45. out of which and such like places they falsly gather they have testificatioÌ„ of the spirit 113. But these men abuse scripture drawing it to their own sence For these places and the like doth not prove that which they seeke but onely show a threefold difference between the old testament and the new First in that the Prophets did teach in the old testameÌ„t but Christ Jesus himselfe did teach in the new â—cv 1. 1. Where our Saviour is said to have spoke to the Fathers in the Prophets but to vs in his Sonn 2. Moses and the Prophets did propound to the people what they were to beleeve but Christ Jesus vy his inward prace given them did help them to beleeve he not only teaching them by his voice but also helping them by his grace 3. that Moyses and the Prophets did preach Christ onely to the Jewes but Christ and his Apostles to all nations â—oÌ„ 10. 18. in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum so that interpreting what places soever you have or shal produce for the establishing of this privat spirit shall easily be answered by referring them to these places THE 5. PART 114. That I am to prove is to defend our Catholiche opinion from such an idle proofe or circular resolution of our faith The which that I may better performe some coÌ„mon grounds are to be handled before that being presupposed the difficults that oppose our opinion may be the better cleared 115. First then we must 〈◊〉 suppose that since every Heathen or Jew doth know by the light of nature that their is one God the author of all things and that wee are created to serve and honor him and that God is the rewarder of vertue and punisher of vice And since by discourse he may naturally reach vnto this that although it was most free for God to create any thing or to will any thing ad extra yet supposing that he hath created and so if not necessarily yet infaliblie by the excessive propension of his goodnesse he doth propose to men the best and fittest meanes for his honor and divine service And since the Monarchical government is best as appeareth by necessary subordination of creatures elements nations causes beasts vnto one supreme Mr. spring of all So since God having created man would be worshipped of him It is most readie to any mans discourse that he hath ordained one vniform kind of church or service to al people The which as it cannot chuse but seem most probable to a man through the great conveniencie and congruitie Yet if we shall suppose that the multiplicitie of religious and ceremonious services should as coÌ„tradictories or contraries thwart one another so their supreme end It would necessarily be gathered out of the coÌ„pass of any reasonable reaching brain that al these religioÌ„s were not instituted of God and that everie man was bound to weigh ponder the
best meanes for the obtaining conserving her ende to which the end of the temporall is subordinate And this indirect authoritie of the spirituall power over the temporall is grounded on scripture Exod. 22. v. 18. Deut. 2â— 1. Deut. 17. 12 3. Reg. 18. 40 4. Reg. 10. 11. 1. Esdr. 6. 10 1. Esdr. 7 26. Psal. 105. 34. Dan. 3. â—6 Act. 5. et 13. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 6 Tit. 3. 10. 2. Joh. v. 10. Which places wee doe not interpret so rigorously that it is lawfull for the comminaltie as you doe to depose him or that it is lawful to kil an anointed King which doctrine we abhorr as bloodie A declaration of which we may give that of so many Antipaâ—es though they are ever the greatest enimies to the Sea Apostollicke that ever any one was privately or publickly made away But how barbarous your procedings have beene in that time to which you have not answered 191. Though I have proved before that S. Peter had preheminence of authoritie above the other of the Apostles yet I thought good to set downe certaine proofes out of the holie scriptures to prove S. Peters primacie so also the Popes so then to confirme them by the authoritie of the holie fathers so that their authoritie citing scripture cannot â—ee refuseh Math. 10. v. 2. Simon is called first Mat. 15. 6. he chaungeth his name that it now signifies a head or superior and the channging of a name I proved commonly to be mysterious Mark 16. 7. The Angell directeth Peter to goe before their as there captaine Luc. 22. â—1 He praied particularly for S. Peter that his faith should not faile him and viddes him coÌ„firme his brethren Joh. 1. 42. He calles him Cephas that is a great stone a foundation stone Joh. 1â— 5. Christ washed S. Peters feete first John 20 4. S. Peter came first to the monument Joh. 21. 15. he bidds him 3. tymes feede his sheeâ— Act. 2. 14. Peter speakes for the rest Act. 5. 4. Peter exerciseth first the power of excommunitation Act. â—5 7. S. Peter in the councell of Hierusalem first gives his definitive sentence Gal. 1. 