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
partu et post partuÌ„ Besides the equallitie of three persons and their processions to Nestorius will not easily be proved or to an Arian if you stand onely to a writteÌ„ word for he will cite scripture for himselfe Pater major est me and if you say that is to be vnderstood onely in regard of his humanity and not in regard of his divinity he will bid you prove that by the written word and what place of scripture soever you shal bring he wil answer it with an other to his own purpose The like will the Annabaâ—tist doe about the baptisting of infants How will you without tradition prove the procession of the holy Ghost from God the Father and the Sonne as from one onely fountayne How wil they justify the not keeping of the Sunday on Saturday with the Jewes the receiving of the sacraments fasting the eating of blood and strangled meat prohibited in the Actes of the Apostles How can they cat a black pudding without the help of tradition since they know it is forbidden by the written word and no writte word found plainely to license it Therefore S. Paul seing how necessarie the vse of traditions were in Gods church so ofteÌ„ coÌ„mendeth it unto vs. Therefore brethren stand and holdthe traditions which you have learnt whether it be by word or by our 〈◊〉 Th'â—fficacy ' and force of which is so necessary by experieÌ„ce and so coÌ„ve nâ—â—t by the judgmeÌ„t of coÌ„moÌ„ sense that I wonder how men should deny the necessary vse therof For I aske if the Apostles were alive and should by word of mouth tel us the contents of many things conteyned in the scripture without all doubt with all readynes we should beleeve them why then will they not beleeve them that lived in the Apostles dayes and such holy Fathers as flourished shortly after Dyâ—â—isnis Areopagita affirmeth the Liturgie of the Masse for the dead to be an Apostolicall tradition in fine eccles Hier. c. 7. parte 3. Tertull. de corona militis S. Aug. De cura pro mortuis c. 1. D Chrvs. homil 3. in epist. ad Philipp in Morali D. Damascen sermone de defunctis initio Also the â—rcede is affirmes to be an Apostolicaâ—l tradition sic Ruffinus in exposit symboli in principio D. Hier. epistol 61. c. 9. D. Ambros. sermone 38. D. Augustinus de Symbolo ad Catech lib. 3. c. 1. Yea that traditions wâ—re of this account we may gather out of the antient Fathers of the Church We may easily gather by the irreverend speaches which Doctor Whitaker vseth against S. Chrysostom for whereas he in the 2 of the Thess. 4 graunts that traditions are as wâ—ll to be beleeved as scripture he sayth his speach was irreverend and vnworthy of a Father And wheras Euseb. lib 1. De demonstrat Euangel c. 8. sayth the Apostles did publish and propagate the fayth of Christ partly by scriptures and partly by tradiâ—iâ—â—s he breifly rejects one of the famousest recorders of antiqâ—â—ty saying his authority is not to be received Raynolds also in his conclusions aâ—â—ered to his conference 1. conclus pag. 689. Cartwr â— 8. in his defense pag. 103. affirmes that the fathers did still allow of vâ—written traditions Wherefore I will breifly conclude this point showing that a man ruled by his private spirites direction can have no faith For since they beleeve scriptures only to be scriptures in that 〈◊〉 are delivered vp by the Church why should not they theÌ„ beleeve any thing that the Church with a generall consent propouâ—â—eth as ◠〈◊〉 of our beleefe For if I beleeve the relation of my freind because my freind tells me I must beleeve all that my freind relates with the like firme assertion and with the like reason or else I doe not beleeve my freind but my owne affection that is thereunto incliâ—ed to beleeve the one and not beleeve the other No more doth no protestaÌ„t or any other sect beleeve with a supernatural act of faith for then would â—e beleeve al that the scripture propoâ—â—â—eth to be beleeved aswell as beleeve the scripture by reason it is of her propounded else they beleeve onely their private spirits dictament and fanâ—ies that hath derived unto the knowledge of many other mysteries as well as of the truth of the scriptures The second thing I am to prove breefly is that the Popes definiâ—ive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficieÌ„r rule in matters of faith The which is proved out of Luc. 22. Simon ecce Sathan expetivit vos ut cribraret sicut triticuÌ„ ego auteÌ„ rogavi pro te ut â—ides tua non deficiat et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuo Where our Saviour that is the founteyne of all grace and goodnes sayth that he hath prayed for S Peter and so coÌ„sequently for his successors since Christ speaketh of the confirmation of the Church against hell gates not onely for a tyme but for ever promising that S Peter and their faith should not faile commaunding both him and them and therefore bidding theÌ„ coÌ„firm their brethreÌ„ And that this prayer was powred forth for S. Peter and his successors appeareth â—vidâ—tly First iâ— that our Saviour points forth one particular man saying Simon Simon particularizing the speech with a pronowne of the second person saying for thee thy fayth and thy brethren 2. Though our Saviour did begin to speake in the plurall number Sathan expetivit ut cribraret vos Sathan desired to sift you immediately changeth the maÌ„ner of speech I haue prayed for thee and not for yee 3. Our Saviour prayeth for him to whom he bidds thou being converted confirme thy brethren but onely S. Peter and not the Church in generall hath brethren Besides S. Math 16. He sayth he builds his church vpon S. Peter Tues Pâ—trus et super hanc Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam and therevpon he chaunged his name of Simon he makes him Peter and Petra and Cephas which name in the Spriaâ—k tong signifyes a rock thereby to prevent all fâ—â—volous answers to a point so clearly declared As appeareth first in that first he designes him first out by the name of his father Bar Jonas 2. by his own name Simon then doth he as it were seclude him from the rest saying super hanâ— Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam then by the authority and preheâ—inence given him showed by the delivery of the kepes All which the auncient Fathers doe affirme with an uniform consent as Tertull lib. dâ— praescript Orig. homil 5. in Exod. Sanctus Cypr de unitate Ecclesiae S. Hyll Cano 16. in Mat. S. Ambros. sermo 47. 68. lib. 6. in cap 9. Luc. D. Hier. lib 1. in lovini S. Epiph. in Anchor S. Chrysost. homil 55. in Mat. etc. every one of them affirming expressly that the Church of God was built on S. Peter as vpon a rock Besides this our Saviour in S. John 21. gives S.
dependeth of the knowledge of a skilfull lapidary and yet the knowledge of the lapidary dependeth of the excellent nature and quallity of the stone So we answer that the Church doth formally depend on the word of God that showes she is taught in all truth and yet the word of God doth depend of the determination â— definition of the church And therfore S. Augustin said that he would not beleeve the scripture to be scripture without the authority of the church And at this answer in effect you wonder that any one would have the faith of God to be tried by any other then by the written word of God therfore eyther give me leave to be of S. Augustins mind or leave to mervaile onely at me since that great Doctor and holy father doth give the lilie occasion to you of wonder Now unto your Corolarium that bad rhetorick and not solid reason gathered out from hence that my faith and hope is grounded on the Spiders vveb I answer that it is not seated on a webb but on a rock against which all heretical persecutions perswasions blasphemies which is as hell gates shal never prevaile For my resolution account of faith that I told you I was one day to give before the tribunal of God was no other theÌ„ this which S. Augustin gives where he sayes In ecclesia catholica etc. In the catholick church doth keep me the consent and agreement of so many people and nations the authoritie of the same church began by miracles nourished with hope increased with charitie confirmâ—d and established by antiquitie In the same catholick church doth also hold mâ— the succession of Bishops froÌ„ the sea of the Apostle S. Peter to whom Christ our Lord after his resurrection commended the feâ—ding of his flock continued vnto him who at this present occupieth this place And lastly doth keep me the very name catholik which not without cause amongst so many hereticks this onely church doth so obteyn as although all herâ—ticks doe pretend vamly to be termed Catholicks yet if any stranger doe chaunce to demand which is the church of the catholicks there is no heretick so impudent as dareth showe eyther his house or synagogue And thus far S. Augustin himself taught me what answer of my faith I shall make before the eternall tribunall of God But when you shall come there to give account of your faith the best that you can allege for your self is that you thought judged it so that your private spirit interpreted it so though against the hight of nature in very many points against al antiquitie of time consent and vnitie of doctrine against the whole streame of holy fathers learned Doctors and most true expesiters Who now I pray you putts trust in man and makes flesh his arm Who are taught novv by the precepts of men Who but you are led by their ovvn inventioÌ„s spirits and illusions Who but you commits idolatrie in worshipping the golden calfe the idol of your own invention Therfore I wil coÌ„clude with your saying took out of the Psalm 73 26. The rocâ— oâ— my hart who is my portion for ever preserve me and deliver you frâ—m that sâ—ylla of Calvnustical profession and from that devoâ—â—ing charibdis those syrtes and quicksands of Brownisme and Puâ—itanical brotherhood where men make shipwrack of their faith and soules The secoÌ„d arg you examin of mine to prove that the bâ—â—e â— naked word cannot be an infallible rule or square of faith you prâ—pound it out of my writings thus That which is difficult includeth many senses at least to the ignorant can not bee a certaine rule of faith But the scriptures are thus My antecedent you admit proved by Tertullian S. Hierome and S. Peter himselfe whose place you onely examin the others you turne over as you are woont deeming theÌ„ vnworthy of your consideration You examine that of S. Peter now where he sayes that in S. Pauls epistles are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the vnlearned and the unstable deprave as also the rest of the scriptures to their owne perdition Here you except against me that I say many things in sted of certaine where in deed I cited onely the sense of that place propouÌ„ding it as the ProtestaÌ„ts vse for yours and their advantage meaning so tacitè to prevent an objection For they answer here that S. Paules epistles are not hard but that many things in theÌ„ are hard For the Greek copies have en hois that is in which things and some read en hais in which epistles And wheras you object that I say all the rest of the scripture in stead of also the rest of scripture I answer the holy Ghost may very well speak generally since the very plainest places of scripture have bene wrested to bolster up heresies Thirdly you say that this testimony proves scarse the first part of my antecedent that scriptures are onely difficult but you say it doth not prove that scriptures cannot be an indeficient rule of faith I answer that it proves both For in what doth S. Peter say that S. Paul is hard but concerning many points of our faith and religion as concerning predestination reprobation vocation of the gentiles justification by faith Of which high mysteries S. Paul is the cheif and principall Maister And as for the example of the artizeÌ„ you bring makes much against you For if an unstâ—â—lfull Mathematician or sea man knoweth not the right vse of the Astrolabe or crosse staffe the missing of a hayres breadth in the right using thereof makes him judge wrong of the object infinitely almost although the instrument in it self be most true And if the Physitian misse the right Dose though he gives the right ingredients he is liklier to kill then to minister help So if a man misse of the right judgement sense of those places of scripture touching predestination reprobation c. the corruption of that place is able to turne all the other places of scripture that leaues that way into his owne nature But now here to your reply that not all but onely some places of scripture are difficult and hard though we see the contrary by experience since Luther Zuinglius Calvin Berengar have stumbled at the plainest places of scripture viz. This is my body yea they stumbled there at though S. John explicates also most plainely that place when he sayes Caro mea verè est cibus et sanguis mens verè est potus My flesh is truely meat and my blood is truely drinck For Luther will have them one way to be understood â—uinglius another Berâ—garius an other and Calvâ— another Neyther can the paralleling comparing of one place of scripture with another râ—n dy this or satisfy the infinite difficults that arise out of holy scripture As that of the 2. Regum 23. 11. The feild is sayd to be full of lentills But the 1 Parall 11. 13.
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
Apostles or from Apostolicall men 23. And not without great reasoÌ„ doth God use that means both to ad estimatioÌ„ to his holy mysteries to preserve these pretious stones for the Jewellers that did know how to prise theÌ„ that even natural reason hath taught and that the very Heathen Philosophers have used therby to adde prise and to distinguish the fitness of the auditor Pythagoras therfore taught his schollars rather by word of mouth relation of others then by Dictats or writing Gallen also lib. 2. de Anatomicis Adminiculis declares how the auncient Physitians did preserve and teach their medicines and receipts onely by verball relation froÌ„ one from another Cicero 1. De legibus affirms that it is a great error in a well governed coÌ„mon wealth to have all governed by written lawes And therfore the most ancientest and famous Rabbines and not onely they but our Hyllarius and Origen doe teach that Moses had not onely delivered him the tables of the law in the mountaigne but also most secret and hidden mysteries and explication of the law which truth the author of the first book of Esdras doth not obscurely testifie c. 14 5. I have declared to Moises many miracles and I sayd vnto him saying these wordes thow shalt speake openly and these wordes thow shalt hide and of such secret mysteries that of the Psal. 43. psal 77. Deutr 32. is to bee understood And in regard of these hidden mysteries Dyonis Areopag lib. de caelest Hierarchia â— 1. most diligently warnes Timothie That he should not disclose these things to the rude people So that we see God writ in Moyses heart many thinges that he did not write in the tables of stone This made St. Paul to speake the bidden mysteries in secrett and to give the little ones milk in that their weake stomackes could not brooke other meate And yet by pour rule Mr. H. Ainsw new borne babes like Ostreches should devour proÌ„ in freclie reading applying and epplicating the difficult places of scripture 24. Now since the second and third question are so neerely confined that the ending of the one is the begining of the other the ending of my reasons the begining of your answers and so requiring a resutation of them I thought good having in generall proved the necessitie of tradition besâ—des the written word to end my second part and with my particular proofes to begin the third poinct in interlacing the reasons answers replications together in order but both as breifly as I can 25. My first Reason to prove that the written word of God without the vâ—written word of God Tradition and the definition of the â—h is not the rule of faith in summe is this 26. That which is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knowen for Gods word go scriptures by themâ—â—lves are not the rule of faith 27 My Major is most certaine since nothing can be the indeficient rulâ— of all truth revealed and to bee revealed but the word of the first veritie God which is eyther the writteÌ„ word of God conteyned in the Prophets and the Apostlâ—s or the unwritten word of God coÌ„tained in Apostolical traditions definitions of the church and the uniforme consent of holie Councels and Fathers For still it is Gods or a Kings word whether it be immediately spoke by himself or by the mouth of another whom he authoriseth to speak or whither it be in writing And nothing else caÌ„ be unto us the rule to direct our faith except it first be knowen to be the word of God 28 My Minor is also true proved out of S. Augustine contra epistolam fundament Manich c. 5 Ego Euangelio non crederem nisi me ad haee commoveret Ecclesiae authoritas I should not beleeve the gospel except the authoritie of the church should move me thervnto Lanchius in his confess c. 1. and Brentius in his Prologo Kemnitij in examine CoÌ„cil Trident. Whitak contra Stapl. lib. 2. Hooker in his Ecclesiasticall policie lib. 1 pag. 84. et lib. pag. 200. et 142. doe all affirme that tradition of the church is necessarie to distinguish what bookes of scripture be scripture and what not And reason it self teacheth us since we doe not heare or see God or his knowen Prophets to write or speak this that is proposed unto us for the word of God most coÌ„venient it is least we wander in infinituÌ„ in proving the word of God by the private spirit and the private spirit by the word of God that there must be one certaine rule or depositum fidei and therfore St. Paul to Timothie â— 6. ch 20. Oh Timothee keep the depositum avoiding the prophane noveltie of voices and avoiding the opposition of falsly called knowledge which certain promising have eâ—red about faith and what that depositum is S Paul in his 2. to Tim 1. v. 13 â— 14 showes Have thou a forme oâ— sound of words which thou hast hâ—aâ—d of me in faith and in the love in Iesus Christ. Keep the good depositum by the holy ghost which dwelleth in us showing that Timothie and Christians ought to keep a certain platform of words delivered to them over and above his epistles which rule of words appropriated to high mysteries and matters of our religion as Trinitie Person Essence Consubstantial TransubstantiatioÌ„ froÌ„ one beginning Sacrament which the Apostle calls soâ—â—â—d words verba sana â— 29 You in 〈…〉 this my first a gâ—â—neÌ„t say that things may be belâ—â—ved though not gathred out of â—he written word understaâ—â—â—ng thâ—rby a humane and a common beleefe I know not what you mean by this except you would have Gods written word onely to be bâ—leâ—ved by a humane faith And therfore when I took you at your word and â—athered thâ—nce that some tradition or as you will terme it traditum is necessarily beleeved besides the written word For whâ— wee speak absolutely of beleefe in divinitie it is to be understood of a divine and not of a humane beleefe and when you speak of the cheef rule you say it may be bâ—leeved without the written word I might inferr that necessarilie it was to bâ— beleeved since you hold that the word of God is the word of God and that necessarily and so to be beleeved So that you may see that your water hath rather wet your shoes thâ—n that myne was spilt on the ground 30. 2. Wheras you say I doe vnjâ—stly condemn your assertioÌ„ that nothing to be beleeved is necessarie for salvatioÌ„ that is not taught by the written word I say most justly and I convinced you of falshood sufficiently when I sayd nothing is so necessarie to salvation by you as the written word which word is not proved by another written word of God To infirme which proofe of mine you produce two texts of scripture John 20 30 31. That
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
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
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