8. S. Paul came to HierusaleÌ„ to see S. Peter 192 For the confirming of which primarie of S. Peter so established by holie scriptures the holie Doctors are sâ—â—laiâ—e that falsehood it self cannot denie it For s. Clemens Romanus in the year of our Lord 80. saies that S. Peter by the merrit of his faith was assigned to bee the foundation of the church and he is the first of the Apostles etc. wheâ—e you see that to bee the first is to bee the foundation of the church Dyonysius Areopagita in the yeare of our Lord 100. lib. de divinis nominibus c. 3â— teacheth that St. Peter was supreme honor the ancientest head of divines Hyâ—â—olytus in the yeare 220. in his oratione de consummatione â—â—ndi calls S. Peter prince and rocke of faith And Origenes in the yeare 230. in his 5. homilie on Exâ—â—â—s he calles S. Peter the rock and sollid foundation of the church et ad Psal. 1. as you maie read in Eusebius lib 6. â— â—â— he calles Peter the rocke against whome hell gates shall not prevaile et 17. homil in Lucam he calles him Prince of the Apostles and on the 6 to the Roma he expounds that of S. John 20. of the threefold charge of feeding his sheep to bee made the foundation of the church 193. And Eusebius Alexandrinus in the 260. in his homilie of the resurrection expounding those wordes Saie vnto the Disciples vnto Peter he there declares how onely to Peter he gave the keis Petrus Alex in the year 280. in his sermoÌ„ de Poenitentia calles Peter the Prince of the Apostles And Constantyne the Emperor in the yeare 280. in his donation calles Peter the vicar of God on earth And the first Councell of Nice in the yeare 325. canone 39. Arabicâ— calls the Byshop of Rome the prince of all the Patriarchs S. Aâ—ha in the yeare 340. in his epistle ad Felicem calles S. Peter the piller on whom of the foundatioÌ„ and Apostles of the church And S. Basil the great in the yeare 370 in c. 2. Esaiae et in prohaemio de judicio dei 〈◊〉 in orat 3. de peccatis et lib. 2. contra EunomiuÌ„ he calls Peter the prince of the Apostles and foundation of the church Cyrillus Hierosol in the yeare 370 calls Peter the prince of the Apostles â—â—â—echs â— 11. he gives the reason in that Math 17. whâ—â— the â—â—her Apostles were silent Peter confessed Thou aâ—t Christ the sonne of the living God S. Chrys inferreth from thence whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound in heaven that he is the foundation of the church and in his 83. homil in Math. he inferrs the like ouâ— of these words I will build my church and in the Psal. â—0 he inferrs asmuch out of these words Simon Simon Sâ—â—â—aâ— hath sought 194. And for the same primacie of Peter the â—â—â—in Fathers are as plaine Tertull in the yeare 200. â— 21. de pudiciâ—ia on those words on thee I will build my church and to thee I wil give my keies he inferres in that it is said whatsoever thou loosest and not whatsoever yee loose that S. Peter was head And s. Cyprian in the yeare 25â— lib. 1. epist. 8. He saies there is one God one Christ one church one ehaire seated on S. Peter by our saviours voice And s. Cyprian lib. de vnitate Ecclesiae Cathol out of the words of S. Math. 16. Vpon this roche etc. and of S. John the 21. Feede my flocke and of S Joh. the 20. As my father sends me so I send you He showes there that S. Peter is the onely foundation and though the Apostles were sent yet with a mission subordinate to S. Peter and to the virtue of his chaire s. Ambrose in the yeare 370. out of these words Mat 16. Vpon this rocke I will build my church he gathers that S. Peter is the rock s. Hier. in the yeare 380 ad Ps 13 calls S. Peter the head of the church et in â— 16. Mat. coÌ„cording the rebuke of our Saviour the authoritie of S. Peter given to him he saies that preheminence was onely promised then and after his infirmitie it was performed et in his epist. 89. ad Aug. c 2. he saies S. Peter was of such authoritie that S. Paul writes he came to â—ome to see S. Peter And S. Aug. in the yere 400. in his book quaestionuÌ„ veteris et novi testam q. 75. he inferrs that all the Apostles were contained in S. Peters firmness that before you brought as an inference of great absurditie against me et in tract 124. in Joh. he inferrs out of these words Vnto thee I give the keies c. et in sermone 5. in festo Petri et Pauli he inferrs froÌ„ those words Vnto thee I give the keies
is against S. Joh. the 17. 11. Vt sint vâ—um St. et nos 213. I prove this in that the Romaine church is the onely true and Catholicke church this you sate if you should admit of yet it proves nothing in that the voice of the bridegroome and not of the bride is that you say wee must beleeve Joh. 3. 29. 36. Ephes. 2. 24. 4. 5 16. As though that were false of Christ he that heared you heares me Luc. 10. 16. 18. Mat. 17. S. Joh. 14. 16. 26. Joh. 16. 19. 1 Tun. 3. 15 The church of the living God is said to bee the pillar and sir â—amâ—t of truth 214. I am gladd to heare you dente your selfe as in truth you are knowen to bee no Catholicke That you will not challenge your Mothers name showes your degenerating spirit For well might you bee a Catholicke member of a Catholike church but as others have been ashamed of that name so also you but the truth is your church is not Catholicke in that it hath neyther vniversallitie of time place or person 215. That the whole world is replenished with our doctrine you slight over with most impertinent places of scripture to inferr the Pope to bee Antichrist and you graunt that the synagogue of the Jewes in her flourishing â— visibilitie hath excelled Christs church which is contrarie to the predictions of the Prophets and Apostles 216. To the motives of evident credibilitie that maie induce any man to beleeve as the Romaine church teacheth I proposed many motives as her antiquitie vnitie vniversallitie visibilitie that her doctrine was confirmed by the doctors by the institution and institutors of most holie orders by the conversion of nations by the power of myracles infinit number of Martyrs All which notes and motives the ancient Doctors have taken out of scripture to distinguish the true church most of which you graunt we have Onely with your wrested places paralleld herevnto you seâ—k to coÌ„fute theÌ„ but so lamely that any maÌ„ may see your answers are suddaine snatches then true bitings or wounds according to the nature of a madd dogge that runne headlonge and immediately snatcheth at any thing that opposeth him 217. That which you bring else where is to small purpose or abundantly satisfied elsewhere 218. Now to conclude I prove by a common Argument in refuting your answer in calling our motives carnall that wee maie bringe to prove the Catholicke church the true church 219. If our faith bee so ancient as you confess and allowed so long of all sorts and conditions if it bee not from God it must bee grounded on carnall motives viz. the profitt of the spiritual or temporall But it smoothes neither And that it is not grounded on the inventioÌ„ of the clergie for there profitt or pleasure is plaine since they so strictly binde themselves to chastitie vowes fasting praying so longe everie daie and all these vnder mortall sinne with all which burdeÌ„s they would not have loaden themselves if onely pollicie had beene their loadstone Neither is it governed by the pollicie of temporall Princes For it cannot bee immagined howe â—o many Empeperors Kings Queenes Princes would have teddered themselves vnder mortal sinne as to confesse their sinns to fast to restore etc. go the religion warranted by all the foresaid notes and so against the haire of humane affection must needes bee true that hath 〈…〉 inviolable so long against so many assaultes of enimies and heresies For according to that before cited of Gamaliel if it bee not of God it will bee dissolved 220. Thus having proved and confirmed my doctrine and refuted your grounds and sacked the castel builded and raised by your owne phancie and having destroied the golden caife of your selfe liking conceipt to which you sacrifize I am to conclude admiring any one can bee so fonde as to follow you against the course of all tymes the recordes of Historie consent of Fathers etc. And I bewaile the fearfull resolution you shal make to Christ Jesus when he shal aske you whie you beleeve against the holie scriptures explicated and warranted by all the motives and onely because you perswade your selfe so 221 Whereas our resolution at the eternall tribunall shall bee full of comfort since wee beleeve Gods word allowed by all those notes and warrants â— by the interpretation of the holie Fathers Your plea shall not bee like the plea of that sonne that pretendes to bee heire of all saving of one pennie In that his father made his brother haeredem ex asse heire of one penie as he interpretts When as the grave tribunal judge learned Doctors lawes showes against him that to bee made haeredem ex asse is to bee possessed and invested in all and not to have one penie and no more 222. So you saie the sense of this or that parcell of scripture is as you conceive though against the letter as Hoc est corpus meum etc. and against all Doctors and expositors and records of tyme shâ—wing the practise of the church As that Clients cause shall bee full of feare his plea ridiculous the sentence sure to passe against him with a hisse and contempt of the whole bench So shall that irrevocable sentence of God passe against you in following your owne phancie against his word the holie Catholicke church the expounder thereof I praie God to averte his judgment and to wipe of the scailes of your eies that you maie see and imbrace the true church that with the blasphemous breath of your nostrilles you have persecuted From Justice hall in Newgate the 13. of September siple veteri 1613. 3 Esdrae 4. Magna est veritas et praevalet Great is truth and prevaileth Iohn Aynsworth Ad post script What I have said before or heare have delivered I have brought out of the scriptures and their interpretation and not against the scriptures as you object except you would have that onely to bee scriptures that in sense fittes the last of your owne phancie To conunence new disputes you know would be endless If you have nothing more to object against this maine truth begin what you will and I shal answer but onely be advertised here that I make a great impression of those wordes of S. John 2. x. 10. Si quis venit ad vos et hanc doctrinam non affert nolite recipere eum in domum nec Ave dixeritis Quie dixerit illi Ave communicat operibus ejus malignis ercuse me then if in salutation or freindly complement of grace mercie 〈◊〉 I doe not comply with you it proceeds not froÌ„ the hatred of your person whose conversion and salvation I desire but of your heresies and error but to answer your grounds and Argumâ—â—â—â— I shall ever be readie The answer to I. A. his third large writing To Mr Iohn Aynsworth prisoner in Iustice hall in Newgate grace mercie from God to find repentance unto salvation TWo things