besides prohibits onely that which is contrarie S. Iohn himself otherwise by M. H. A. should sin The like showed My doctrin warranted by Gods own word The desinatioÌ„s of the church are Gods Mat. 18 17. et 1â— Deâ— 19 15. In opere imperfecto c. 7. Math. D. Ambrose lib. de Paâ—adiso c. 12. Nihil igitur l. quod bonum videtur Mark vvel Deut. 32. vers 7. Psal. 43 1. Prov. 1 8. Esa. 38. 19. Ier. 6 16. Eccle. 8 11. 4. Esdr. 14. 3. 2. Thes. 2 15. 1. Tim. 6 20. 2 Tim 2 1. and see whether unvvritten traditions are not to be observed seen 〈◊〉 S. Chrys. plaine vvords for tradition See 〈◊〉 lib. 3. c. 4. Clemens Alexand lib. 5. Streat c. 2. Orig. lib. 5. super numeros Athanas. epistolâ ad Epictetum D. Ambrosius lib. de â—ide 3. c. 7. epistola 83. D. Aug lib. contra Cresco Grammat c. 33 lib contra epistolam Manich quaÌ„ vocant fundamentum c. 5. et epistola â—6 ad Casul vide n. â—1 THE II. PART The rule of our faith the writteÌ„ vnwritteÌ„ word jointly Traâ—it was once the total rule therfore it may be thâ— partial The â—h of God taught onely by tradition 2470 yeres Tradition directed men after writteÌ„ law vide n. 16. Many places of the old testamâ— for tradit 2â— S Dyon Arâ—opag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clâ—meas Alex. Thâ—ancâ—â—â— fathers most plain for the allowing of tradition Origen S. Athanasius S. Basil. The 2. coâ—cel of Nice S. Hierom â— S. August 22. yea our â—aâ— adversarâ—oâ— confirm this M. Luther Iohn Calv. Ph MeliÌ„c Diverse reasons whiâ— God vseth traditions D. Hyll supra 2. Psal. Orig. homil 5. Num lib. 4. Esdras c. 14. v. 5 Dyonis Areopag 1. Cor. 3. 2 Hebr 5. 1â— The secoÌ„d third parts conâ—ined THE 3. PART 1. Ratio Major Minor Conclusio My Major proved 27. Stil it is Gods word whether it be mediat or immediat spokeÌ„ or written My Miner proved S. August saying Pâ—oved also by Protestants What S. Pa meanâ— by his â—epositum Platform of words phrase over above the scripture to be observed D. Aug l. 10. de â—iv Dâ—i c â—3 His ans to my â—â—st aâ—â— I did rightly infer out of his wordes The writte word not proved by another written word go by traditioÌ„ A place of script produced ans Another answered Mr H A. his first answ how the word of God is known so to be How Christ both hath no need hath need of mans testimoniâ— Scriptures in actu 2. not in 1. needs witness His 2. answer What he means by the 〈…〉 in all people That this spirit is not in the church of Amsterda His third Answer What is to be understood by comparing one place with another Collatione in diverse times in the self maÌ„ often causeth divers judgments Hereticks have had stil this coÌ„parison oâ— places Your grouÌ„d not able to coÌ„fute an Arâ—an What the seale of your pâ—it is His ground tâ—achâ—th â— mâ—â— beleâ—ves before he reades the scripture Another aâ—s of his Calv. â— inst c. 7. S. â— 2. 4 〈◊〉 â— Al heretiks doe bâ—ag of their private spirit How I distinguish hereticks The Iewes cannot object against us the law and the Prophets Generall motives to conâ—â—nce a Iew. How the high preist hood did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many places oâ—â—olâ— scripture to prove the visibilitie of the church That the church of God hath never erred AdaÌ„ did not err in doctrine if he did against our adversaries owne grounds Moses al the Levites free froÌ„â—dolatrie Iudg. 2. How the word all is to be understood In what sense Elias was said to be left alone A breif râ—â— so that the ch of God is and hath been stilâ— visible The resolution of my religioÌ„ the same with S. Cypr. How the word of God the Church may depâ—â— I doe not deny for my witness the spirit of God The difficultie and hardness of thâ— scriptures in principal matters Parvus error in principio magnus est in fine His answer refuted Not onely the matter but the manner of proving is difficult The brasen serpent before an image became an idol a. Cor. 6 16 Our adversaries ignorance like that of the Moabites 〈◊〉 Latria Dulia All the Apostles alike in power of order but not in jurisdictioÌ„ The Popes confirmation of the CouÌ„cel of Châ—lc required contra hereticum Eutich This was a judicial coÌ„firmation Diverse Councelâ—s confirmed by Popes Act. 15. against M. H A. Note The 19 v. examined S. Hieron Also v. 15. 16. Act. 15. The reason why S. Iames did speak S. Peter did not speak risen but rising Why Gamaliel rose up Gamaliel spoke rather as a â—â—â—ind then as a judge Gamaliel did use rather a favorable perswasion then a definitive sentence Act. 17 16. makes against him His similitude against him self The First of Pope Stephen examined Pope Formosus witnessed for a holy man Decret 40 examined Boniface no flattâ—â—er of the Pope ad â— 6. distinct 〈◊〉 How the P. dispenseth against the law of nature in som sense â—â— My third Argumenâ— M. H. A. contented to be drie beaten The uniform consent of the church may easilie distinguish whether scriptures 〈◊〉 â—acked Many thinges beleeved not expressed in the 〈…〉 Thatâ—… Intriâ—secal he the word of God is so of it self but to bee knowen of us it depends of the tradition of the Church THE FOVRTH PART Mr. M. A. walkes in a circle Ioh. 15 16. Ioh. 16. 14. Ioh. 3. 9. 11 Here it is proved that he doth petere principium Mr H. A. walkes in a circle Jo. 10. 27. His discourse is unprofitable Mr H. A. to solution circular fruitless endlesse He cannot tell what this inward testificatioÌ„ is Mr H. A. resolution uncertain Many absurdities sequeles of his doctrin No parcel of scripture affirms the whole scripture to be scripture What should authorise that scripture that should give autheÌ„tickness to all the rest By his opinion Gods providâ—ce is weakned Whether the holie fathers had this spirit or not makes against him That the auncient fathers had this spirit Mr H. A. places of scripture retorted on himself His spirit not Apostolical His answ pretended General groundes reselling the privat spirits proofe A threefold difference between the old and new testament The Catholicke opinion defended from such a idle proofe A general doctrine first to be presupposed The motives of our religioÌ„ of evident credibility The author of our religion the first motive This argument S. Chrysost orat 2 et 3. contra Iâ—â— a os et D. Augustin lib. decaâ—â—chisandis rudibus The second motive The third motive antiquitie Our Antiquitie in cluded in the name Catholick Beza in praefatione novi testa printed 1565. calls the name catholick a vaine word Humfrei in vita Iuelli a vaine terme pag 113. Sutlcif in his chalenge pag 1. fruictless name the like did Gaudentius as appeareth out of S. Aug. lib. 2 contra Gaud. c. 25. Muscul in
THE TRYING OVT OF THE TRVTH BEGVNN AND PROSEQVVTED IN CERTAYN Letters or Passages between Iohn Aynsworth and Henry Aynsworth the one pleading for the other against the present religion of the Church of Rome The chief things here handled are 1. Of Gods word and scriptures whither they be a sufficient rule of our faith 2. Of the Scriptures expounded by the Church and of unwritten traditions 3. Of the Church of Rome whither it be the true Catholike Church and her sentence to be received as the certayn truth Published for the good of others by E. P. in the yeare 1615. E. P. to the Christian reader CHristian reader I having had some interest in the conveyance of the passages here following and with the coÌ„sent of both the writers taken knowledge of the matter in controversie was moved and did resolve to publish it to the view of others Considering that the subiect and question handled is very profitable and the truth therein necessary to be knowen And whereas the controverters are so different in iudgment and yet both of them for conscience sake suffer afflictioÌ„ being separated froÌ„ the Ch of Engl the one to the practise of a Romane Catholik the other to a way thereunto most opposite and both of them being leaders men of note in their so much different religions it may move a desire to see the thing further prosecuted between them and provoke a going forward where the stay is I have without prejudice but not as I hope without the good liking of both parties who ech of them seemed unto me very willing that any should read their writings put forth these things hoping that some benefit may come to the readers hereby whom I wish all of them to follow the Apostles counsel to try the spirits whether they be of God His grace be with us all to guide us in the truth Amen E. P. The occasion and beginning of the passages following MR. Iohn Aynsworth whiles he was prisoner in London had conference with some other prisoners that differed in religion from him about the right way of mans justification before God c which things he after answered in writing also with this challenge at the end Let who will answer it I could wish for name sake Mr Henry Aynsworth might see it If any answer it let him set to his name as I set down mine to stand to all and then I will deal with him Iohn Aynsworth This writing was as he wished sent to the party by him nominated who upon the receipt thereof wrote as foloweth To Mr Iohn Aynsworth prisoner in London Mercy from God our Father and the Lord Iesus Christ our hope MR Aynsworth I received a writing under your hand and name touching some controversie in religioÌ„ you defeÌ„ding the faith of the church of Rome that now is against such as haue forsaken her for departing from the ancient faith of the church that was in Rome when Paul wrote thereunto among whom we are the witnesses of Iesus Christ. You provoke in the end who will to answer your writing but wish for names sake my self mought see it promising if any answer it affixing his name you then will deal with him Though I have at this tyme other opposites to answer and affayres important lying upon me yet vvould I not altogither let passe this occasion offred by your self whom for nation and name I knovv not vvhither also for neerer alliance I regard as is meet greeving for your estate who are in captivity not so much in body as in soul from vvhich if I could procure your release I should be glad The vvay to doe you good or any that is in like error I take to be this that vve begin at the root and ground vvork of our religions in vvhich if vve can accord there vvilâ—e more hope of other things As first hovv our differences shal be tried and composed vvhether by the verdict of God or of man If of God as I hold then vvhere this is to be found vvhâ—ther in the scriptures of the old and nevv testament or in the vvritings and mouthes of other men If in holy scriptures vvhich is my faith then commeth to be considered vvhat they are and hovv to be used My self doe imbrace the vvritings of all the Prophets novv extant from Moses to Malâ—chie vvho vvrote all in Hebrue the Chaldee in Ezra and Daniel counted therevvith of all the Apostles and Evangelists vvhich vvrote in Greek as is novv generally received By all and every of these I offer my faith to be tried and to make tâ—yall of other faith offred The use of these to be vvith all care and reverence sobriety sanctitie and vvisdome ministred by the holy Ghost And here may be questioned in vvhom the faith of a ChristiaÌ„ should rest vvhither on the Churches sentence vvithout doubt or contradiction or vvhither he should also have assurance in his owne hart by Gods vvord and spirit If the Church be our stay then are vve to inquire vvhere and vvhich it is and so to consider the doctrines that it teacheth Among vvhich this is one principal vvhich you treat of in your vvriting hovv our synns shal be forgiven and vve justified in the sight of God Thus may vve proceed in order if you please to begin vvith these grounds I am vvilling as my leysure shal serve me not only to hear vvhat you can say for your religioÌ„ but also to inform you vvhere I see you err If you like not thus to deal but vvill insist on the question in hand I shall not be unvvilling to defeÌ„d my Saviours suffrings as alsufficient for my salvation and of all that trust in him That vvhich shal be prosecuted betvveen us if ought be I desire may be doon in love and meeknes in simplicitie and sincerity vvith brevity and perspicuitie all vvhich I shall labour for through the grace of God and exhort you to doe the like Othervveise from fruitlesse quarrels I shall furcease folovv more comfortable meditations Thus vvish I your farevvell in soule and body From Amsterdam this 4. of September 1609. Your freind to use in all Christian dutie Henry Ainsworth Vnto this letter Mr Iohn Aynsworth returned this answer I Accept with all willingnes Mr Aynsworth of your ready offer viz. that we should draw our disputations and controversies to a maine and principall point and foundation of our religion For as in the spiritual building faith is a foundation and main pillar so also in the mysteries and principalls of our faith there be some that as it were transcend through the whole body of controversies and serve therein as Maister-springes by whose motion and proof all things rest sufficiently satisfyed and proved to any indifferent judgement Amongst others this question by you propounded hath no meane place For if I square out all the beleife I mainteyn onely by approved and vnfallible rule my affertioÌ„s must needs be as
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
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
spake otherweise as wanting light Our Saviours most holy doctrines vvere vvronged and depraved in the highest degree by Pharisees vvill you therfore conclude that his doctrine vvas not a true and indeficient rule of faith Bevvare of such pleading and learn rather of the Apostles vvho though men depraved the scriptures yet referred the Christians unto them as being able to make us vvise vnto salvation through the saith that is in Christ Iesus and to make the man of God absolute and perfect unto all good vvorks 2. Tim. 3 15. 1â— Fiftly and lastly you argue many mysteries of our faith 〈◊〉 beleeved that are not explicitly declared in the word of God 〈…〉 iâ—fallibly prescinding from al traditions of the catholik church 〈…〉 theÌ„ce so that they are sufficient to make one beleeve that 〈…〉 act as our faith requireth Therfore that which makes these mysteries worthy of constant beleef is a rule of faith as wel as the written word whither they be traditions divine or Apostelical The first part of this your argument I deney for neyther many nor any mysteries of our faith are without their due and sufficient proof from the holy scriptures You labour to confirm that you sayd thus because till Moses 〈…〉 word but men were taught by traditioÌ„ You allege also Exod. 14. thou shalt tel thy 〈…〉 Deut 〈◊〉 ask thy father and he wil shew thee c. Iob 8 ask the former generation c. Also how after our Saviours coÌ„ming the Apostles preached viva voce before they wrote c. Your first reason is altogither insufficient for though the scriptures could be no perfect rule of faith before they were written yet after the writing of them they mought be and so were You might as well say neyther tradition nor doctrine by lively voice could be a rule of faith before it was spoken You might also say the scriptures are not sufficient to make one beleeve any one mysterie of faith seing before Moses all mysteries were taught by voice The pattern of the Tabernacle shewed to Moses on the mount could be no perfect rule for him to build by before it was shewed Was it not therfore a perfect and sufficient pattern after it was exhibited Even so the scriptures now that they are written are a sufficient rule and assurance of our faith Ioh. 20. 31. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. Your other allegations out of Moses Iob wil serve much better for the Iewish traditions then for yours and confirm their Thalmud and Cabala rather then your papal decrees But the Apostles turned the Iewes from their vain conversation received by the tradition of the fathers and would not have them take heed to Iewish fables and coÌ„mandments of men that turn from the truth Our Lord also reproved the traditions of the Pharisees though received from their Elders Mat 1 2 3. c. by which you may learn God opening your hart that Israel was not left to unwritten verities for a ground of their faith but were to tel their children the works of God that they had seen and heard as we all are to doo ours and for a rule of their faith and life to teach them Gods written law This you may see by the 44. and 78. Psalms wher the fathers told their children such things as are written in the books of Moses Iosua c. which as they continued the rule ground of 〈◊〉 rough out the Prophets ages so Malachi the last Angel of the old Testament comendeth them to the memorie of the church even as from the first giving they were the inheritance of the same The power and authoritie of vvhich Lavv and Prophets vvas so great as our Saviour sayth hâ—â— that vvil not hear them neyther vvil they be persvvaded though 〈◊〉 from the dead agayn Bevvare therfore least vvhile you â—â—â—k to support traditions you supplant Christian faith for a levv vvil presse you by tradition to receive their Cabala as vvel as their prophets seing you have had these all from them cannot vvithout them by your ovvn grouÌ„ds tel vvhat is canonical scripture vvhat is not and they doâ— affirm that God gave to Moses a double lavv the one vvritten the other by vvoâ—d of mouth â—ambam 〈◊〉 Misnajoth Your particulars insisted upon for the equal 〈◊〉 of 〈…〉 persons in the god hed the baptising of infant the proâ—… hâ—ly Ghost the keeping of the Lords day the lawfulnes to â—at blood c vvhich you think can not be proved by scripture without tradition shâ—w that you are too much a stranger in Gods book for it afffordeth us sufficient proof for all of thâ—se And 〈…〉 us if we 〈…〉 without sure grouÌ„ds froÌ„ scripture shame would cover our faces before Arrians Anabaptists other heretiks if we should leâ— goe our 〈◊〉 foundation to build upon your sands As for other points of Masse for the dead c vvhich you mention upon certayne fathers credit as it hath no ground in Gods book so by the same it may easilie be refuted and what God condemneth no man can justify Wheras you all 〈◊〉 2 Thes. 2. and other like testimonies for traditions I readily grant you to accept all traditions divine or Apostolical for they were the coÌ„mandements of God but your church traditions I refuse for they are the institutions of mâ—n I grant you also that Paul taught more things by word then were written in that his Epistle but that he taught any thing as needful for salvation without warrant from the scriptures I deney or that the suÌ„m and effect of all that he taught be not in the Prophets his own and other evangelical writings If you wil not beleeve me beleeve himself who testifieth that he sayd none other things then those which the Prophets Moses did say should come beleeve an other Apostle which sayth thâ—se things are written that ye might beleev c. that in beleeving ye might have life through Christs name And wheras you wonder how men should deney the necessary vse of traditions asking if we will beleeve the Apostles why then we wil not beleeve them that lived in the Apostles dayes and such holy fathers as flourished shortly of er you may stay your wonder if you consider how Paul teaâ—hâ—th that the scripture is able to make a man vvisâ— unto salvation absolute and perfect unto every good work for now there is no necessary vse of other traditions unlesse it be for works that are too good and they be I trow work of supâ—rerogation You may also answer your own question if you mind how there lived in the Apostles dayes many vain talkers and deceiveâ—s of minds many false prophets that were gone out into the world and many Antichrists and how after their departing there entred in grâ—â—vous wolves Now seing such weeds flourished shortly after in the garden of the Lord is it not more safe for us think
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
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
having fayled in his fidelitie is in special excited unto duty diligence al the other should be excluded Doe you not see hovv after this Paul shevveth Eph. 4. not Peter onely but Apostles Prophets Evangelists Pastors and Teachers to be given of Christ for the building up of his church Your conclusion to be inferred hereupon if you conclude the question wil be much more unreasonable The point you undertook to prove vvas that not Gods vvord in the Bible but the catholik churches yea the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith To confirm this haeresie you produce here Christs charge to Peter Freed my sheep Behold Novv the strength of your argument If Peter vvas to feed Christs sheep then not Gods vvord in the scriptures but Peters definitive sentence and consequently the Popes is an indeficient rule of faith But Peter vvas to feed Christs sheep Iohn 21. Frgo c. The unreasonablenes of vvhich consequence if the bare rehearsal of it doo not convince may be shewed by the like thus If the Bishops of Ephesus vvere to feed the church of God then not Gods vvord in the scripture but their definitive sentences vvere indeficient rules in matters of faith But the Bishops of Ephesus vvere to feed the church of God Act. 20. 28. Ergo. If the Elders of the churches of Galatia Cappadocia Asia and Bithynia were to feed the flocks of God then not Gods word in the Bible but their definitive sentences were indeficient rules in matters of faith But the Elders of those churches were to feed the flock of God 1 Pet. 5 â— 2. Ergo. Behold what deep waters you have digged out from the Rock of Rome their spring I trow comes from the bottomlesse pitt If you say those Elders were under Peter as a head therfore they were to feed with his definitive sentence not their own First I deny that so they were under him and you shal never prove it whiles Rome gates doo stand though I grant their office was inferiour to the Apostles Secondly if you could prove it yet would it make against you for if because Peter was their head therfore they must feed with his doctrine onely then because Christ was Peters head Peter was to feed with Christs doctrine onely But Christ was Peters head acknowledged by Peter himself to be Arch pastor so taught by Christ himself Iohn 10. Therfore Christ definitive sentence onely not Peters much lesse the Popes is the indeficient rule of our faith And thus my cause is confirmed and yours overturned by your own weapon Yet you procede and say besides Christ speaks to S. Peter that he should feed his general flock though he may speak unto the other Apostles that they should feed their particular charges I would we might once have an end of words of wind You say al things but prove nothing unlesse your definitive sentence also must be taken for a law But then I am sure it is against Christs law for as he neyther used the word general to Peter nor the word particular to the other Apostles so wheÌ„ he sent them with their charge al indifferently it was unto al nations yea into al the world to preach the gospel to every creature and as the Father sent him so sent he them And where now I pray you were their particular charges But let it be as you say let the Apostles and al Christian Bishops their successors have these precincts in al nations in al the world and what place is over and beside let your Peter the Pope have there to menage his supremacie But here you bring your S. Leo to speak for S. Peter and I know he was his freind for I shewed before how he placed Peter in the fellowship of the indivisible unitie so making him a God I know also have shewed that in the same 3. anniversarie sermon which you cite he speaketh more for S. Peter then you bring here how be it though the Lion roreth he hath got no prey For the headship hath been proved to be Christs not Peters the Apostleship to be Peters with the other Apoltles And though you again and again doe barely affirm S. Peter was head of al the rest of the Apostles yet I must tel you again again that I hold not your definitive sentence nor the Popes neyther to be a right rule of faith but if you can bring the word of God for you that thrâ—ugh his grace I wil gladly receive In the end of this your velitation you leav me to impuâ—ne â— B. â—armines doctrine as it heth c. But your captayn comes not into this feild he lyes intrenched within the walls of Rome and triumphes in the Vatican It is you that have bid me battel and as you entred not these lists without an alarme so you wil not depart I trow without an io triumphe Yet to say the truth in answering you I have answered your Cardinal for your reasons be his you have taken them out of his skoncâ— Onely you have culled them out here and there in other order have taken the most pregnant arguments that he hath Which being by him and by you propounded by me now answered you are to look whither the propugning of them shallye upon him or on you against this my impugnation Or if you wil let them dye you may sound the retrait The 3. and last thing which you promised to prove was that this rule the indeficient rule of faith is onely found in the Roman Catholik church sentence and not in privat mens illuminations or motions of a priâ—â—t and unseen spirit Both parts of this your divided proposition I disallow and mainteyn a third viz that this rule is to be found in the writings Prophetical and Apostolical because as your Cardinal hath wel sayd nothing is more known nothing more certeyn then the holy scriptures which are conteyned in them and this is a most certayn and a most safe rule of beleeving Before vvhen you came to shew your proof it was that your Roman church is the true and onely catholik church of God Which though I doo deney yet if I did grant it it would not prove your assertion For it is the voice of the bridegroom not of the bride which is the ground of mens faith the catholik church is to receiv lawes and rules from her head Christ not to prescribe lawes or rules to her members There is one Lawgiver who is able to save and to destroy But because your church must first be proved true catholik before her sentence can be approved therefore I was content to look into this first branch requiring proof that your Roman church is the true then the onely catholik for I deney both What proofs you brought before how I answered them I leav to indifferent consideration and wil now again take