Mr. I. A. I proposed to my self when first I began to answer you in these questions of religion the defense of the truth which God hath vouchsafed me mercy to witnesse and 2. the saving of your soul from death by turning you from your evil way vnto Christ if such were his pleasure Now although for this latter I have small hope left seing you so stiffly bent to keep the religion â— received by tradition of your fathers yet for the first respect I cannot be silent for I have still what to answer in the behalfe of God and of his written word against the reasons which you bring for the Pope and his Traditions The Lord guide my hart and hand vnto the mainteyning of his truth if it may be vnto the gayning of your soul. You first profess to have a reverend esteem of the scriptures which you set down I like well of But somewhat you want as That by the scriptures we come to beleive in Christ in beleeving may have life through his name Ioh. 20. 31 That by theÌ„ the man of God may be made wise vnto salvatioÌ„ may be perfect and perfectly furnished vnto every good work 2 Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17. and therefore that no man presume above that which is written 1 Cor. 4. 6. This if you graunt as you cannot with reason deny there wil be no necessary or profitable vse of your vnwritten traditions eyther for faith in Christ vnto life for wisdome vnto salvation or for any good work Whiles we therfore keep us to this heavenly light of Gods written word so commended by your selves though againe you disclaym it as not sufficient without your Popes traditioÌ„s I may say with Moyses †Their Rock is not as our Rock even our enimies being judges You devide your treatise vnto 7. parts The first thing which you promise is to shew that my reasons taken from the word of God doo vanish of themselves This you attempted before but were defeted let us see now what your latter thoughts doo bring forth For answer vnto Deut. 5. 32. you aske ‡ what I can inferr hence but that the law ought strictly to be kept that we ought neyther to add nor to take from the 10. commandements c. I answer you strayten the words too much in restreyning them to the 10. commandements for you may see before in Deut. 5. 4 -22 that the people themselves did hear the 10. commandements promulgated and â—durst here no more but prayed Moyses to goe neere and heare the rest what God would say and to declare all vnto them This he did and God told him all the commandements ordinances and lawes which they should doe in Canaan whereupon he inferreth that generall admonition v. 3â— 33. touching all the wayes of God and not the 10 commandements onely So your limitation being weighed in the Lords ballance is found too light You proceed and ask what this is to my purpose to prove that the written word alone is sufficient to decide all controversies I answer I did express my purpose was to prove this That God onely is to be the umpier and arbiter of all controversies about religion whither it were by his word written or unwritteÌ„ I stood not vpoÌ„ that in this first point This I told you plainly before if your purpose were not wilfullie to mistake and make needless coÌ„troversie you would not after warning have doon thus the second time Like fruitless labour you bestow to prove that the law of God should be explicated by the Priests c. A thing which I never doubted of yea I hold that the B. of Rome if he were as he ought to be should spend all his dayes in explicating Gods lawes to the people so should all Bishops in the world But Popes lawes devises traditions should neither be explicated nor once meÌ„tioned in the church without detestatioÌ„ You say such additioÌ„ is prohibited as is contrary to Gods law as appeareth Deut 4. 2. 3. where the idolatry with Beelphegor was punished for adding or diminishing as the text implies I answer though you costreyn the text to seem to help you while you set that before which Moyses setts after yet to let that pass I grauÌ„t that you say if you vnderstaÌ„d it wel For seing all additions to Gods law is forbidden whatsoever is added by others is contrary to Gods law Now all additioÌ„ is plainly forbidden Deut. 4. 2. and 12 32. Prov. 30. 5. Therefore nothing can be added by your Pope or any which is not contrary to the law of God Your Doctors whom you rely vpon tel you the same nothing is to be added sayth Ambrose no though it seemes to be good That which hath not authority froÌ„ the scriptures saith HieroÌ„ is as easily coÌ„teÌ„ned as allowed The answer you â— give to Deut. 12. 32. is what is here forbidden but an Hethen imitation and immolation of their children c. Is here any pro hibition of explicating the true sense of the law c. I answer you run into your former fault abridging the scope of the text To imitate the hethens was vnlawfull but to divise things of their own heads yea and to imitate God otherwise then he commaunded them was wicked also Proofe in Ieroboam who made a feast not like the heathens but like the feast in Iudah 1 King 12. 