novv stands charged to be a harlot vvilbe her ovvn judge and decide the controversie her self If you grant Mahomet but this one ground for himself I vvarrant you he vvil vvin the feild And if you can prove unto me but this one ground vvhich being the question is here begged by you I vvill soon receive alâ— doctrines traditions ceremonies that your mother church propoun â—eth But I have shevved you a more certaine playn and infallible vvay the old and good vvay vvherein our Fathers* vvalked to decide all controversies by vvhich is the holy oracles of God vvritten by his Prophets and Apostles vvhich if you vvil not yeeld to vvalk in but continue in your catholik aberrations you and your church shall perish in the hovvr appointed and then shal be sayd O heaven rejoyce of her and ye holy Apostles and Prophets for God hath given your judgement not her ovvn upon her 3. You have as you say Gods divine veracitâ—e speaking by the mouth of the church which formally makes you beleeve But vve say I to you have Gods divine veracitie speaking by the mouth of his holy Prophets vvhich have been since the vvorld began and also the comandements of the Apostles of our Lord and saviour vvhich effectually make us beleeve through the spirit God vvhich is given unto us That God speaks in them is pâ—ayn and your selves grant that undoubted veracitie is in his vvords is evident and your selves dare not deney by this divine veracitie vve submitt our selves our churches our faith our actions to be tried of all But your church lifteth up her self to be her ovvn judge and lavvgiver and vvil not suffer her self to be tried by the holy scriptures Thus glorifieth thâ— her self and liveth in pleasure and sayth in her hart I sit a Queen but strong is the Lord God vvhich vvill condemn her 4. You have as you say a supernatural judgement to beleeve in common at least in that all people all nations have so beleeved You need no supernaturall judgement for this for it is a popular carnal reasoÌ„ which the natural man easily receiveth But the spiritual man by supernatural light from the law of God beleeveth in particular though all people all nations should depart from Christ because he hath the sure word of God in the scriptures and the spirit of God by a covenant froÌ„ the Lord. Isa. 59 21. And by this means he discrieth in the wildernes that woman and her mysterie how she sitteth upon many waters or peoples of whose wine the nations having drunk therfore they rage Lastly through all these you have as you say a pious affection through the working of Gods holy grace to beleeve hir et 〈◊〉 hoc et illud and that without any difficultie since you first beleeve there to but one true church and that church cannot err c. I confesse in deed you have the broad and easy vvay wherin yow run on with great facilitie if God of his grace stay you not unto your perdition For by these false grounds your minds are so bewitched that with her great craft she hath caused you to yeild with her flattering lipps hath entised you and ye folow her straightway as oxen that goe to the slaughter and as fools to the stocks for correction til a dart strike through your liveâ— as birds hastâ—â—â— to the snare not knowing that it is for their lives For by beleeving this and that as your catholik mother dooth propound and not trying nor daring to trie her propositions by the book of God you have quite lost the ancient catholik and Apostolik faith vvhich was in the Churches of God in Rome Corinth Galatia throughout all nations as whensoever you bring your opinions to the trial by Gods authentik writings will appear And though you glorie of S. Peter for your Rock as your ancestors gloried of their Father Abraham yet wil you not folow his holy playn Apostolical counsels when he referrs you to the sure word of the Prophets and to the commandements of them the Apostles of the Lord giving you warning of false teachers to come after which privily should bring in heresies of perdition whose damnable wayes many should follow by whom the way of truth should be evil spoken of What remayneth then if you proceed in this evil course but as yow cleave to your late fathers synns so you be partaker of their plagues And if you will not hearken to that voice from heaven Goe out of her my people you shall hear and feel the effect of that voice which the Angel standing in the sun crieth so lowd to al fowles of the heaven to come unto the supper of the great God wher they shall eat the fleshes of Kings and high captayns and of mighty men and of horses and horsmen of freemen and bondmen of small and great when the beast and the false prophet which deceived with miracles them that received his mark shal be cast alive into the lake of fyre burning in brimstone To save you from this perdition loe how large a letter I have written unto you this second time testifying unto you the word of God and against the erroneous grounds or quicksands rather wheron you build your faith God offring me this occasion by your self I have out of the love of my hart endevoured to save your soule froÌ„ death by shewing you the way of life choose life therfore that you may live Look into the book of God wherin you seem to me to be a stranger and pray unto him for understanding in the same so shall you find more light to your eyes more coÌ„fort to your hart then the caâ—t lodes of later Doctors Fathers Councils c. can give unto you And if you will not be warned I shal lament your estate yet whiles I may I will doo you good and as for all reproches taunts vituperies which you hav already uttered or may yet further utter against me I shal willingly bear and bury them and use all good means I can to save you from the damnation of hel God open you eyes and perswade your hart unto the sight obedience of his most holy faith â— once given unto the saincts Amen From Amsterdam this 16. of April 1610. Yours if you wil be Christs Henr Ainsworth If you have sayd what you can against the scriptures of God their alsufficiencie for mans faith you may if you please shew your strongest argumets for your Roman catholik church as you cal her and her definitive sentences Or procede if you think good to some other grounds and mayn controversies between us Onely be advertised to folow the good counsel of him whom you count the Rock of your faith If any man speak let him speak as the words of God 1. Pet. 4. 11. There being no reply
Pâ—â— 26 16 〈…〉 Deut 32. v. 7. Psal. 43 1. Prov. 3 8 〈◊〉 6 â—6 〈◊〉 8 1◠〈◊〉 4 4 3. 2 Thes. 2 15. 2 〈◊〉 2 1. so we saâ— the proposing of the word of God by the church and the 〈◊〉 of the Church bâ— hâ—r hâ—ad councells and hâ—lfe ancient faâ—â—â—â—◠〈◊〉 not resist but rather help the scriptures And aâ— to â—â—plicate the law 〈◊〉 neither 〈◊〉 deâ—itâ—e to tâ—e right hand or to the lâ—ft no more 〈◊〉 â—â— to 〈◊〉 the scripture according to vâ—â—â—ersalitie antiquitiâ— and consâ—nt And here 〈◊〉 â—â— to be understood that such an addition is prohibited that to 〈◊〉 to the law of God as appeareth vp 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 chap. v. 3. where he brings in before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how he did 〈◊〉 Bâ—al phâ—gor for 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 for adding or 〈◊〉 as the teâ—t â—â—pâ—ies v 2 â— 4 Deut. Againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Deut. 12. â—2 That 〈◊〉 I coâ—â—aund thee that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 Lord thou 〈◊〉 â—â—t adde o◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is here 〈◊〉 but an heath 〈◊〉 and an 〈◊〉 of their children to God as they did to their idols as appeareth out of the 30 verse of the same chapter Is here any prohibition of câ—nsicating the true sense of the law And in the self â—â—me sense â— prohibition of an idolatrous or falâ—â—fying addition is prohibited Deut. 4 v. 2. â—â—u shall not adde unto the word I speak unto you and in this sense that of the â—poâ— the last chap. v. 18 et â—9 and first of S. Paul to the Gal. chap. 1 v 8 as S. Aug teacheth vs in tract 98. in Johannem 10. Now wheras you retort my reasoÌ„ vrged against you showes you have good will to maintayn the tennis plaie how unpractised soever you are therein For as I remember I reasoned thus taking occasion out of Deu. 5 v. 32. no man may ad unto the fourth coÌ„maÌ„demeÌ„t it is to be kept therfore the 4 coÌ„mandemeÌ„t is to be kept onely to be kept As it should follow by the selfe same reason No man may adde in that â—â—â—â—d to any particular scripture and this or each parcel of scripture is the word of God therfore this or each parcell of scripture is onely scripture or the word of God Or thus the scripture is a sufficient rule in that kind for that which it teacheth therfore it is the onely sufficient rule where you may plainly see if you will not blinâ—â— that I conclude sufficiently against you But you complayn that my redditum or conclusion doth not showe his head I answer we doe not use ever in the schooles the premises being presupposed veâ—â—â—lliâ— to inferr the conclusion which followes necessarily As if I should argue thus Whosoever builds his religion onely on the privat spirit is a flat hereriche But Mr. Henry Ayns worth doth this the go without any more I know will excuse me from inferring a lame conclusion in that every one that hath common sense wil see what followes 11. Now to answer to that of the Gal. 1. v. 8. But though we or an Angel from heaven should euangelise to you besides that I have euangelised un to you be he an anathema which text makes much against you dooth nothing prove that which you would inferr viz. that the written word of God is sole sufficient For first there it is sayd besydes that which I euangelize that is eyther in writing or word of mouth so that you see tradition is not obscurely implied 2. we may note out of these words that the text doth not prohibit any explicatioÌ„ or true glosse on the text but onely that which is contrarie for verse 6. he marvails that they should be transported to another gospel So that you see all additions not contrary additions are forbidden in this and the like place But first here your gospelling is against S. August lib. 17. contra FaustuÌ„ where he teacheth that the Apostle saies not more theÌ„ you have received but besides that you have received or else S. Aug saies he should have prejudicated himself that did desire to come to preâ—ch to the Thessalonians and he concludes he that supplies that which was too litle doth not take away that which was too litle or wâ—nting 12. And S. Augustin in his 98 tract notes that the word besides doth not prohibit more or other preaching or teaching as the trabitioâ—â— and explications of the church bee but such as are contrarie or disagreeing to the rule of faith and S. Augustine notes that the Apostle both not say if any doe euangelize to you more theÌ„ you have received but besides For if he had forbidden any more S. John had synned that wrote after the Apocalyps 13. You upbraide me in saying this answ is none of the word of God but my owne saying that I have not a tittle of the word of God to prove it which you have and for to prove pour purpose you â—â—te the 30 of the Proverbs the 6. v adde nothing unto his wordes least he reproove thee which text proves no more theÌ„ the other text explicated that coÌ„rrarie doctrine â— not explicatioÌ„s aâ— here prohibited so that we see our archer hath lost another bolt shot at randâ—Ì„ to seek his brother 14. But wheras you say my answer is not warranted of God is not true For read RoÌ„ the last v. 17. Observe diligeÌ„tly those that cause division and diffention besides the doctrine you have learned where Erasâ—us turnes it in his translation contra against and your Bezaes translation reades so if contrarie S. Ambrose also reades si contra so that we see repugnant and not explicating doctrine contrarie and not more doctrine of the self same kind is prohibited 15. Wheras you say my reasoÌ„ is against myself in that the Prophets did not adde of their own but of Gods no more I say the definitions of the church be mans own but Gods ther being one self samâ—… of Christ and hiâ— Church He that heareth you heareth me and he that contemneth you contemneth me S. Luke 10 16. which is true also of particular churches but so fart forth as their doctrine accordeth with the Romane catholik church 16 But where you say you will inlighten my eyes with the lamp oil that stincketh by your false interpretation of the holy fathers sense I am litle beholden to you For S Chrysost and S. Ambrose in those places cited by you wil have nothing else understood but that the expositors must applie theÌ„selves to the true sense of the scripture the law â— not to corrupt the sense though on good pretences But you 〈◊〉 H. A. if you would haâ— the dust wiped of your spectacles might have seen Dyonisius Areopagita in the yeare of our Lord 100 and the Apostles schollar in his first chapter of his celestial Hierarchie show how the Apostles did declare their doctrin partly by writing partly not by
faithful vvay of reasoning If as your maÌ„ner is you vvould have me to vnderstand it in the first I vvill so Then it is thus That which is not by it self known for Gods word cannot be tâ—e rule of faith This now I deny and your proof is vvanting The proof vvhich you make for it as you had set it down I admitt of concerâ—ing the vvord of God onely vvhere you extend Gods vvord to the definitions of the church c. I run not so farr vvith you But require you to prove your churches councils fathers definitions to be Gods vvord vvhich you doo not Your 2. proposition I deny for the scriptures by themselves vvithout your traditions may as easily be known for Gods vvord as the Sun in the firmament may be known to give light vvithout a candle This I vvill manifest hereafter Yoâ— seek to prove your aâ—â—ertion by authority of men That I refuse as insufficient by authority of Christ vvho theweth their religion to be vayn vvhich teach for doctrines the precepts of men Mat. 15. 9. Secondly you allege a reason Since we doo not see or heare God in his known Prophets to write or speak the word c. there must you say be one certayn rule or depositum fidei As 1 Tim. 6. 20. 2. Tim. 1. 13. 14. have thou a form of sound of words etc. whence you gather that Christians must keep acertain platforme of words delivered to them over and above Pauls epistles amongst which you name for one Transsubstantiation I answer first God his vvisdome power majesty truth c. are to be seen as evidently in the vvritings of the Prophets and Apostles as his eternall power and Godhead are to be seen in the creatures of the vvorld Rom. 1. Ps. 19. although Atheists cannot see these in the one nor Papists in the other Secondly as men doo not hear God vocally in his Prophets so if they did hear him in them or in Christ his sonn yet could they not beleeve vnless Gods spirit illuminated their harts Iohn 12. 37. 39. So your reason is against Christ himselfe as vvel as against the â—…pture Thirdly the church whereto you vvould send us when 1. â—ayth this is Gods vvord how shall men know it so to be any more then they knew the vvords that Christ spake to be Gods unless you lift vp your church above Christ. Fourthly vvhat church mean you Greek or Latine or AEthiopian and how shall men know Christs Church from Antichrists And if the Latin church tel us the fables of Tobit and Iudith are Gods canonicall scripture and the Greek church say they are nor but apocryphal vvhich of these shall vve beleeve Thus you vvould draw us into a vvilderness vvherein vve may loose all stay of faith and fall eyther into despayr or atheisme To those vvords of Paul I have answered before and to let pass your mistaking as if he did inioyn a sound of words as you vvrite further I vvould have you manifest if you can vvho are Timothees successors and vvith vvhom he left Pauls depositum as you call it And how a man may know your kenophonie and monstrous vvord of TraÌ„substantiatioÌ„ to be one of Pauls holsom vvords rather then the Lutherans Consubstantiation Your contending against the distinction vvhich I gave of beleeving things necessary to salvation and other things not necessary as whither Peter were ever at Rome or no and the like I leave to the judicious reader seing you cannot or vvill not vnderstand and rest in the truth Your marginall argument that The written word is not proved by an other written word therefore by tradition I reject as false and inconsequent so proved in my former vvriting You in reciting the scriptures vvhich I brought doo maym the texts to ease your shoulders In Iohn 20. 30 31. you leave out these words and that in beleeving you might have life through his name So in 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. you neyther mention nor answer this that by the scriptures the man of God may be perfect and perfectly fitted vnto every good work Whereby â— proved that faith vnto life and every good vvork may be learned out of the scripture as I inferred When you cannot answer you call me the perverter of the holy Ghost Let the prudent judge Vnto your answers made to my evident demonstrations by the book of God that the scriptures and spirit of God are sufficient to prove and approve themselves to every conscience I need not make any replye but leave it vnto judgment But to help you if it may be I vvill breefly note your oversights 1. You allege my words sundrie times as if I had sayd Gods spirit is in all people vvhich I never spake nor thought but proved the contrary by Ioh. 14. 17. I sayd Gods spirit is in all his people vvhich if you doubt of see Rom 8. 9. 16. 1 Ioh. 2. 27. You barely say and prove not that in actu 2. the scriptures need testimony of others besides God and his spirit and themselves meaning your Church and Pope you seem to say the like of Christ himself as others of your side hâ—ve playnly spoken By which blasphemie God must be beholding to men Christ to the Pope that by their witness men may beleeve in Christ and his vvord The contrary is evident by Mat. 16. 17. flesh blood sayth Christ hath not reveled it vnto thee but my father vvhich is in heaven See also Gal. 1. 16. 17. and 2. 6. 9. 3. You are often vp agayn vvith your bastard phrase of the private spirit vvhereas al Gods children have the publick or catholick spirit if you vvill so call it as I playnly proved in my former vvriting you have nothing to say against it but that the spirit worketh otherwise in the head then in the foot vvhich is a manifest tergiversation vvhereof in due place 4. You cary your self in this passage about the spirit of God as a sish out of the element as having no relish or feeling of this heavenly grace whereat I much marvel not though I am sory for it Enter into your self and see by vvhat spirit you doo discern the Pope to be Christs vicar as you suppose and his traditions to be Christs oracles Will you not say it is by the spirit of God Now vve are assured that Christ is more able to furnish us vvith the spirit of God then the Pope is to furnish you That you perceive not Gods spirit to be in us but reproch us it is not strange for the vvorld as Christ sayth seeth him not neyther knoweth him Your fathers also could not perceive Gods spirit to be in Christ himself but sayd he had an vnclean spirit and we his servants are not better then our Lord. 5. So for the majesty of the scriptures shining as the sun in his strength by their majesty vvisdom harmony c. proving approving themselves one an
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
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
Peter the office of an vniversall Pastor saying pasce ovâ—s meas feed my flock which sounds as much as have care of my sold. But in S. John the 10. it is sayd that there is but one flock and one shepheard and therefore since he bids him thrise feed his flock he honors him thrise with the stile of an universall pastor And therefore all the fathers joyntly interpret this place of an especiall charge and dominion assigned unto S. Peter investing him thereby in the supreame seat and government of his church and by him he is installed that had all power given him in heaven above and in earth beneath Now lastly and breifly to showe that our Romane Church is the true and onely Catholike Church of God that it is that holy citie Apocal 21. v. 20. that fruitful vine Psa. 79. v. 9. that high mountayne that direct path Isâ— 35. vers 8. that onely Dove Cant 6. v. 8. that kingdome of heaven Mat. 13. v. 24. that onely spouse Cant. 4. v. 8. that mysticall body of Christ Jesu Ephes. 5. v. 23. 1 Cor. 12 v 12. that foundation and rock of the truth 1 Tim. 3. v. 15 that holy multitude to whom such speciall directions of the Holy Ghost is promised Ioh. 14. 26. that Church against which hell gates shall not prevayle Mat 16. v. 18. the which Church was prefigured by the Arlie of Noe out of which none were saved from the all drowning deluge that is that tabernacle posuit tabernaculum suum in sole a tabernacle placed in the sunne conspicuous of all to be seene It is that citie that cannot be hidd S. Math. 8. All which properties belong onely unto our Romaine Catholike Church First our church is Catholik For in my memorie first we onely are catholiks in so much that the name Catholick was hatefull to a Puritaine or a Protestant And therefore Beza in his preface novi testamenti 1565. calls the name Catholicke a vaine word D. Humfrey in vita Iuelli pag. 113. calls it a vain term Sutliff in his challenge a fruitlesse name not unlike GaudeÌ„tius the hereticke who termed the word catholick a humane fiction Vt D. Aug contra Gaudentium lib 2 c. 25 though it be against the article of our beleefe whereas S. Hier Apol. 1. adversus Ruff sayth if we agree with the Bishop of Rome go Catholici sumus â— where S. Hier makes an vnfallible note of a catholicke man to agree with the sea of Rome 2. Our Church is an auncient church and God is more auncient then the Divill truth then falshood the good seed theÌ„ the bad cockle Christs seamless coate then his rent peeces that is Christs Church concording then the division into schismes And if you graunt that once our Church was the true Church but since it hath swarved from her auncient purity and incorruption shewe I praye you which Pope first gave place to the defects by what doctrine first in what age of our Lord on what motive and occasion who openly repugned it how that defect increased But all these points we can prove on your religions and sects Wee can shewe that there was neyther Wicliff Nuss Zuther Calvin of your religion Zuther and Calvin seeme first to have broached it though with in this hundred yeares we can trace theÌ„ forth the yeares motives places increase of their religion as you may read in hystories Wee are not ignorant of the motives that made King Henry the 8. first oppose himself to the Romane church though notwithstanding in his â—ir articles he held and ratified seven sacraments of the Church and conformed himself to al points of the Romane Catholick church onely excepting the point of supremacie Wee can show so that lawful in his dayes and sworne to which of some was held blasyliemy in the latter end of King Edward the 6 dayes That also which was allowed of in his dayes in his coÌ„munion book was defâ—ed in Queen Elizabeths dayes And that in her daies that is rejected in K. James And that in his Majesties dayes now whose Highness offers his religion to be tried by the united consent of the Fathers and the 4. or 5. generall Councells whose triall both his Bishops and you we are assured dare not stand to That which the Protestants now held to be a true lanterne and touchstone of the truth you repute oâ—â—iy as a stumblinâ— block and a stincking snuffâ— We can show that interrupted duration of the Romane catholick church according to that in Daniel the 9. Regnum quod in aeternum non dissipabitur and 5. of the Arts si ex hominibus consilium hoc aut opus dissolvetur si vero ex Dâ—o non potest dissolvi Wee can show the propheâ—y of the psalmist fulfilled Dabo tibi gentes hereditatem tuam et possessionâ—m tuam tâ—minos terrae Psal 2. Et dominabitur a mariusque ad mare Wee can show multitudes of people converted to our religion in the East and west Indies in Iaponia and China by men of our religion and sent by an Apostolicall mission Wee can show how that S. Peter about the 63 year of Christ came hither into EnglaÌ„d Camden in sua descriptione Brâ—tanniae pag. 52. et Nicephorus ut pse refert We read how Pope Eleutherius sent hither anno 156. S Fugatium et Damianum who baptized King Lucius and lastly S. Augustin and his companions Moncks were sent into England and wrought the conversion thereof and that S. Gregorie whom D. HuÌ„frey so farre extolleth p. 2. â—eâ—uitis rat 5. pag. 624. Gregorius nomine quidem magnus revera magnus vir magnus et multis divinae gratiae dotibus exornatus was with his followers of our religion shall moninifestly be proved by D. Humfreys owne assertion p. 2. ratione 5. p. 626. In ecclesiam vero quid induxerunt Gregorius et Augustinus nisi onus caeremoniarum Missarum solennia et Purgatorium so that we see they held those opinions of Masse and Purgatory that of ProtestaÌ„ts is so extreamly condemned Now if we should urge you to showe the succession of your interpreters and teachers from S. Peter you will be mute but we can shewe who succeeded each Pope how long he lived what doctrines he established Lastly we can â—now all sanctity vnitie and conformity of doctrine Out of all which notes we caÌ„ gather our church to be Vnam Sanctam et Apostolicam But you can prove no one of these notes in your church And when you shal be demanded at the tribunall of Almighty God why you hold this faith you now profess you can onely answer the holy and your privat spirit told you it was so though against all antiguitie of â—yme just interpretation of scripture consent of Fathers Greek and Latin But when we shal be demanded why we beleeve in the Romane catholick church we shall answer by reason Christ himselfe teacheth vs so He that heareth you heareth me and he that contemneth you contâ—netâ— me the
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
you to keep the foundation of the Apostles Prophets on which Christs church is builded then to build upon the boâ—â—s of after writers To conclude thâ—â—fore this point Christ sendeth us to serch the scriptures his Apostles doo the like the Prophets before spake also to like effect this counsel by Gods grace I shall folow 〈◊〉 these I wil exercise my self not doubting but I have chosen the better part which shall not be taken from me And unto you that â—…zelous for the traditions of your fathers I shew the counsel of the holâ— Châ—st walk not in the ordinances of your fathers transgresâ—e not the coÌ„maÌ„dements of God by your traditions and presume not above that which is written The second thing you take upon you to prove is That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the Church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith This position if you well understood it I would not strive against for the definitive sentence of that Papa or Father that is head of the church is I confesse such an indeficient rule But the Vicar of Rome is not this Pope it is Christ himself that is Father of eternitie and he is the head of his body the church and he hath forbidden us to call any man our Pope or Father upon the earth for thâ—r is but one our Father which is in heaven Mat. 23 9. But you understand it of an earthly Pope and head and would confirm it by this scripture Luk. 22 31. Simon Simon loe Satan hath desired you to winnow you as wheat c. but I have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not Here first I observe how you labour to confirm the Popes definitive power by the scriptures so that which before you pleaded against as an insufficient grouÌ„d now here you make a ground of grounds and so you are contrary to your self For before you taught me to beleeve this is Gods word because the Pope saith so here you will have me beleeve your Popes sentence to be a rule of faith because the scripture sayth something which you imagine makes for him Thus you would lead me as in a round and I cannot tel what you make the rock of your faith But I wil folow your argument Christ prayed for Simon that his faith upon Satans sifting mought not fayl I grant it neyther did it fayl though he fel greevously Yet this grace made not Simon Pope or Head of the church for it is a grace coÌ„mon to all the elect members of the bodie whom though Satan sifteth and they be often foyled yet rise they again by beleef in God and though their faith often fainteth yet it never faileth or is consumed And this by vertue of Christs prayer or mediation 1. Ioh. â— 1. 2. for Gods gracious gifts are without repentance and Christ giveth all his sheep eternall life and they shall never perish neyther shall any pluck them out of his hand You procede and say that this prayer was consequently for his successors If you mean successors in his office I know not who they be neyther shew you the Popes to be the men If you mean successors in his faith I grant it as before For Peter had the faith of Gods elect as true justifying faith is caled in which faith whosoever succeed or come after him as also they that then lived in like faith with him they were are and shal be by Christs mediation confirmed that their faith which is their life fayl not For example Christ chose 12. Apostles and one of them was a Divil Iscariot who was the Divil fell into syn and Christ prayed not for him so his faith fayled though he coÌ„fessed his syn and he dyed in dispeir hanging himself for he was the Son of losse or perdition and therfore was to be lost that the scripture mought be fulfilled Iohn 17. 12. Simon Cephas fell also into syn above the other ten but he was one of Christs sheep no child of perdition therfore he kept him from being lost praying that his faith mought not fayl And as for him for the rest at an other time he prayed to his father to keep them in his name and not for them alone but for those also which shall beleev in him through their word Wherfore Christ prayed not onely for SimoÌ„ but for all the Saincts though speciall need and use was for him at that time yet as Paul sayth of Abrahams justification it is not written for him onely but also for us so say I of Simons confirmation by the prayer of Christ for whatsoever is written is written for our learning RoÌ„ 15. 4. But you prosequute your argument thus that S. Peter was bidden coÌ„firm his brethren but onely S. Peter and not the church in generall hath brethren Wherupon you would have me gather that this was his special privilege and no mans ells save his successors in the headship Your assumption I withstand as a fallacie proving Peters popedome for confirming his brethren no better then as if you should reason thus Paul sayd to Barnabas let us return and visit our brethren in every citie c. but onely Paul and Barnabas not the church in general have brethreÌ„ therfore onely Paul and Barnabas are Popes of the catholik church and visiters of the same they and their successors If this be not a good reason to prove a supremacie of visitation the other is no better to prove a supremacie of Confirmation For the church in generall is a brotherhood as the Apostle Peter himself calleth it and of this brotherhood Peter was one Paul an other Iohn an other and so the rest not onely the Apostles but all beleevers Wherfore as Simon had brethren so hath every Christian and all are brethren ech to other and all brethren unto Christ. And Peter as he was a joynt elder with the other elders so was he also a joynt brother with the other brethreÌ„ or els he was none of Christs And as for confirming his brethren it is farr from proving a popedome for Paul an other Apostle confirmed his brethren and Timothee an Evangelist did the like and Iudas and Silas being Prophets did the same and all the Angels or ministers of churches are taught of Christ to doo likeweise Wherfore Simons coÌ„mission to confirm his brethren made him not Pope and consequently neyther his supposed successors But you presse the circumstances that our Saviour points out one particular man saying Simon Simon and after having spoken of al particularizeth the speech agayn saying for thee thy faith thy brethren c. I answer there was cause why our Saviour should speak to him thus because in his sifting he should shew more weaknes then the rest and a speciall fore needeth a special medicine But the fore being healed the recured person is as an other man of his
degree and I shewed before that Peter had no privilege in these things above the other Apostles Isâ—ariot onely excepted You next allege from Mat. 16. how Christ sayth he builds his church vpon S. Peter adding moreover that he changed his name and of Simon he makes him Peter and Petra and â—â—phas which name in the Syriah tongue signifies a Rock therby to prevent all frivolous answers c. I wish you more wary in alleging of scriptures Christ sayd he would build his church upon that Rock petra and had changed before Simons name not into that but into Petros And wheras CEPHAS the Syriak name is ambiguous to signifie in Greek both PETRON and PETRAN the ambiguitie is cleared by the holy Ghost in Ioh 1. 43. where Cephas the mans name is interpreted Petros that is in English a stone Moreover that Simons name was not Petra Rock is playn by Mat. 16. wher the Apostle distinguisheth the terms adding also a pronoune demonstrative of the feminine sex which agreeth not with a mans propre name the Syriak also by the demonstrative hada distinguisheth the propre name Cipha from the appellative cipha which otherwise by termination had no difference As it standeth not with the grammatical construction that Simon should have the name of the Rock so neyther standeth it with the theological explication For the Rock signified Christ himself who was figured out to his Church by a Rock 1. Cor. 10. 4. which is a title that Moses and the prophets after him give unto God as perfect is the work of the Rock and the Rock of his salvation and many the like and that he onely is the true and proper Rock of the church we are taught by this and the like speeches vvho is a Rock save our God meaning none ells So Christ is called the head of the church and not any Apostle and he is the onely foundation upon which the church is builded as it is written Other foundation can no man lay then that which is layd which is Iesus Christ. And Peter himself telleth us that Christ is the Rock and living stone unto vvhich all Christians as living stones doe come and are builded to a spiritual house And Simon being a principal stone in this house had therfore the name Peter Stone of Petra as we all of Christ haue the name Christians and as touching faith are living stones that is Peters having obteyned isotimon pistin a like precious faith with Simon Peter himself and the other Apostles though as touching order they were principal next unto Christ as it is written first Apostles secondly Prophets c and then other officers and brethren in their due places Moreover were it granted that Christ meant to build his church upon S. Peter yet was it not upon him onely for it is written Ye are built upon the foundation of th'Apostles and Prophets and agayn the wall of the citie had twelve foundations and in them the nâ—mes of the lambs twelve Apostles Wherfore Christ builded the Church upon the 12. not upon one alone it resteth upon you to prove that by saying super hanc Petram Christ secluded Peter from the rest for the rest had the rock and belonged therto aswel as Simon though he were foremost in the râ—w And though he onely had the name of Peter a stone that exempteth not others from this grace for the two that were next unto him Iames and Iohn onely had the name of Boanerges that is Sonns of thonder yet did not they onely thonder out the gospel or understand as Iob speaketh the thonder of God's power but the other Apostles also had the same office by preaching of the gospel though perhaps not in like manner or mesure of graces The like answer I make for the delivery of keyes to Peter a thing which you barely mention they were not given to him alone For as Christ asked his disciples joyntly and not Peter onely whom say ye that I am so Simon answered not for himself alone but for them all Wherupon Christ pronounced a blessing and annexed promises not for him alone but as you grant for his successors also as I defend for the other Apostles also This may be coÌ„firmed by other like testimonies as Iohn 6 67. where Christ saying to the 12. will ye also goe away then Simon Peter answered Master to whom shal we goe wherby it is playn that Christ asking all when one answered he answered for all therfore also the blessing upon the answer must concern all and so the promises not peculiar to Peter but coÌ„mune with the rest So also in this particular of the keyes for further proof wherof set you down by the scriptures what is meant by keyes and I will shew you by scriptures also that the 12. Apostles had equal power in using them Your supply of proof from testimonie of later doctors I leave as insufficient their writings neyther being authentik nor any thing so ancieÌ„t as the Apostles writings and the most ancient records I stand to be tried by Yet if I lysted to fight with such weapons I could cite Doctors against Doctors and many against you Augustine most plainly contrarying your opinion and saying that the Rock was that vvhich Peter confessed knew when he sayd that Christ was the son of the living God and that the Rock was Christ not Peter but I will not presse you with mans auctoritie the book of God shal be my panoplie and sufficient artillerie Your last proof is from Iohn 21. Where Christ sayd to Peter Feed my sheep which sounds as much you say as have care of my fold but in S. John 10. it is sayd there is but one flock and one shepheard c. and therfore he honours Peter thrise with the stile of an Universal Pastor This reason hath like frayltie as the former I deney that Peter alone was to feed Christs sheep for he sent al his Apostles with that charge Mat. 28. 19 20. and before this speech to him he had sayd to them all As my father sent me so send I you Ioh. 20 21. Peter therfore as he was sympresbyteros joint elder with the rest not archipresbyteros cheif elder so was he also sympoimen a joynt Pastor with the rest and not archipoimen Cheif pastor as you would have him for himself telleth us that Christ is he 1. Pet 5. 4. The same Christ also confirmeth in the place you allege Iohn 10. for there he sayth I am the good Pastor and I lay down my life for the sheep and I have power to lay down my life and have povver to take it again this commandement have I received of my father and I give unto my sheep eternal life and they shall never perish With many like speeches vvhich cannot vvithout blasphemie be applied to any mere man but to him vvhich is one vvith the Father And