32. yet was it sinful and the holy Ghost brandeth him with forging the moneth out of his own hart v. 33. Many of your Popes idolatrous feasts have nothing so good a colour And your devised worship of Lord Lady Angels Saincts Popes Confessors c. is not onely an imitation of the hethens but an idolatrie worse then many of theirs as when we have ended these questions in hand I will vndertake to prove vnto you As for explicating the law I before approved it Your former reason from the 4. commandment you seek to vphold with a staffe of reed For when God gives many commandements why will you make the keeping of one to be the keeping of all In deed if he had given but one precept and men had given the rest it were somwhat that you say But they are all given by the same God to be our life and righteousnes if we keep them For man to add any thing to the 4 or to any or to all the commandements is an odious syn Mat. 15. 9. Whereas against all additions to Gods word I alleadged Prov. 30. 6. and Gal. 3. 15. to overthrow your fraudulent distinction you frame a reply to Gal. 1. 8. which place I produced not In Gal. 3 15. the Apostle sheweth froÌ„ the similitude of a mans TestameÌ„t that much more vnto Gods nothing may be added Against this you having nothing justly to except doo choose to your selfe an other place more easy to pervert What els dooth this bewray but the helplessnes of your cause
Angels men vvomen cross c. and yee bow down before them vvhereas the similitudes vvhich God commanded vvere not to be vvorshiped as you doo the cross the brazen Serpent vvhich you allege shewes it Besides vvill your Pope take vpon him Gods place and power and make vvhat images he thinks good because God made such as pleased him Why then if he had lived in Ieroboams dayes he might have made a Temple at Bethel because God made one in Ierusalem and set vp Preists altars sacrifices of his own head because God had appointed such in Iudah And now let your Pope make new Churches new Sacraments new Ministeries yea an other Testament because Christ did so But for your idolatries they perteyn to an other place then this I leave it to the judgment of every godly hart vvhither your Popish glosses decrees distinctions c. be not more dark and intricate then the holy scriptures vvhich are a lamp to our feet and a light to our pathes And as for your Councils and Fathers to vvhom so often you flee for help vvhen holy scriptures fayl you they are so cross and intricate in themselves and one to another that the Pope vvith all his guard could never yet neyther ever vvilbe able to reconcile them Your Mr. Cardinall Bellarmine useth them as men doo Counters that sometime stand for pounds sometime for halfe pence So he sometime alloweth the Doctors sometime dismisseth them as erring from the truth Yet you to brave your cause muster their names vvhose vertues you doo not imitate You much blame me as for wilfull error in citing Card. Bellarmines vvritings as the determinations of the Pope Beare vvith me I knew not that your Cardinal had a private spirit differing from your Pope and bear part of the blame vvith me your selfe that referred me in your former vvriting to answer Bellarmine your master Vnto my proof frō 1 Cor. 4. 1. that the other Apostles vvere dispensers of Gods mysteries as vvell as Peter so other Bishops now as well as the Bishop of Rome you answer they be all alike in power of order but not of jurisdiction This your distinction I deny and in my former vvritings disproved it and you bring not neyther can bring any vvord of God to confirme it and therefore as your manner in such exigents is you flee to humane authority Now I graunt that your Popes throne is from men or from the Dragon if you will But Gods vvord sayth A man can receive nothing unless it be given him from heaven John 3. 27. From this you pass to Act. 15. afterwards you goe back again to other things that in order vvere before I answered twise your reasons from that scripture shewing how you constreyn it beyond all reason yet the 3. time you press it thus From v. 6. the Apostles and Ancients assibled you note it against us that vvould you say have all men to give their voice and be present in council I answer in v. 4. it is shewed they were received of the Church and of the Apostles and ancients In v. 12. it is sayd all the multitude kept silence In v. 22. it is sayd it seemed good to the Apostles ancients with the whole church to send c. In v. 23. the letters vvere thus vvritten The Apostles ancients and the brethren unto the brethrē c. v. 25. It seemed good to us vvhē vve vvere come togither vvith one accord c. All vvhich doo manifest that the people vvere present and not the Apostles and ancients onely as you from an usual figurative speech in v. 6. mistaken vvould collect From v. 7. you gather that vvhen there vvas made a great disputation Peter rising up and speaking by his authority composed that great dispuration that is setled the height of their difference which argues superiority And eftsoones you press this word great disputation for Peters rising vp vvas before proved to be but a staff of reed for the Pope I answer you dally vvith the holy scriptures unsufferably The argument if it wil help you should be this Whosoever in a Council when there is great disputation riseth up speaketh he is head of that