to man children when in danger of death before the eight day they necessarily were to receive remedie of their sinne How prove you that our blessed virgin Marie was a perpetuall virgin ante partum in partu et post partum how ar you able to prove this by the bare letter against Helvidius the heretick for he vrgeth you with the plaine text and with originall phrase viz. That he knew her not till the brought forth her first sonne and the word know you know what it imports in the Hebrew phrase As Abraham knew Sara So that you see we beleeve this perfection of the blessed and perpetuall Uirgin Mary by tradition though the bare text seems to make against it How doe you prove that our sunday should be celebrated on sunday and not on saterday by the bare letter without tradition How doe you prove the celebration of Easter as it is now without tradition How doe you prove the Creede of the Apostles out of the naked word How doe you prove without tradition that you should receive the blessed sacrament kneeling the receiving of it fasting the eating of blood and straÌ„gled meates prohibited in the Acts of the Apostles How are you able to prove all these or any one of these by convincing reasons out of the holy scriptures alone All these you say you can prove not alleaging one place of scripture for any of them though you have bene most copious to prove idem per idem in other pointes to little purpose Now you say onely it would goe hard with you if you could not prove these without tradition and me thinks it goes hard with you since you prove not one particular of them all Therfore I desire you that you would not confound your trace so like the Fore or hare in doubling and turning but that you would answer distinctly to each poinct as it lies if you answer Wherfore to shut up this point I will conclude with S. August Genes ad litt â— 10. â— 23. that as he sayes that the not rebaptising of infants were not to be beleeved if it were not taught by tradition So I say these forealleaged mysteries were not to be beleeved without the direction of tradition Now since we are come to the answering of your arguments which are nothing but allegations of scripture falsly applied me thinks I cannot better compare them then as to so many orient pearles and rich Jewels hung and placed out of order in an Judian or â—thiopians lippes nose armes and legges so these places of scripture in that they are racked and wrested from their right sence and meaning their lustre and beautie is rather a disgrace theÌ„ ornament to the wearer For when you bring the place of Deut. 5 32. to take heed that wee should doe as our Lord commaunded us not turning to the right hand nor the left and of that of Deut. 12. 32. not putting any thing therevnto or taking any thing therfrom I answer first granting that God commaundeth this but I deny that hence can be gathered that in that we should doe as our Lord commaundeth us and that we should not turne vnto the right hand or to the left that the holy scripture should be the onely rule and vâ—ptor of faith Fâ—r as it doth not follow nothing is to be added to the fourth coÌ„maundement and the fourth commandement is to be observed therfore there is onely the fourth commaundement and it is therfore the rule of all the rest 2. I answer that all additions whatsoever are not here prohibited but onely such as are contrary to the word of God For many other Prophets as the penn men of the holy Ghost did adde diverse yea most part of the holy scriptures But now it is plaine that the definitions and traditions of the Catholick church by whose mouth the holy Ghost doth dictat are most consonant to the text of scripture For the holy Ghost speaketh by them though not tanquam calamus velociter scribentis For Luke 10. it is sayd he that heareth you heareth me and he that contemneth you contemneth me Math. 18. If he doe not hear the church let him be to thee as an Ethnicke and a Publican and S. Ambrose expounding the last of S. John 18 v. where S. John saith If any man shall adde unto these things God shall adde vnto him the plagues written in this book S. Ambrose saith he makes not a protestation against the expositors of his prophesie but against heretichs For the expositor doth adde nor diminish nothing but onely openeth the obscuritie of the place and sheweth the moral and spirituall sense Now to answer your second argument I wonder how you being a man of vnderstanding should be so much deceived as to think that these places make for you against vs. For wee holding firm our assertion can cite all the self same places Rom. 3. 10. 11 19. that man naturally understands not the things of God that mans wisdome is foolishnes Coloss. 2. 22. For we affirm it the gift of the holy ghost by an infused habit of faith that we beleeve and that by the directioÌ„ of the holy Ghost promised that the Church cannot â—â—r neyther doe we when we allow of tradition make at our pleasure voluntary religion for we acknowledge tradition also to be the word of God the voice of his spouse that is taught in al truth guided up the holy ghost vnto the end of the world Wherfore your argument proves nothing since you presuppose that proved that rests yet to you to prove The like answer I give vnto your third argument viz. that men are dead in trespasses Ephe. 2. 5. Math 15 9. that faith to by hearing and hearing by the word Rom. 10 17. But I deny that the word is the totall or onely rule of faith since we finde many thinges to be beleeved that are not expresslie found in the written word nor thence deduced And to answer breifly vnto your 4 Argument I graunt that the Preists and Prophets were bound to heare the word and that of Ezek. 13. 2 3. that they should not prophesie according to their own heart or follow their own spirit but I deny that they should follow onely the written word or that folowing the voice of the Church the interpretaton of holy Fathers and Doctors they follow their own harts and their own inventions So that you see how weake your arguments be so that they might with more reason bee returned on your self The second thing which you say I take vpon me to prove but more rightly to say onely to propound till the decision of this mayne question be ended which was whether the definitive sentence of the Church and Pope be an infallible rule and guide of our faith Thus questioÌ„ I say I onely inteÌ„ded rather to propound theÌ„ prove that we have not at one tyme diverse proâ—s togither in the fyre But now to handle it by way of vellitation and not of purpose
Loe here agayn my second assertion justified by your C. that the vvord of God is to be found in the Prophets and Apostles vvritings As for the meaning or understaÌ„ding of these scriptures explaned by the church that remaineth for a third consideration But furder to confirm this second he sayth The rule of the catholik faith ought to be certayn and known for if it be not known it wil be no rule to us and if it be not certayn it is no rule at all But nothing is more known nothing more certayn then the holy scriptures which are conteyned in the Prophetical and Aposiolical writings that most foolish must he needs be which denyes that credit is to be given unto them Agayn he confesseth that the holy scripture is a most certayn and a most safe rule of beleeving These things spake your Cardinal though perhaps not of himself but as being high preist that yere when he disputed against the Libertines others that despise tho scriptures of God And thus hath the truth obteyned testimony out of your masters mouth whose learning I crow his scholars wil not withstand or if they doe this dâ—o nâ—s given against them by the lesaitâ— They fight with Moses with the Prophets with the Apostled wich Christ 〈…〉 to God the father and the holy Ghost which contemn the holy scriptures and â—aelâ—s of God Thus have I proved sufficiently as I supposâ— in my former this writing that God vvord vvill is to be found in the propheticall and Apostolical scriptures that if you longer resist you vvilbe condemned of yourself Other humane testimonies out of Augustine Hier many like Doctors I could further all edge to confirm this trach but the vvitnesse of God is venough for me both it and the testimonies of your Cardinal are sufficient against you And novv I come to your first assertion vvhich yovv took upon you to prove That the bare scripture is not a sufficient rule of our beleef â— that many mysteries and points are is be beleeved that are not erpâ—â—slâ— taught or evidently deduced out of the holy scriptures Against this I brought in my former vvriting evident testimonies from heaven as 2. Tim. 3. 16. 17 Iohn 20. 31. 1 Cor. 4. 6. others against vvhich you open not your mouth An â—…g your first argument that vve mought not by any aequivocation mistake one another I shevved my meaning distinctly hovv things many man be beleeved though they be not gathered out of the written word understanding hereby a coÌ„mune or humane beleef wherin men may varie vvithout danger of damnation As for example a man may beleev that the Apostle Matth â—vvvvis in AEthiopia Thomas in India Iude in Persia upon the report of humanâ— records And so Peter at Rome if you vvil But for salvation with God I sayd not any thing is needful to be beleeved â—ave that which is taught by his written word You in your replie seeking advantage by vvords conclude that I hold some tradition necessarie besided the written word thus now have drawen as you say water out of the Rock synce I grant that tradition is necessary to mâ—… beleef Wheras I used not the vvord necessarie but may be evidently restreyned things needful for salvation to Gods written word to that your water is spilt on the grouÌ„d cannot be gathered up agayn hovv ever you may strive about vvords vvhen matter fayleth Agayn my assertion that nothing is needful to be beleeved for salvation with God but that which is taught by his written word is you say most false since nothing with mâ—is more necessarie to salvation then the written word which word is not proved by an other written word c. Where first you fight against God vvho sayth in Iohn 20. 30. 31. Many oâ— her signs did Iesus in the preseÌ„ce of his disciples which are not vvritten in this book but these things are vvritteÌ„ that ye mought beleev that Iesus is the Christ the son of God and that in beleeving ye mought have life through his name And agayn in 2. Tim 3 16. 17. All scripture is inspired of God and profitable for doctrine for reprehension for correction for instruction vvhich is in righteousnes that the man of God may be perfect perfectly tiâ—tâ—d unto every good vvork These are the testimonies of the holy Ghost as your self vvil not dency and in them both faith and all good works are deduced from the scriptures and what more think you is needful for salvation with God â— how then is my assertion most false doe you not gave the lye unto the holy ghost Secondly I wish you to deal plainly distinctly with me my words as I endevour to do with you I hold the word of God to be absolutely necessarie as a means for maÌ„s salvatioÌ„ which is the â—rst point this word was first spoken afterwards writteÌ„ by men that weretâ—aried by the holy ghost To our first fathers the vvord spoken was necessarie sufficient whiles it was not written to us novv the written word is left as a necessarie mean or instrument sufficient to teach us Gods vvil bring us to salvation vvhich is the second point Against the sufficiencie hereof you except that this written word is not proved by an other written word vvheras before I have proved that the scriptures of God doe prov approve coÌ„firm one an other his spirit vvhich is in theÌ„m â—n al his people doth seal that they are true More sound sufficieÌ„t proof ther needeth not nor caÌ„ be had You relie upoÌ„ the church but I say vvith the Apostle if vve receav he vvitnes of mâ— the vvitnes of God is greater As yovv carp here at the vvritten vvord so did the faithlesse Pharisees as the spoken vvord yea at the eternal speaking vvord the son of God himself Thow bravest witnes of thy self sayd they thy witnes is not true Though I bear vvitnes of my self sayd Christ my vvitnes is true for I knovv vvhence I came vvnither I goe but ye cannot tel vvhence I come and vvhich â—r I goe Ye judge after the flesh Even so the scriptures bear vvitnes of themselves say I yovv accept not this theyr testimonie And vvhy doubtlesse because you knovv not vvhence they came you judge after the flesh Our Lord Iesus had the vvitness of Iohn Baptist other men many but he received not the vvitnes of men nor praise of men So the holy scriptures hav vvitnes of the church saincts in al ages but they receav not the vvitnes of men as that vvhich is most irrefragable Christ had greater vvitnes then Iohns for the vvorks vvhich he did bare witnes or him that the Father sent him So the works which the scriptures doo in the consciences of men bear witnes that they are of God The Father himself which sent Christ
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
the truth vvill prevayl in antiquitie against all opposites but then Gods vvord and spirit in his scriptures and servants must be ouâ— bulwark as now they be mine If your Church Pope and traditions will not stand you in stead against Iewes Turks â— thinks but onely for to contend a while against your even Christen then doo you not build upon the Rock nor lay such a ground as all hâ—l gates can not prevail against for these miscâ—eants will prevail against it but wee that rely on Gods word and spirit shall by his grace stand for ever even as the Apostles did by these convert all nations under heaven Wheras I further thâ—wâ—d you â—h insufficiencie of your plea for church traditions by example or Israel whose church and preists â—ared and codemned Christ c. You answer mâ— that the high preisthood that was judge did not err nâ— not when ouâ— Saviour was co deÌ„â—â—d in that the high preisthood remayned in our saviour for he was thâ—… if judge c. But doubtlesse the Pharisees would have smiled aâ—â—his answer wherin you â—â—ke for graunted the main controversie Question was then in Israel whether Iesus of Nazareth were the true Mâ—sâ—â—â— the high preists scribes rulâ—r sayd no he is a deceiver and hath a Dâ—…l if any confesse him to be the Christ let him be excoÌ„municate Dooth any of the rulers or of the pharisees beleeve in him but this people which know not the lawer cursed If you â—ad then lived it seemes you vvould have confuted all the Rabbâ—nes with this that Iesus was the Messias because he was the cheif preist and judge But had you not câ—â—aved othervveise to the scriptures as did th' Apostles and sâ—novv doo they vvould soon have stopt your mouth vvith this that hard controversies were by the lavv to come unto the Preists of the Levites not a Preist of Iuda concerning vvhich tribe Moses spake nothing touching the preisthood and unto the Iudge that should been thâ—se dayes in the place vvhich the Lord did choose vvhich vva Ierusalem not Nazareth or Galilee vvhence Iesus came and hâ—y should shevv the sentence of judgment c and he that vvould not â—â—aâ—ken to the Prâ—â—â— or Iudge should die But vve are the Preists of the Levites vvould they say and by our oâ—ce must teach the people betvveeneth holy profâ—nâ— and in controversie must stand to judge according to â—hâ— lavv vvhich vve teach tel must mâ—n doo now we have a law and by our lavv he ought to dye because he made himself the son of God If now your religion had been known that the Church the preisthood can not err the simple people might have chosen Barâ—bbâ—s rather then Iesus as in deed they did and have had much more colour to plead for Annas and Caiaphas then you have for your Popâ— and succession the pillar of your catholik church would have born down all the disciples of our Lord. Beware therfore how you build upon these â—oggs least you betray the Gospell unto stubborn Iewes Besides all this if you knew the scriptures you might find long before that the church of Israel erred Did not the preists rulers and people condemn the Prophets of God sent in severall ages and was not Ierusalem the holy citie and seat of the preisthood gâ—… of their blood Was not vile and grosse idolatrie practised often in Iuda and Ierusalem by the Preists and Princes so that Ierusalem Aâ—OLâ—â—AH mâ—â—red her self with inordinate love and with her fornications more then her idolatrous sister AHOLAH or Samaria For Iudah forsook the Lord and turned their faces from his tabernacle shut the dores of his howse quenched his lamps and neyther burnt incense nor offred burnt offrings in the sanctuarie unto the God of Israel and will you say in all this the Church did not err Vriah the Preist made an altar idolatrous like that in Damascus and polluted Gods worship in the temple Paâ—h it the son of Immâ—r the Preist being governour in the house of the Lord persecuted Ieremiah for preaching the truth and himself prophesied lyes A general defection was in the church they their Kings their Princes their Preists and their Prophets the men of Iudah the inhabitants of Ierusalem they turned the back unto God and not the fâ—… and sâ—â— their abominations in the house wherupon his name vvas called to defile it and built the high places of Baal and offred their children into Molech The heads of Ierusalem judged for rewards the preists taught for hire and the prophets prophesied for money And wil you yet say the church did not err The Lord sayd by Malachi that his covenant had been with Levi even life and peace and he gave him fear that he feared him and was afrayd before his name the law of truth was in his mouth and no iniquitie found in his lips for the Preists lips should preserve knowledge they should seek the law at his mouth for he is the Angel of the Lord of hosts But of the Preists that theÌ„ lived he coÌ„plaineth that they wâ—r gone out of the way had caused many to fall by the law had brokeÌ„ the covenaÌ„t of Levi for which God made theÌ„ despised vile before al the people And where now is the privilege of the preistood not to err And if the church then erred as many moe proofs may yet be brought if you stil denev it how did the godly for a grouÌ„d of their faith Wil not the law of the Lord his good spirit which he gave to instruct them susteyn is now as it did them then against all errors heresies and idolatries Otherweise Christians now under the gospel should have lesse grace or benefit by the scriptures and spirit of God then thee had then which is contrary to all the promises Thâ—se things I dor the more insist upon to inforce you to a deâ—pâ—r consideratioÌ„ of your estate foundation of you faith which you lay upoÌ„ the sands for though the church is to be respected and honoured above all societies in the world her doctrines admonitions censures to be regarded yet may we not make an idol of her nor set her in Gods throne himself hath taught us from the beginning that the Annointed preist may syn to thr syn of the people a ruler mought syn the whâ—l congregation of Israel mought syn and all were to offer sacrifieâ— for their trespasses that all flesh may learn to be silent before God and confesse theÌ„selves to err But Gods word â—trâ—th not his scriptures are as silver fined 7 times no drosse is in them therfore the scripture is above the church and that perfect rule must guide us not the imperfect doctrines of men Now wheras I shewed how the Labyrinth of your religion leadeth to the Pope the centre of your circle and
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
may say to him vvhy doe you this and that whosoever obeyes not his precepts incures the syn of idolatrie paganisme You may tell me that the Pope hath not dominion over your faith but your Canonist tel me that he can dispense against the law of God that he can dispense against the law of nature that he can dispense against an Apostle that he can dispense against the new testament yea that he can dispense concerning all the precepts of the old and nevv testament And may vve novv think that he hath not dominion over your saith or may wee think that vvhen he is come which should sit as God in the Temple of God that he wil doe greater things then these But of your Popes preeminence wee are to speak in another place To return therfore to the scripture which you deney to be an indeficient rule of our faith you objected that it had many senses and stil you stand to it as proved well I am content to leave it unto judgement But though it were so yet this is not proved that therfore it is no sure rule of our faith save by your churches exposition For why might not the church in Corinth which were made rich by Christ in all kind of speech and in all knowledge so that they were not destitute of any gift why might not that church I say declare the many senses of scripture as well as the church of Rome Or rather why may not the holy ghost shew any church or any member or Christs church the meanings of the scripture and so it remayn as a firm rule of faith and the Spirit of God the sole authentik expositor of the same But here you urge agayn your bastard phrase falsly fathered upon S. Peter that no prophesie of scripture is made by a private spirits interpretatioÌ„ though I blamed you before for speaking in such sort If you can not perceive heavenly things consider earthly Your one body hath but one spirit which gives life to the vvhole and to every member of the body The same spirit dooth quicken the hand and foot that quickneth the head and hart although a greater measure is in the principal members then in the inferiour Even so by the scriptures we learn that the catholik church is one bodie and hath one spirite and though the many members of this bodie have not one work but have received diversities of giftes yet it is the same spirit To one by the spirit is given the word of vvisdom to an other the word of knowledge by the same spirit and to an other faith by the same spirit and so all the gifts to all the members This is the most publick spirit that the church hath and every member of the church hath the same so there is no privat spirit which Christians have as you by tradition it seemes have learned Now seeing all Christians have the same spirit that the Pope himself unlesse he have the spirit of Satan how is it that he onely must be the publik spirit and interpreter of the word Because say you he is the head of the church and hath the promise of our Saviour that his faith should not fayl him This I deney Now you beleeve it because the Pope himself tells it you for your ovvn privat spirit may assure you of nothing I wil disprove it by your next words and knowen experience For you say he may err in matter of fact and syn aswell as an other man then say I he may goe to the Divil for his facts and synns as vvell as an other man then is he the successor of Iudas Iscariot not of Simon Peter then the gates of hel prevaile against him And thus your Rock is rent in peeces and your building is on the sands You rely upoÌ„ one whom you know not but he may be a reprobate a child of the Divil yea a divil incarnate as Pope Iohn the 23. was found and judged to be by the Council of Constance and then he may lye as well as his father the Divil and then if you take not heed he may murder your soul as well as his father the Divil And how then dare you make him your rock your hope your confidence to beleeve all that he sayth not to beleeve Gods word unlesse he tell you it is Gods word not to beleeve any meaning of the scriptures but as he tell you the meaning is If men were bruite beasts without understanding they could not be more overruled then thus but the Lord sayth be not as the horse and as the mule And if the inhabitants of the earth had not been druncken with the wine of her fornication the great whore could never thus have benummed their senses and bereft them of heavenly light If you deney that your Popes may be reprobates and Heariots though they may syn your own popish records will teach you by as undoubted marks upon them as ever had Cain the dearest lovers of your catholik chaire branding their holy fathers with titles of prodigious wonders monsters for their beastly lives so some of them are knowen to have dyed without repentaÌ„ce or faith in God that eyther they never had faith or els their faith failed and then Christ prayed not for them as he did for Peter so their pretended priviledge lieth in the dust The 15. of the Acts alledged for Peters primacie I have before answered and leav it unto judgment yow urge now againe vers 7. that Pâ—â—er rose up shewing therby that he was head c. a strange collection that if a man rise up to speak in an assembly he must need therfore be head you mought better have gathered so if he had sitten stil spoken for sitting of the two rather argues auctoritie then standing up But tel me I pray you in earnest when Gamaliel is sayd to rise up in the council of the Iewes in Ierusalem would you gather from this that he was the head of them all Or when Paul rose up in the synagogue of Antiochia was he therefore the head If not why dally you thus with the holy scriptures to gather such conclusions as common sense wil not bear But if you would plead for no other headship then this that your Pope may rise up and speak in councils it wil easily be granted but then if others should judge and give sentence froÌ„ the scripture as Iames there did your chair of Rome would soon be overthrown Like weight is in your next words that the first gentils were chosen by his mouth for that you should say God chose that the gentils by his mouth should hear the word of the Gospel and beleev What primacie of power you can build hereon I cannot tell order I am sure ther must be in al things so ther was with them and is with us we grant unto you
But the Lordship which your Pope claimeth is to be a true ecelesiastical prince in the whol church of his own auctority without coÌ„sent of the people or counsel of the preists to make lawes which bind the conscience c. with other like exorbitant power which hath neyther proof nor colour of proof from this 15. of the Acts but the contrary is playn by the scripture as in my former writing I shewed and leav it to the judgment of the prudent Your 3. arguments force you would reinforce by a long speech of privat spirits interpretation of errors and heresies unfit translations manifold and ambiguous senses c. where I must acknowledge you have put to more strength but you have not whet the edge as I sayd unto you so that your purpose is not effected For al that you say may with as good if not better right be retorted upon your selves and the Pope himself who hath as private and erroneous a spirit as al other Byshops hath given as absurd and erroneous translations wrested the scriptures broched as deadly errors is as unable to prove his mission froÌ„ Christ as any prelatâ— or preist in Christendom So in al your discourse you have neyther proof from scripture nor argument upon ground of reason therfore I need not spend labour in vayn and the points some of them are before handled othersome belong not to the matter in hand With like successe you repete your 4. argument that the scriptures have been wronged by our men to bolster up heresies c. you say I grant your assumption but deceiv not your self or others I did leav to strive about it because it was personal touching Luther Calvin c. who when they lived were able yenough to mainteyn their cause against Rome gates though as men they had their infirmities I told you the like charge mought be returned upon your Popes and Prelats Your proposition I deneyed and shewed reasons of my denyal from the scriptures You replie as your manner is with your popular carnal reason that al sorts of hereticks alledge scriptures boast of the spirit unlesse there be a supreme judge strifes can have no end You have been answered that so it must be and so it was in the Apostles times who yet referred not Christians to the Pope as supreme judge but laboured to compose controversies and correct errors by the scriptures Strife wil continue without end til the world have an end then al warr shal cease in the mean while the church is militant under her head Christ. and no other He alone walketh amids the 7. golden candlesticks al churches have their several Bishops and Pastors and onely Christ is Archpastour at his appearing shal supreme judgement be In the mean time they be Antichrists that usurp his office and place But why alledge you this against the divine scriptures onely for doe you not think that men have wrested the late Fathers also to bolster up heresies yea and councils too yea and the Popes own decrees Now if whatsoever be wrested to bolâ—â—er up heresies can not be a true rule of faith then the world wil soon be without rule and so that Anomos that unruly and lawlesse fellow foretold of wil be fittest to be their captayn even as he hath been now too long a day sitting in that citie which in S Ioh is time reigned over the kings of the earth and fayn would mainteyn that regiment stil. Your 5. and last argument was for vnwritten traditions You affirmed that many mysteries of our faith are beleeved that are not explicitly declared nor infallibly deduced from the scriptures I deneyed that any mysterie of our faith was without due sufficient proof from the scripture Now you recken up divers matters as before and ask of me proof for them otherweise then by tradition My answer was and is that some are your own inveÌ„tioÌ„s I wil not undertake to approve but to reprove them by Gods word others that are truths I can prove by Gods word better then you can by mouth tradition But you find great fault think it goes hard with me since I prove not one particular of them all therfore desire me to answer distinctly to ech point as it lâ—es c. I marvel you would expect proofs of these points now Would you hav me enter into battel with Arrians Antitrinitarians Anabaptists other like hereticks and shâ—w how I can convince them by scripture I list not so to digresse When thâ—se matters in hand are ended if you wil take up their buklers I wil fight against you by the scriptures onely if you wil adventure the credit of your unwritte traditioÌ„s in the battel In the mean time make you proof as order requireth of your argument and seek not to turn it away by setting on foot new questions The scriptures that you brought to prove unvvritten traditions I answered In this your reply you say that I dispute as if you made traditions the total rule of faith whereas you would inferr onely that it was a partial togither with the word of God Then belike you graÌ„t some word of God without unvvritteÌ„ traditioÌ„ vvhere is that but in the scriptures If vve have Gods vvord in the scriptures vvithout unvvritten tradition hovv is it that vvhilear you reasoned vve could not knovv scriptures to be Gods vvord but by such tradition Doe not you make mouth traditioÌ„ the total ground of your faith For take avvay this tradition the scriptures you think are lost then Gods vvord is lost unlesse unvvritten tradition give it us So dead tradition is the ground of grounds that must tel us vvhat is scripture vvhat is the meaning of scripture vvhat is true beside scripture and so in effect is all in all Though yet to make it a partiall rule of faith as you speak is too much man may not think to part stakes vvith God his vvord is yenough if vve can be content You say I object that those traditions spoken of in Deuteronomis might make for the Iewish Cabalists which are reiected by S. Peter c Nay I knovv they make neyther for them nor you but as I sayd rather for them then for you I proved unto you out of the Psalmes that the Fathers taught their children vvritten traditions I proved by other divine testimonies that yenough is vvritten in the scriptures for faith all good vvorks As for Gods acts in al ages fathers are to tell them to their children such tradition I allovv We tel our posteritie novv by tradition the great vvork of God in confounding the Spanish armado that came against England in the yere 1588 If I in my dayes should see Rome â— become Rumee as Sibylla prophesied and the Pope like Nabuchodnoâ—or turnd out to graâ—â—e or like Pharao drovvned in the sea I vvould hold it my dutie to tel
it my child my childes child that it mought never be forgotten But yet for a ground of faith unto life I would vvarn my children to hold to the scriptures as the instrument of God able to make them vvise unto salvation through the faith vvhich is in Christ Iesus as Paul sayd to his son Timothee You say it is playn that the Apostle 2. Thes. 2. speaks of such traditions as I cal humane in you I deney it have plainly disproved it in my former vvriting by the same Apostles ovvn testimonie Act. 26. 22 1. Co. 14. 37. and you have not a vvord to say against it but shun those ancient Apostolik records and betake you to later humane writers as Chrysostome But remember your ovvn vvords God is more ancient then the Divil truth then falshood The Apostle shevved his ovvn meaning long before Chrysostome had a mouth to speak But if you can better see by Chrysostoms candle then by Pauls bright sun behold vvhat the Doctor sayth Whatsoever is sought unto salvatioÌ„ all novv is fulfilled in the scriptures He that is ignorant may find there vvhat to learn he that is stubborn synful may find the scourges of the judgmeÌ„t to come vvhereof he may be afrayd he that laboureth may there find glorie and promises of eternal life This speech dooth farr better become his golden mouth then your plea for humane traditions The 2. thing vvhich you took upon you to prove or as novv you faintly say intended rather to propound then prove vvas That the scripture expounded by the catholik church is a true and indeficient rule of our faith I vvil ease you if I may of this labour if you understaÌ„d the position vvell I grant it to be true By the catholik church I trovv yovv mean not the multitude al beleevers but the head of the church So I vvillingly yield that the scriptures expounded by Christ the head of the catholik church are a true and indeficient rule of our faith But when you came to make proof of your positioÌ„ you set it dovvn thus that the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith Where all men may see your lode starr You pretend the scriptures and word of God but if a man deale vvith you by them as I novv have experience you flee to later humane vvriters If you be followed in them you retire to your Catholik church ask your meaning by the catholik church and it is the Pope with his definitive sentence as your self have expounded it to me He virtualiter as one of your side sayth is the whole church Al the other are but stales he alone is the man that must strike the stroke And if he give sentence against you I shal never trust him so you deal on the surest side for your selves You intended rather to propound then to prove this point as you say that we haue not at one time diverse proâ—s togither in the fyre and now agayn you handle it by way of velitation you say not of purpose to prove Wheras it is the mayn ground of al controversie between us For question being whither Gods written word or the Popes definitive sentence must judge rule our faith I cleav to the scriptures you to the Pope Now my ground is in part granted by your selves for the scriptures which I build upon your council of Trent hath allowed for canonical and come from God and whither you granted it or not I have given you reasons that are unanswered But your ground I utter ly deney and grant not your Popes definitive sentences to be canonical but haeretical and would have proof of that you say You lyst not yet to have this yron in the fyre belike least it burn your fingers Yet in this your velitation you bring most of your valiant men into the feild leaving out some few casshierd soldjers and brave me with a great many of S. Peters prerogatives which are indeed but a cold yron for the Pope For though al you say for Peter were granted yet nothing at al is sayd for the Bishop of Rome more then for the Bishop of Babylon You would hav men think that if you have so many men in a skirmish or velitation you have many moe against a day of battel But if these your velitaries be discomfited as some of them are already I suppose your armado wil never enter this feild Let us therfore try their strength 1. S. Peter you say is named first among the Apostles True he is so usually except in 3. or 4. places This may argue a primacie of order but of no auctoritie over his brethren The first foundation of the wall of the heavenly Ierusalem was a Iasper the stone of Benjamin th' Apostle Pauls tribe wil you grant me hence to conclude that S. Paul was head of the catholik church 2. S. Peter alone walked you say with our Saviour on the water True and there he shewed his weaknes more then others was reproved by our Saviour for his little faith Doth this deserve the headship of the church Elias and Eliseus walked through the water and Shadrach Meshach and Abednego-walked in the mids of the fyre and herein shewed their great faith yet vvere they not therfore heads of the catholik church 3. Our Saviour promised you say that hell gates should not prevail against him Our Saviour dooth say not against it that is the church of vvhich Peter vvas a principall member Hell gates shall not prevail against any true Christian are they all therfore headeâ— But hell gates if horrible synns be part of their strength have prevayled against sundry of your Popes by testimonie of your own records such I trow were not heads unlesse of the beast Apoc. 14. 17. 3. 4. He was to confirm his brethren So were all the other Apostles and Ministers as I proved at large in my former writing and marvel you bring this argumeÌ„t now again bleeding into the skirmish before you had cured any of his vvounds If you cannot heal him you should let him rest 5. Our Saviour you say washed S. Peters feet first It may be so though some Doctors doubt of it It is sure some was first for they could not all be at once It is sure also that Peter shewed then more weaknes then his brethren for which he mought well have need to be washed but not deserve to wear a triple crown as your Pope 6. S. Peter onely received a reveled promise of his particular martyrdom of the crosse Performance is more then promise Iames and Stephen suffred martyrdom before Peter And if the crosse be that vvhich must prove the headship the penitent theef may lay claim to the crown 7. He after infusion of the holy ghost first you say premulgates the gospel I would the Pope were his successor in
would I have you â—o grant for Christ himself is the principal vea the onely foundatioÌ„ properly all the Apostles are foundations figuratively among whom was order first second third c and excellencie in graces but not preeminence of auctoritie for they were all sent of Christ as Christ of the Father Ioh. 20. 21 and the church of Christ is builded upon them all not upon Peter onely Ephes. 2. 20. S. Peters headship you say derogates not from Christ Jesus our head since S. Peter is but subordinated to Christ Jesus and onely of his free institution That institution say I is yet to shew wherby Peter should be head more then the other Apostles The headship which you giue unto Peter dooth derogate from Christ for as the church is but one body and hath but one spirit so hath it but one Lord head Christ who is present with his Church all dayes till the worlds end walking amids the golden candlestiks of his Churches that there needs no universal Vicar but onely the Angels of every particular church as the 7. churches in Asia shew Apoc. 2. 3. But he was a head of your church and therfore I trow could not lye which sayd that Christ placed Peter as it were a certayn head to powr his gifts from him as it were into all the body for having taken him into the fellowship of the indivisible vnitie he would have him named that which himself was And elsewhere the same Pope preacheth that if God would have any thing to be commune unto other Princes with Peter he never gave but by him whatsoever he gave to others Thus rored the Lion of Rome against the Lion of the tribe of Iudah What marvel was it then though an other of your Popes praying to S. Peter as to his God sayd Jurline thine ears o blessed Peter prince of th'Apostles and hear me thy servant c. acknowledging further his faith to be in him If these things derogate not from Christ our head I know not what can doo It is no marvel though one of your Canonists called him Our Lord God the Pope for the Pope is Peter as Father Campian telleth us and Peter as Leo sayth is assumed into the fellowship of the indivisible vnitie that is of God and therfore is made a God and prayed unto as a God and yet you would bear men in hand nothing is derogated froÌ„ God or Christ. Yea your self in your former writing made him the vniversal pastor Ioh. 10 and he I am sure is God for he is one with the Father And if Peter was but subordinate as you say to Christ your Popes I trow be now superordinate for Christs kingdom was not of this world neyther did his servants fight he was no Judge or divider of inheritances but Popes are fighters with the tâ—poral sword and have their kingdome of this world as politik princes and divide not onely private mens inheritances but even whole kingdoms deposing Princes disturbing States as the world hath long felt with greef From Peters primacie you slide along to the Popes supremacie for which having no word of God nor any so ancient testimonie as the Apostles you flee to the name of the council of Nice where some say the foundation began But against such innovation when or whersoever it was hatched I allege the whole new testament of Christ where Angels and Bishops of Churches are found of equal auctoritie not one above an other And me thinks I could fetch your popes supremacie from more ancient ground then the council of Nice even from Dioâ—rephes who loved preeminence in the Apostles time But this ground is slabby and the Pope I know wil be loth to set his foot on it You proceed therfore with a generall reason thus The ecclesiastical hierarchie is no worse governed then any temporal regiment For it is compared to a kingdome governed by one King Mat 25 to a familie wel governed Heb. 3. to a camp wel ordered Caâ—t 6. But in al wel ordered common weales there is ever required some visible iudge besides the written law since there must be a supreme iudge to take notice of controversies when they arise aâ— 2. there must be one to explicate the sense of the law and to pronounce sentence c. and 3. there must be one to compell those that refuse to the due observation thereof Now in the church there arise like difficulties in her lawes explication c. Therfore S Peters successor indued by the holy ghost in all difficulties of moment is to be sought unto for counsell is to be heard with obedience when he counselleth is to be obeyed when he proceeds with his powrful jurisdiction This your reason is faultie from head to foot The first part faileth in comparing togither a visible humane politie and a visible hierarchie Wheras humane polities concerning worldly matters are merely visible earthly temporal but ecclesiastical polities are partly invisible heavenly and eternal Those respecting this world and life onely have worldly dominion and glorie these respecting chiefly the next world life have no worldly dominion or glorie but is for the meek poor persecuted for righteousnes sake c. Mat. 5. My kingdome sayth Christ is not of this world Ioh. 18. 36. Again the rulers of the gentils have domination over them they that are great exercise auctoritie over them but it shal not be so among you c. Mat. 20 25 26. These things being thus minded distinguished I grant that the church is no worse governed considering the nature thereof then any temporall regiment considering the nature of it Secondly you fail in applying to your Pope the scriptures intended of Christ onely For he not the Vicar of Rome is the King of that one kingdom Mat. 25. he is the master of that one familie Heb. 3 1 6. he is the Captayn of that ordered camp Cant. 6. Apoc. 19. 11. 13 14 16 c. So that he that challengeth these titles and honours besides Christ is Antichrist To the second part of your reason I answer 1. that in wel ordered coÌ„mon weales the lawes are above the magistrates according to Tullies saying as lawes are above the magistrates so magistrates are above the people What good order may we then think is in the papacie where Popes are above Gods lavv 2. That for explicating the sense of the law c. in wel ordered common weales it is a ruled case that he who made the law should interpret the law According hereunto in the church the lawes given of God in the scriptures are aboue the Pastors that govern the people by them yea above Kings Gods spirit which gave those lawes is the supreme interpreter of them As for outward order in difficulties the Preists lips should preserve knowledge and the people should seek the law