council yea and of the vniversal church But Peter in a council vvhen there vvas great disputation rose up and spake therefore he vvas head I deny your first proposition as strayned against scripture and light of reason And I vvould pray you in sooth to answer vvhither in the many contentious Councils vvhich have been since the Apostles dayes there have not been sundry men that rose up and spake when there was great disputation and vvhither they vvere all heads of the church therefore That vvhich you add of Peters composing the great disputation by his authoritie is not of the text but a gloss of your private spirit Your extenuating of the Apostle Iames his authority vvho spake last and gave judgment or sentence v. 19. sheweth hovv partiall you are for S. Peter But I vvill cease from answering vvords of vvind Let him that readeth that scripture judge vvhither of the two had the chiefest place Your exception that it is not sayd Peter spoke those words risen but when he was rising as if you vvould put a cushion vnder him to sit down agayn is altogither vnworthy to be answered For besides that the very same speech is used of Gamaliel as I told you in Act. 5 34. you might even as vvel say that Peter vvent not to Ioppa risen but when he was rising Act. 9. 39. and that Peter vvas sent to goe to Cornelius and Paul to goe to Damascus not vvhen they vvere risen but vvhen they vvere rising seing there is one and the same vvord and phrase used in all these and sundry other like places But such traditionall expositions of holy scripture is your church fayn to use for vvant of better to bolster vp her preeminence Gamaliel you say spake rather as a freind then as a judge as a Cardinall in the Popes conclavi rather then as a Pope Be it so yet he rose up I trow vvhen he spake so then rising up to speak is no proof of superiority and you might have spared this strife about your frivolous reason Yet from Act. 13. 16. you vvould gather by Pauls rising up in the Synagogue that he vvas cheif preacher Well let your argument from rising to speak be layd up in the Popes conclavi for to prove his preeminence if need be to speak in a church as Paul did in that synagogue You bethink you and turn back to your other pervered place of 2. Pet. 1. 20. cited as you pretend by you thus No prophesy is made by private interpretation vvhich you say I call and doo not prove a bastard phrase I answer you tvvise cited it private spirit interpretation and had vvritten it so this third time but blotted out the
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
from the flesh of beasts and fowles and to fill them selves with the flesh of fishes with bread and wine and oyl and all such juncates Their prayers being vayn repetitions of their Paternosters Avees c. upon beads in an unknown tongue Albeit many poor people in blind devotion have I grant suffred many hard things in their penance such as Paul caleth things which have a shew of wisdom in voluntarie religion and humblenes of mind and in not sparing the body Colos. 2. 23. So that in verie deed there never was a more carnall pleasing religion in the world As for the Kings and Princes they have had their necks under the Popes girdle partly against their wills by the Popes frawd and tyranny treading them under his feet partly by superstitious fear of the Popes curse and of purgatorie fyre such like buggs wherwith they were kept in aw As for the Popes they were privileged by their own decrees viz. That neither the Emperor nor Kings nor all the Clergie might judge the Pope as Pope Silvester did enact Because the Pope is subject to none but God as sayd P. Symachus Cap. 9 q. 3. Aliorum So it came to passe as the scriptures foretold that Kings gave their power authoritie to the Beast and lived in pleasure with that whore and all nations were drunken with the wine of the wrath of her fornication and all the world wondred after the beast worshiped him and sayd who is like unto him c. And though the vialls of Gods words wrath are now alreadie in great mesure powred out upon that kingdom of syn yet many will not beleeve that it shal fall til in one howâ— the judgment thereof come when also they will bewayl it but heavens and the holy Apostles and Prophets will rejoyce when God hath given their judgement on it These things I pray you seriously to consider of and the Lord give you understanding And now having done with your replies to the former matters I wil speak of those interlaced paragraphes which you bring in S. 98. c of the vicious circle as you call it wherin you think we walk proving as you say the authoritie of the scripture by the private spirit and our private spirit by the authoritie of the scripture c. But your Catholik opinion you say you will defend from such an idle proof and circular resolution of your faith I answer first you doo me wrong to set down my assertion so if yow would deal honestly and plainly you should express an other mans meaning in his own words But you set down vanity and spend many lines in framing objections and answers of your own I referr the reader therefore to that vvhich I sayd in my 2 former vvritings and shall more fully set down here Secondly I told you heretofore that if I had to doo vvith a Turk or Pagan that denyed our scriptures I vvould give him other grounds but dealing vvith you that profess to be a Christian and allow the scriptures to be of God it is ynough to confute you by the scriptures Yet now as if you were about to turn Turk you call for proof that our scriptures are Gods vvord And you regard not my former convictions nor your Mr. the Cardinals reprehensions of your errors though you before referred me to him Thirdly in going about to clear your selves of this idle proof as you cal it vvhich yet you can never doo you goe vpon grounds vvherewith Turks and Pagans may be moved to give credit vnto the scriptures which vvas no part of the controversie between you and me and you lay down motives perswading to Christianity vvhich are nothing unto Popery and Antichristian traditions against vvhich I dispute For these causes I shal not folow you in your raunging movable waves but vvill set down first the things that vve hold and reasons of them secondly I vvill use some motives vvhich may perswade any reasonable man Turk or hethen to incline unto our religion rather then to yours 1. We hold all the vvâ—itings of the Prophets and Apostles to be of God ful of heavenly vvisdome inspired by his spirit 2. Pet 1. 21 and 3 16. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 2. That therefore they are of divine authority and unfallible truth vvherein the creature is bound to rest as in the vvord of the creator and sufficient to make men vvise unto salvation Many reasons there be to perswade men that the scriptures are of God some principal which are froÌ„ God himself others secondary vvhich are froÌ„ men God himself testifieth the scriptures to be of him two vvayes Outwardly vvhereby he prepareth the hart unto faith by motives of credibility and inwardly vvhereby be assureth the hart of the beleever The outward motives are which God giveth us in the word it self First in the Holy scriptures ther is a Majesty wisdom and grace of writing differing from al other writings in the world which the minde of man if it be not blind may see and discerne to be of God as the eye discerneth the light of the Sun from the light of a torch or candle For God hath shewed as great wisdom in the Scriptures as in the making of the world Psal. 19. Secondly the doctrine it self or institution in the scriptures excelleth al humane doctrines and lawes as leading us from our selves from this world from Satan the prince of it unto God in faith love holynes feare humility c. And these things farr passing the reach of any earthly creature naturally to conceiv or comprehend fully though he be taught much less could they be by men devised Thirdly the prophesies which shine through all the scriptures perswade this For as God convinceth al heathens idols and Gods to be vayn because they could not prophesie and proveth his ovvne sole deity by this foretelling of things to come performing theÌ„ Isa. 41. 22. 23. 24. 26. 44. 7. 8. 26. So the Holy scriptures by the prophesies and true events of them may be discerned to be divine and of God from all other writings in the world Fourthly it appeareth by the consent and agrement of al the partes of the Holy Bible though written by severall men at several times even hundreds of yeres one after an other and that also after divers manners some histories some prophesies some songs some parables some epistles c. in al which notwithstanding ther is an harmony that no one writer in any place crosseth or convinceth an other of error or falshood The like wherof is not possible to be shewed of halfe so many writers that ever so agreed togither in their writings since the world began Fiftly the efficacy of the scriptures powrful working in the harts of al sorts of men illumining the mind changing the affections sanctifying the whole body sowl and spirit of men that have read and heard their words Wherby all other false religions
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
busyness and not of the foot so it belongs unto the head of the church and not to every particular craftsman to interpret scriptures and verse 21 the self same doctrine is explicated in that it is sayd For not by mans will was prophecie brought at any tyme but the holy men of God spake inspired by the Holy Ghost showing that the self same spirit whrewith they were writteÌ„ and resident in the church must interpret scripture And that you ought not condemne as you doe the uniforme consent of all the fathers of all ages and nations Thus dooth Mr H. A. as a boie hoodwinâ—kt at blindman buffe belabor himself and his own fellowes in stead of his adversaries 81. And that which I bring for congruencie for the primarie of S. Peter Act 15 ver 7. where he would gather that if the Gentiles were chosen by his mouth to heare the gospel that he was chosen also to preach unto them his inference is nothing to the purpose since we graunt the Popes primacie is from God and not of the election of men 82. I graunt that Pope Stephen the 7. called Stephen 6 did revoke many decrees which yet are not definitions of Pope Formosus in the yeare 89. But this argues onely a violence in fact and not an error in doctrine and faith And hence I inferr that it argues an essential assistaÌ„ce of the holy