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
may recover your self from your imnâ—nent precipitium that dying out of the church of God you doe not eternally burne in the quenchless flames from Justice hall Julie 24 1613. Iohn Aynsworth To this letter H. A. gave no answer but exspected the promised large reply from I. A. which now followeth as the third in defense of the Church of Rome To Mr Henry Aynsworth at Amsterdam 6. 16. Ierem. State super vias et videte et interrogate de semitis antiquis quae sit via bona et ambulate in eâ et invenietis refrigerium animabus vestris ALthough your replie was slight and wilie rather seeking to transfer the questioÌ„ then to examin it to the true ground bespangling the rough rugge of your doctrine with multiplicitie of wrested places of holy scripture which makes me fitly resemble you to some AEthiopian behanged all over eares â—yes nose lippes and armes with Jewels and pearles that by their lustre beautie and misplacing makes the Nigroes fowllness the uglier Yet of such importance is the decision of this question being the keye and Master-spring to all the other doctrinall and controversall questions of religioÌ„ That howsoever your exploded doctrine and shuffling replication needes no answer being like a Comet that consumeth it self yet to complie with the worth of the question and to satisfy your followers desires I have once agayne returned you an answer In which I will showe that your reasons being rather seming reflections then true beames as you say of the word of God doe vanish of themselves 2. I wil prove that the true indeficient rule of our faith is not onely the written word of God but also the unwritten word of God traditioÌ„ the authoritie of the church of God in Councels â— Fathers is the ultimate decyder of all matters of controversie 3. I will show how my reasons for all your pretended answers remaine in full force 4 I wil prove that in your opinion you walk in a virious circle proâ—â— iâ— the self same by the 〈◊〉 the word of God by the privat spirit and the private spirit by the word of God 5 I wilâ— defend our Catholick opinion to be free from any such circular and râ—diculous proof 6 I 〈◊〉 show the Popes definitive sentence togither with a generall Court 〈◊〉 atleast to be a firme and an assured groundwork rock 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 7 And lastly I wil demonstrate to you or to any indifferent judgment that your building is on sands or spâ—ders â—â—ks your arcâ—uÌ„â—â— and resâ—â—uâ—â—oÌ„ of your faith at the last day of judgment to be groundless and fuâ—l of feare 8 First then to begin with your reasons which 〈◊〉 I maintâ—yne to be nothing els but aâ—â—er aâ—â—ous of scripture fâ—â—sty applyed I do think it 〈◊〉 before I answere your reasons grounded on the bareterts of scripture to signifie what a worthy most reverend esâ—eme we have of the scriptures and of each part of them We reverence them as Gods holy word derived from the fulness of truth â—â—e hold this volume worâ—â—â— to be meditated on day and night Jos. 1 8 Psalm 1 2 〈◊〉 hold it as seven times refined sâ—â—ver Psal. 11 7. A most cleare light illuminating our eyes Psal. 8 8 that it is a light 〈◊〉 our steppes Psal. 1. 8. â—2 v 105 130. 140. Wee hold all the holy scriptures to be most just 8. 8. Prov. to be a frerie speech and buckler of defense We also defend that the holy scriptures are diligently to be searched unto Joh. 5 39. â—â—om 1. 1. â—â—om 15 4. that whatsoever is writt in them is writ to our edificatioÌ„ that all the scriptures are profitable unto us 2 â—un 3 16 2. Pet. 1 21. that men delivered this scripture inspired by the holy Ghost Yet wee hold also though we worthâ—ly esteeme of them yet wee can not â—â—clude the eâ—plications of the holy church in the holy Fathers and Councels guided and directed by the self same truth And S. Augustin did oppose by the authoritie of the holy fathers his predecessors against Pe lagius and other â—ereticks saying â—ragâ—lis â—t arguta eorum novitas eâ—c The weake and wâ—â—â— noveltiâ— of hereticks is to be coâ—fâ—nÌ„ded by the authoritie of holy Fathers and a little after this great Doctor and holy Fatherâ— acknowledged by Calvin himself to be the faithful wriness of antiquitiâ— 4. 〈◊〉 stitut â— 14 sess 25 and Bâ—za calls him the Prince of aâ— Divines concerning dogmaticall poâ—â—cis in c. 3. â—â—om v. 12 as if on purpose he did answer your barbarous contempt of them calling them dust and athes â—et onely in regard of their mortaliâ—e as the scriptures calles them but when the vniforme consent of the Fathers Greek and Latin was objected against â—â—u What saâ—es D. Augustin shall light be darkness and darkness light that 〈◊〉 aclestius Julia should on ly see and that Hyllarie Greg. Ambâ—â—se â—ier August should bâ— blyndâ— So wee see how two worthy champions of yours hath raised S. August a Samnâ—l 〈◊〉 confound a 〈◊〉 not at Endor but at Amsterdam â— But wheras by your submission you would seemâ— to 〈◊〉 amâ—nd 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 that you 〈◊〉 thâ—re be a thoâ—â—aâ—d of theÌ„ that I sa◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that you preâ—â—â— for 〈◊〉 trutâ— and holyness before 〈◊〉 For if you understand this of the 〈◊〉 fathers before 〈◊〉 I proâ—â— that you cannot 〈◊〉 that without â— visard to 〈◊〉 your 〈◊〉 since I wil prove that in 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 dogmatical 〈◊〉 they differ from you and so by your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—inpeere except you will be wilfully blind they 〈…〉 before you If you understand Jewel 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. the Protestant Doctors these in truth by your 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 neyther doe or can prefer before your self since by your 〈…〉 have no true church as I heare you teach against Mr. 〈◊〉 and so there difference must rather be hereticall then 〈◊〉 and if it be a true church why make you a schâ—mâ— in dâ—parting from them Now to come to the solution of your arguments if there were any There be 4 â—n number cited as you saye grounded on the holy scriptures but not one appearing in substance or in the true sense of the scriptures First you object out of Deut. â— 32. Keep and doe that 〈…〉 God commanded you â—e shall neyther 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to the 〈◊〉 but by that our Lord God commaunded you 〈◊〉 you 〈…〉 What can you inferr hence but that the lawe ought strictly to be kept and that we â—ught neyther to adde or to take from the 10 commandements that is to make the 10. commandements 〈◊〉 oâ— superaâ—undant what is this to your purpose to prove that the written word alone is sufficient to decyde all controversâ—es For as here 〈◊〉 testification of the law or â—rpâ—icatiâ—n of the law was 〈◊〉 And that it was the office of the Preists to explicate the 〈◊〉 of the law appâ—ares Deut. 1â— v. 8 2 Paral. 19 1â— 2
that there is more Majestie in Ecclesiastes then in the Ecclesiasticus How will Luther demonstrate against the whole church that S. James epistle is strawie the epistle to the Hebrewes Apocalyps etc. to be doubted of 40. When I object against you that the Maniâ—hâ—i Montanist Arrian Peâ—agian and all other hereticks will boast of this private spirit Nou answer that I have a mist before my eyes or else I would discerne them I answer I doe distinguish them and leave them 〈◊〉 by the church of God to the pit of hell but not by my private spirit but by the ordinarie meanes the definitions and declarations of the church whose office is to distinguish these spirits infalliblie whose doctrine wee are punctuallie to follow if wee will have in all things this spirit of truth and with one answer I satisfie the multiplicitie of places of scripture he apâ—d vp to no purpose 41. Wheras you would whet the edge of the Jewes sword against mâ— in that they may object against Christians the lawe and the Prophets yea and antiquitie I answer the lawe and Prophets yea antiquitie it self promising our Saviours coÌ„â—ing and fulfilled by his coÌ„ming in each particular cirstumstance prophâ—â—ied and promised doth rebat the edge And I could show out of the 〈◊〉 â—abbines themselves Sâ—hillaes prophecies preaching of S. John Baptist conversion of S Paul the destruction of Jerusalem their â—â—rse and continued dispersion onely to be justly inflicted on them for truâ—â—fying of our Saviour I could shew strange motives of their 〈◊〉 errouâ— Neither can the Jew as you object as we against the â—urk or and Hâ—râ—sie our beginâ—er beginning increase and declyning estate For the Jewes can show our beginner their Messias our beginning he buriall of the cerâ—monial law propheâ—ied and performed by all titles of truth but who can justly shew our declining estate 42. Neyther is the objection of a Jew against a new Christian because he went out of them of such force as our is against Julâ—an or any other Apostata For they cannot defend themselves with any show of truth as we can defend our cause with evident motives of â—râ—dibilitie as I shall hereafter show And Julian might object that Paganismâ— is more ancient then Christianitiâ— but not then the 〈◊〉 law which was compleat and â—erfected as it was prophecied and promised by the coming of the new lawe Where you say Gods word and spirit in the scriptures must be the bulwark I answer a bulwark but not able to defend you from gun shot and a sâ—onse onely for your selves For as yet there was never any of your sects protestant or any other heretitâ— that was able to convert any nation to their religion But men of our religion haue converted all nations doe still convert as well witnesseth both the Judges Japonia yea and Câ—ina it self 43. I showed you one way how the high preisthood did not erre in the condâ—mnation of our Saviour in that the Preisthood was â—â—served in Christ Jesus person True it is the Hipghpreists Scribes Rulers questioned this but their ignorance was most viâ—â—ible by their own lawe and by that lawe he should live since that law declared him to be the sonne of God 44. Against your forced rock and running over many wrâ—sted places of scripture to prove the church of God invisible it were sufficient for me to oppose many evident and clear places of scripture interpreted by the holy fathers Greek and Latin for the pepetuall visibilitie of the church 2. 〈◊〉 â— v 13. 1. Paâ—â—l 22 10. Psal 4â— 17 Psal. 45 5. Psal. 47. 9. Psal. 86. 1. Psal. 88 29 Psal. 101 17. Ps. 128 1. Psal. 131 14. Cant. 3 4. Isa. 9 7. Isa. 33 20. where the perpetual flourishing of the church of God is described Isa. 40 8. Isa. 59 21. Isa. 60 â—9 where it is said the Sun and Moon of the church shall not cease Jer. 6 16. Dan. 2 44. Ose. 2 19. where God is described to espouse eternally his espouse unto him Mich 4 1. wher the church is described to be a high seated mountain to whom all people have recourse Mat. 5 15. where the citie seated on a hil can not be obscured Math 26. 18. where the church is described to be built upon a rock against which hell gates shall not prevaile 28. Math. 2. Our Saviour sayes he will be with his disciples to the end of the world Luâ— 1 32. Luâ— 21. 32. Luk. 22 31. Where Christ sayes he prayed for S Peter that his faith should not fail him Joh. 14. 1â— He sayes the father shall give them another spirit which shall remaine with them eternally John 17 11. Act. 5 38. Ephe. 4 11. yea and the Creed made by the Apostles doth acknowledge the perpetuall flourishing of the church of God I beleeve the catholick church whose generalitie can not stand without visibilitie 45 I answer to your contrarie doctrine that the church of God never since it was a church hath erred If Genes 6. ther was then a church AdaÌ„ the head did err in fact not in doctrine if we should graunt that he did err our adversaries are bound as wel as wee to answer since not onely the visible church then with us but the invisible church with them should have erred But true it is that thers was then no perfect church but onely a materiall and a formall beginning of a church 46. To that of Gen. 6. where all their harts are described to be set on mischeef is not to be understood that all then were naught For not long before Mâ—â—husalem and divers holy men died Sem Jâ—phet also were zealous of Gods honour and their wives also most religious in whom the church of God might be preserved 47. I answer also In the time of Moses Aaron and the people did commit idolatrie in worshipping the golden â—alfe yet Moses the head of all and all the Levites were free from that sinne So that wee read Erod 32. If there be any of God sayes Moses let him joâ—ne with mee and all the sonnes of Levi were gathered vnto him 48. I answer In the time of Judges after Josh. The Israelites are described as though they had sinned al which is an usual figurative speech of Syâ—echdoche of the whole for the part as Exod. 9 6. wher it is sayd all the beasts of Egypt are dead Isa. 2. v. All nations shal flow unto him Phil. 2 21. All men seek their own Ioh. 3. v. 33. And no man did receive his testimonie 49. To that of the Prophet Elias 3. Reg. 19. where Elias complaines that he is left alone I answer that then the people were divided into two kingdomes the one of the Jewes and the other of the Israelites Aâ—hab did govern the Israelites but holy Josaphat did govern the Jewes the one did destroy altars and kill Prophets the other did heare Prophets erect altars And
though we should graunt that Elias did think himself left alone in Israel yet Almightie God did answer him I wil leave 7. thowsand men in Israel that have not bowed their knees to Bâ—al 50. I answer that Esay the Prophet in his first chapter dooth use the self same fiâ—ure of Synâ—â—hdâ—che also the self same manner of speech is vsed the 4. â—eg 21. For Manasses himself did râ—pent and redeeme mâ—nn and many were never seduced so understand that also of the Prophet here 51. That of which Azarias dooth prophetise 2 Paral. 15. is to be understood of the Israelites that were dificient and not of the Jewes that were constant I graunt also that at the coÌ„ming of our Saviour the church was but a little one yet I say it was preserved in Marie Joseph Zacharie Elizabeth and Anna the Prophetess In just Simeon and the Pastors 52. That of Daniel the 9. the host and sacrifice shall faile is to be understood of the destruction of Hierusalâ—m and the câ—â—â—ing of the Jewish sacrifice Luk. 18. Our Saviour doth not absolutely speak of faith but of an external faith and of an excellent faith 2 Thes. 2. Is to be vnderstood the particular departing of Antichrist and his â—rew from the church And so by these grounds to the usual objections against the perpetuall visibilitie of Gods church wee may answer any thing that hath bene or may be produced 53. Yet to confirm this truth with one short reason I argue thus This church of God if it must be invisible Eyther it must begin to be invisible in the time of peace or in the time of persecution in the time of peace there was no opposition to make her invisible in the tyme of persecution no bodie could persecute an invisible thing 54. Now wheras you sayd you show how the labyrinth of my religion leadeth to the Pope the center of our circle True it is I sayd the vltimate resolution of our religion is to be resolved into the veracitie of God revealing as into the formal causâ— and into the authoritie of the church as into the applying â—ause And I am glad you have traâ—ed me not to your heretical quicksands but to S. Peters rock 55. And that you may see the resolution of my religion is no other but that of S. Cyprian lib de unitate Eccles. where he compares â—ou in regard of the church of Rome as Beames in regard of the sun as boughes in regard of the tree as a river in regard of the fountayn So that he concludes he that separates himself from the church of God he must needs vanish fade and drie up in that they lack their origen by which all unitie is preserved 55. I gave you 2 or three instances to show how the word of God might in a divers kind depend of the Church and the church of the word of God as we prove the self same a priori et a posteriori the operation of the stone or herb depends of the skil and knowledge of the herbalist and lapidarie and their skil and knowledge depends of the innated and inward proprietie of the stone and herbe For neyther can have his effect without mutual help of both except chance which is no regular action be the applier and so I take you have thalked your self a way to a ridiculous building without foundatioÌ„ as I shall shew anone 56. You answer nothing to this but that I prove out of natural philosophie as though divinitie though it excels is not concordant to natural reason whereas we can beleeve nothing that we see implies by the light of naturall reason 57. To the places that you object of the 1. of Timoth. 1 3. rather proves against you then makes for you For it showes all the while that she did not reach otherwise to the church she remained sound And that which you cite 1. Tim 3 15. would make you trest salue if you did daily consider it For there he warnes her that she might conforme her conversation to the house of God the pillar of truth And though the text sayes in the house of God yet it must be understood in the particular church that must have reference to that place as wee shall prove hereafter where S. Peter did establish his chaire Ioh. 14 16. Mat. 16. Math. 28 Ephes. 4 Ioh. 17. Luc. 22. Psal. 2. Ephâ—s 2. 58. When you seeme to drawe out of my speech that I denie for my witness the spirit of God is your error and fraude For I hold that which is taught out of these places 1 Cor 2. 10 11. Iob. 28 2 13 22. c. to signifie nothing else but that the holy Ghost teacheth the church in all truth and her members with reference to her and my private spirit I ought not to follow so that if I might be your Pilote I would save you from that bottomlesse gulphe that ghaspes to receive your erroneous soule 59. St. Augustines authoritie you let slip denying him a fit Maister to follow you say he might retractate this but neither you doe nor can show that he did retractate it 60. As for S. Augustines opposition to S. Hierome it was in some smal matter and not in a matter defined vp the consent of the church 61. My second Argument was this in substance Major That which is hard and for occurring places almost inexplicable cannot be to the rud ignorant at least a certain ground of faith Mmor But the scriptures of themselves are thus Conclusion go the scriptures by themselves can not bee a certaine and infallible rule of saith to the ignorant and rude at least 62. My major propositioÌ„ is most certain For a rule must be known and certaine and more fit to our capacitie to bee conceived then that which is to be ruled and certefied therby 63. My Mmor also I prove both in regard of many seeming contradictions of the Hebraimes nature of things therin contained being high misteries 64. In answering of this Argument you say some thinges are hard in the scriptures I proved this difficultie and hardnes was in principal matters which I proved out of the second of S. Peter 3. 16. Our most deare brother Paul according to his wisdome given hâ—m hath written to you as also in all his epistles speaking of them in these things in which are certain thiâ—gs hard which the unlearned unstable deprave as also the rest of thâ— scrâ—pâ—ures to their own destructio Hence is gathered that not on ly the places of S. Pâ—ul touchiâ—g vocation justification sanctification predestination and â—â—prâ—bation inâ—â—pâ—icating which pointes S. Paul is most frequent but also any other place is subject to be depraved as the word implies as also the rest of the scriptures And S. August in his book de fide et operibus c. 14 showes that one of the cheife matters they did deprave was about justifying by faith And I showed you here as erring a little
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
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