Ghost that could mainteyn his church though in the hand of the bad water the gardeÌ„ of the church through stonie water pipes make his arke of Noe to flâ—ate though in the tempestuous flood Genes 7 8. mainteyn his church against hell gates But all that can be opposed herein doth not prove that the Pope Stephen did this as the head of the church but out of the violence of his private spirit which appears in that Sigebertus notes that all that were with him reclaimed from that violent proceeding And in the Councel he did approve onely of his fact being flattered by factious Cardinals Sergius Benedictus Martinus 83 Note also that at this unaccustomed course of the Pope the corporal church of Lateran fel down and the Images of the church where Pope Formosus body was intombed did salute Formosus as Luitiprandus lib. 1. c. 8. witnesseth And though I graunt that Pope Stephen was a wicked man in the course of his privat spirit yet we may see the great respect that Fulco the Arch B of â—hemes did humblie and submissively salute him which was not in regard of his particular defects but as he was head of the church In which respect S. John the 9 that condemneth him and his complices yet calles him Pope of happie memorie All which motives makes a strong argument for us that since of so many Popes so few could be taâ—ed though most of them unjustly of our adversaries yet for all the wickednes of some God hath still preserved the vnitie of faith that although all the other sees have had many hereticks that have governed Yet the sea of Rome had never any that by his definitive sentence did define heresie And we have read of an Arrian Bishop promoted to the see of Rome that he might defend Arianism yet he being elected to that sea he did condemne that heresie 84. The Canonists that you cite as to extend the power of the Pope above the lawe of God no doubt are falsly understood or cited But to disprove them in each particular I cannot in that I am not so wel read in the canon lawe and if I were I am in prison and have not commoditie of bookes and to send for 10. or 12. great volumes to look 3 or 4 places that I assure me are eyther falsly alleaged or injuriously applied will not quit cost especially since I convince you of one especial untruth hereafter where you say the Canouâ—sts call and esteeme the Pope our Lord God the Pope 85. But diâ—â—urnished of bookes as I am I thought good to let the authour to the protestant pulpit babell that hath no doubt seene pondered the decretalls answer you that on credit of some crackt cracking Crashaw that ingrosses such babels for whole sale whose citation or such like you are glad to reâ—â—â—le 86. For that which the author cites out of Decret 40 in appendice ad c. 6. The wordes of our Countreyman Boniface famous for sanctitie of life and justly called the Apostle of Germanie Where he setts down rather a historie then a decree of doctrine a matter of fact rather then a doctrinall definition True it is he sayes men rather sought instruction from the mouth of the Bishops then from mouth of holy scriptures and tradition Yet to show how farr he was from flatterie he showes that as the Pope may doe most good so he is eternally scourged with the Divill himself if he draw by his exaÌ„ple others into hell So that wee see he showes rather what was done theÌ„ what should be done As if a maÌ„should say such a maÌ„ is his Master it followes not that he should approve the unnaturall maistership Yea S. Boniface was so farr from preferring the Pope before God that in the self same canon he teacheth the contrarie in eadem appendice ad cap. 6. dist 40. Where he affirmes Christianitie doth depend of the Pope in secundo loco post Deâ— in the second place after God 87. And wheras Decretum distinct 19. â— 6 where it is sayd that the decretalls are numbred amongst canonicall scriptures that is to be understood in regard of the canonicall writings of the Councels and not in regard of canonicall writings of the scriptures in which sense both the begining bodie and end of the book showes that Cretian speaketh 88. As for that M. H. A. writes that the Pope can dispence against the lawe of nature you must know that things may be prohibited by the lawe of nature after a threefold manner First when there is a prohibition of a thing intrinsecall ill in it self and that by no circumstance it may be made good as to hate God or to lie and this is indispensable to the Pope 2. Other things are intrinsecall ill and prohibited till some matter or circumstance be changed as to steal in extreame necessitie or to kill and execute by publick authoritie and in these the Pope can dispence according to the cessatioÌ„ of the matter or mutation of the circumstance 3. Things in their nature may be commonly ill yet for the publick good there may be given some dispensation and so the Pope dooth dispense in mariages if you would have satisfaction to what accurring doubt soever therein read Sanches de Matrimonio My third Argument as I remember was this That which hath still been a rule to them that have erred caÌ„not be a certain rule to direct all in faith But the scripture interpreted by the privat spirit as every one pretends given from God hath led many into dangerous most