For first and formost you doe not distinguish what are scriptures and what are not by the authoritie of the church For so you should admit of all that she dooth receive and if ye reject any thing that she hath doubted of you should as well as yow refuse those bookes called Deutrocanonici of the old Testament you should as well reject those Deutrocanonici of the new testament as the epistle to the Hebrewes Judas epistle and the Apocalyps but the touch of your triall is the private spirit and the unction not of the holy Ghost but of an addle head and a self conceipted phancie 100. And that you like a blind baiard walk in this round though you may apprehend you have gone many a mile and to show that you have confined your selfe in the selfe same circle I prove 101. For first I aske how you know the scripture of the Prophets and Apostles is Gods word you answer the spirit of God the testification and witness of the spirit the annointing of the spirit doe testifie to you that they are written by God But then againe I demaund how you prove that you have that spirit of God this spirituall annointing You answ what maÌ„ knoweth what is in him but the spirit of God that is in him 1. Cor. 2. He answers again that he can make no proof of that to another that is onely knowen to himself againe no man knoweth how the wind bloweth or knowes how the bones do grow in the wombe of a woman Eccles. 11 5. it is the spirit that testifies 1. Joh. 5 6. So that we see you prove the scripture by your private spirit and your spirituall annointing and you prove you have this spirit by the scripture As if a child should prove he were no bastard in that his mother sayes so and she likewise prove that she her selfe were honest in that he saies so Or prove the Church of Amsterdam to be a true church in that the Amsterdamian spirit interpreting the scripture saies so And that the Amsterdamian spirit is a true spirit in that the AmsterdamiaÌ„ spirit sayes so So I demand of you how you doe know the scripture to be Gods word you answer out of the testificatioÌ„ of the holy ghost And how you know the internal testificatioÌ„ is froÌ„ God you answer likewise out of the scripture interpreted by the Spirit My sheep heares my voice and how doe you know how it is the scripture You answer by the testification of the inward spirit so that we see your discourses like puppets have their motioÌ„ froÌ„ one string speak by the mouth of the same interpreter 102. But now to show the falshood and unprofitablenes of your circular discourse I demand what you hold the testification of the inward spirit to be For you must hold that it proceeds from God as wel as your inward habit or act of faith and then againe I aske whether you be certaine by the certaintie of faith that you have this inward act of faith that you have the testification of the spirit Then I argue this certitude must proceed from an other testification and that from another and the other from another so wee shall runne headless in infinitum 103. Besides I ask whether that testification of the spirit since it can not have his residence in the will being a certaine perswasion or speech of God belonging to the understanding and so it must be a certain notice or cognitioÌ„ If it be obscure I aske how it is distinguished froÌ„ faith if it be clear evident how is it to be distinguished froÌ„ the knowledg or vision of a thing so that wee see you affirme a thing that indeed you doe not understand what it is 104. But before I gathered your mind when you said the scriptures of themselves are so cleare that by themselves they appeare for scriptures so that you seeme to resolve that which you beleeve in to the holie scriptures and the formal reason why you beleeve it into the testification or perswasion of the spirit yet this also you doe not hold to alwayes For other times you resolve both the one and the other into the testification of the inward spirit with you most often which showes your great inconstancie grounded on seare 105. But admitting that you had onely sayd the things to bee beleeved or fides externa were to be resolved into the holy scripture onely Yet so you should admit of as great an absurditie For so you should say the gospel of S. Mathew or the whole scripture taken totally togither are not canonical and authentick nor that Mr. H. Aynsw is predestinated or that his sinns are remitted All which Aprove For nothing he is to beleeve for which he hath not the expresse word of God But none of these are expressed in the word of God If he will say he will gather these by necessarie consequence his adversaries may oppose him and he can show no certaintie If he flie unto the inward testification of the spirit theÌ„ I inferr that the things to be beleeved ar not to be resolved into the scriptures alone So Mr H. A. eates his own word though without one graine of salt or pretence of reason Yet to show this a little more plaine I reason thus Is the scripture the word of God you answer it is and that without all question But I demaund how you know it is the word of God if you answer by the testification of your inward spirit you ride your first circuit If you say it appeares by it self this is not so plaine since most parts and parcels of scripture have bene doubted of and that by schollers Yet admit scripture were so cleare a light by it self yet you cannot avoid as great a difficultie For I aske whether you will prove the whole scripture by the whole and then every one will see you â—â—ie for refuge thether which you ought to defend If you say that the whole scripture is proved by some particular parcell of scripture you are bound to show me that which you can never performe viz. that any part of scripture dooth affirme the whole scripture and every part and parcel thereof to be scripture 106. And if I should graunt you this yet another absurditie at the suit of reason hath arrested you For by what will you trie that particular parcel of scripture that so authoriseth al the rest to be scripture Thus you see in defending your private spirit you have undergone the labours of Hercules the difficulties arising as Hydraes heades two for one as one is dissolved 107. Besides this opinion of theirs doth not onely lead a man into these endlesse windings but it makes against coÌ„mon sense that God should leave his holte scriptures so carelesse at six and sevens unsettled that every hereticli might challenge to himself to be taught from God so that he might reject the
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
of the kingdome of heaven c. That S. Peter in the house of God is a stone to found a pillar to sustaine and a â—â—i to governe and dispose 195. And that the authoritie given S. Peter must be derived vnto S. Peters surressors lawfully elected and governing at Rome I could prove by the expresse authorities of all these Fathers cited but let reason it selfe suffice for since our Saviour did give the power of â—reaching administring of sacraments for the good of others to the â—ude of the world So Christ Jesus in instituting S. Peter the head would have that preheminence derived to his lawful successors Besides it was impossible that Peter should governe all vnto the end of the world since the church was to continew so long after go that authoritie was given to him and to his successors 196. Here you dare me to bring in the arrowâ—s of the fathers halberts of the Councells bullâ—tts of schoolmen and canons of â—â—â—onists in particular you saie you will answer them Thrasonlike spoke But I know for your refuge with Theasoe you will take vp your scand after the manipulum of disâ—washers expositions of these tymes for your safety but all in vaine For no doubt so many weapons will beat into Mammoks one already disagreeing from him selfe and whose cheife points and arguments arâ— of themselves like 〈…〉 vnsocketed 197. To these places of S. Ioh. 20 21. S. Math. 28. 19. I answer the holy Fathers have expounded in what sente these places are to bee vnderstood except Mr. H. A. wili eate his word I must needes preferr their vniforme conseÌ„t of so many worthie men before him the like I answer to that of the Act 2. 17. 18. 1 Cor. 1. 17. 198. I answer to your seeming retorted reason taken out of the 1 Petri 5. 4 graunting that S. Peter must feede his sheep onely with the word of Christ Jesus the cheife but here I saie the word of God is eyther written or vnwritten what have you then inferred 199. But now to speake something of that false malitious and odious blasphemie you have sprinkled through your treatise All which applications if tediousness and respect of civilitie did not hinder me I could naile those markes and notes of the forcrunker of Antichrist to your forehead 200 But it shall suffice to showe in a word or two that the Pope is not Antichrist 201. First then if the Pope should bee Antichrist it should follow for so many hundred yeares that hell gates have prevailed against the church of God more then against the Synagogne of the Jewes contrary to the promised assistaunce of the holy Ghost And that most glorious Martyrs learned Doctors of the church as S. Cyprian S. Ambrose S. Hier S. Aug S. Leo and all our forefathers should broile eternally in hell fire in offring vp homage to the beast 202. 2. That the Pope is not Antichrist is proved in that he shall bee one particular man I came in my name and yee did not receive me but another comes in his name and yee will receive him where Christ Jesus opposeth person to person place to place kingdome to kingdome sect to sect but the Popes are many successively 2 Thes. 2. he is called the man of sinne the sonne of perdition 203. 3. Antichrist shall bee descended of the tribe of Dan Genes Fuit Dan coluber c. 49. v. 17. Hier. 8. EDan audivimus vocem acutissimam equorum c. 204. 4 Antichrist shall oppugne the mysceries of our Saviour Joh. 2. Who is a lyar but he that denies Jesus Christ. 2 Thes. 2. 2. He shall extoll himselfe above all that is said God 205. 5. Those 7. mountaignes in the Apoca. are playnly said to bee seven kingdomes None of which doe agree with the Pope Aâ—â— the ten hornes are ten Kings Cyrillus Alexand oratione 7. in Danielem 206. To answer every thing againe that you repeat would but make me more wearie and tyre the reader It is much that you graunt the Popes primacie to have beene froÌ„ the Councel of Nyce thereby to graunt Antichrisme to have reigned so long in Christendome For the Popes loving of preheminence As for that of Diotrephes that you objâ—ct is nothing to the purpose And 1 Petri 5. 3. Preheminence absolutly is not forbidden but one secular preheminence with example of lyfe and humilitie For Tit. 15. 16 It is said Haec doce exhortare et argue cum omni imperio 207. My generall reason you repeat thus The Ecclesiasticall Hierachie is no worse governed they any temporall regiment For it is compared to a kingdome governed by one King Mat. 25. to a familie wel governed Hebr 3 to a campe wel ordered Cant 6. But in all well ordered coÌ„mon weales there is ever required some visible head or judge besides the writteÌ„ lawe since there must bee a supreme to take notise of controversies when they arise etc. there must bee one to explicate the sence of the laweâ— to pronounce sentence etc. there must bee one to compell those to the due observation thereof 208. Now since in the church there ariseth like difficults in the lawes explication etc. Therefore Peters successor indued by the holie Ghost with gifts of grace in all difficults of moment is to be sought to for councell is to be heard with obedience when he counselleth is to bee obeyed when he procedes with his powrefull jurisdiction 209. Your answer is that this reason is faultie from the head to the foot Wherein you give the holie Ghost the lie that compare his church to the visible government and nothing so frequent in scriptures there is then by coÌ„parison of terrestrial things to be instructed in caelestiall But you must note that a similitude must not run on 4. feete or agree in all but in the primo analogato which you cannot infringe 2. You bring one falsehood to coÌ„firm another For though we saie the Pope is to explicate the lawe yet he is not above the lawe in your sence and all that you cite proves onely that the scriptures are the partiall explicators of themselves Ezech. 44. 24 Deut. 17. 18. 20. â— Cor. 2. 10. For as for outward order in difficulties you grant that Prâ—ists lipps must preserve wiâ—dome or knowledge 211. You sate I misse proportion in making many common weales and but one church I understand one vniversall church which you graunt one invisible I have proved one invisible your proofe is to small purpose For in London then wee might inferr there were as many churches as there hee parishes which would bee a fond or fruitless inference except you vnderstand materiall churches 212. The third thing that you sate I am to prove and the 7. and last that I am to prove here is that the indeficient rule of our faith is onely to be found in the Catholicke church not in privat menssences and illuminations or motions of an vnseen spirit which
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
Now to folow your waÌ„dringes What dooth Gal 1. 8. say against that I set down The word besides meaneth as you think contrary to and not more then they had receaved because he forbidds not any explication or true gloss c. I answer you weary your selfe and others to prove that which none denyeth Explications of Gods law by the mouth of his ministers are allowed of God Nehem. 8. 8. these are not additions such as God forbiddes Galat. 3. 15. Our question is of other or moe lawes or doctrines then God hath taught And vnto those which the Prophets had writteÌ„ and Paul with the other Apostles taught none might be added For he kept back nothing that was profitable but taught the whole counsel of God Act. 20. 20. 27. so then whatsoever men could add more or besides was not profitable neyther any of Gods counsel therefore it was contrary and so may be put among Popes traditions For their doctrines and traditions are as evidently contrary to Gods word as darknes is to light Such be your image worship contrary to Exo. 20. 4. your praying to creatures contrary to Mat 4. 10. Rom. 1. 25. service in a barbarous vnknowen tongue contrary to 1 Cor. 14. 11 16. 28. robbing the people of the chalice in the sacrament contrary to Mat. 26. 27. justification by mens works contrary to Rom. 3. 20. 22. 24. and 4. 2 3 c. and many other idolatrous observations as plainly contrary to Gods law ever vvere the abominations of the heathen Finally Chrysostome a Doctor whome you rely vpon sayth that Paul preferreth the scriptures before Angels from heaven Here then if you wil beleeve him is no place at al for vnwritteÌ„ traditions Whereas you bring Rom. 16. 17. to shew that para meaneth contrary no man denyeth it but that it signifieth no more then contrary in your sense you prove not In Rom. 1. 25. you may see parâ— ton ktisantâ— meaneth any thing â—â—sides the creator onely But our strife was not about para or Gal. â— You 〈◊〉 as the Prophets additions to Moses law were Gods so the churches definitions are Gods not mans I deny your 〈◊〉 the churches additionâ— which you call definitions are not Gods as the Prophets writings 〈◊〉 were added to Moses books you are not farr froÌ„ blasphemie in making such a comparison If that were true you might read and expound as authentick scriptures your churches additions and Popes traditions as Christ read Esaias the Prophet and expounded hiâ— in the synagogue Luk. 4. 1â— 21. The proofs you would bring are Luk. 10. 16. he that heareth you heareth me c. Mat. 18. 1â— 18. tel the church c. Deut. â—9 15. or 〈◊〉 they shall stand before the Lord before the Preists c. I answer these scriptures shewe not that they might add any thing to the word of God but they prove the coÌ„trary For they were sent to preach the Gospel Mark 16. 15. that was Gods word not any creatures Thes 2 2. 4. 13. So they were not additions not definitions of their own such as your church makes Also the Preists were bound to teach Gods lawes not their owne Ezek. 44. 24. And so the hearing of them that teach Gods word is the hearing of God himself in his ministers But the contrary to hear the churches traditions is not to hear God for they were many against God as you may see Mark â— 3. 4. 9. 10. c. For els behold what strange doctrine you wil bring in viz. that everie church yea every preist and minister may make additions to Gods law and the people must be bound so to receive them as Gods word Here to helpe your selfe you retire to your old skonce saying it is true of particular churches but so farr as their doctrine accordeth with the Somane catholick church A meer fiction of your own head what one title of Gods word doo you or can you bring for this stuft did Christin Luk. 10. 16. speak to the church of Rome more then to the Church of Corinch Ephesus or any other you make your Roman Church an idol by putting her in Gods place to give lawes you make her a monster whiles being a particular Church you proclaym her for the catholik that is vniversal Church And her doctrine if it accord not with Christs as it dooth not is with her to be abhorred and accursed Gal. 1. 8. By this which hath bene sayd let the prudent judge how soundly you haue proved that any other word or doctrine then Gods may be brought into the Church for a ground of our faith which was the first thing in controversie The 2. part that you are to prove as you say is that the rule of our faith is not onely the written word but jointly the unwritten word of God tradition and the authority of the Church councils fathers is the ultimate decider of all matters of controversie In this assertion you confasedly shuffle togither for your advantage the church councels fathers By the Church you mean your Romish Church which is none of Christs and therefore can judge no Christian controversie Councils and fathers are named but for a show For â—oâ— regard nothing that Councils or Fathers say vnless your Pope approve it On the contrary I hold that Gods written word is to be the rule of our faith and by it all churches Councils Fathers are to be tried whether they be of God or no. But let us heaâ— your proofe That which was say youâ— the total rule of our faith before the written word of God man be wel the partial rule of our faith after where the written word of God dooth not sufficiently cruâ—â—ss diverse mysteries of us to ve beleeved But tradition was a sufficient and total rule of our faith till Moyses time the first 〈◊〉 of the holy Ghost Therfore traditioÌ„ now together with the written word is a sufficient rule of our faith The firâ— prop. you say 〈◊〉 proved the second you â—aâ— is graunted by me I answer If the writings of God were as dark and deceitfull as is this your writing it were woe with vs all In the first proposition you say it may well be the partiall rule of our faith in the conclusion you say it to so If I should say It may wâ—ll be your argument is deceytfull and conclude therefore it is deceâ—tfull would you graunt the conclusion yet is it truer then yours For that which was a rule before may be a rule still if it please God so to continue it this you need not labour to prove But that which was a râ—â—â— before neyther may nor can be a rule still when God hath taken it away put another in the sted And this is the very truth if you would receive it For before Gods law was written it was spoken and by speech from the mouth of holy persons it was to be learned But now it is written oâ—
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
other to the faithfull conscience you turne vvind because we caÌ„not perswade the Arians c. by conference of scriptures to beleeve aright It is not what vve can perswade others but our selves For there are many Arians and other heretikâ— vvhich you vvith your fathers councils Popes are not able to convert Yet you think your Popes decrees are Gods vvord and vve know that the holy scriptures are so indeed And the more to convince you look to your Mr. as you called him Cardinall Bellarmine and see a sound argument of his to prove the knowledge and assurance of the scriptures to be of God by the testimony of the scripture it selfe Bellar. de verb. dei I. 1. c. 2. argument 4. 6. You ask a question thinking to intangle me what the seal of the spirit is and you suppose divers answers Because you are so partial a judge of my spirit I pray aske your Pope what the seale of his spirit is and how he discerns scripture whither he build without ground as you say I doo Look what he can wel answer for himself to satisfy your conscience that think to be answered by me In the mean while mind that the seal of the spirit is for my own assurance and comfort which concerneth an other man nothing 2 Cor. 1. 22. 1 Cor. 2. 11. 7. You having my answer already doo refuse it saying it is most false that the scriptures are distinguished from other books by themselves as light from darknes For then say you every one that had but naturall perfection of the organ and free proposing of the object should distinguish this light This say I is most true for the law of God is a light Prov. 6. 23. which when it is by him free proposed and the organ that is the mind of man wich now is blinded recovereth naturall perfection that is to say is illuminated or renued in knowledge after the image of him that created it every such man with his perfect organ seeth the word of God to be in the scriptures as every man that hath a perfect naturall ey seeth the light of the sun and can assure himself hereof though he goe not to Rome to ask the Pope whither the sun gives light or no. But you are as a man without sense that though the sun shine at noon day yet if the Pope say it is midnight you will beleeve him so on the contrary For you profess to beleeve each part of scripture to be Gods holy word derived from the fulnes of truth Now this is because the Pope tells you so and he tells you also that the books of Tobit Iudith Maccabees c. are scripture canonicall although in them there be apparant lyes as you may see Tobit 12. 15. compared with Tob. 15. 18. Iudith 9. 2. compared with Gen. 49 5. 6. 1 Mac. 6 16. compared with 2. Mac. 1 16. 2 Mac. 1. 19. coÌ„pared with 2 King 25. 1. c. so 2. Mac. 1. 20. 21. 22. 31. many the like Now though the Apostle sayth no lye is of the truth 1 Ioh. 2. 21. yet you beleeve these lyes are derived from the fulnes of truth because the Pope will have it so to be Thus the blind lead the blind into the ditch So you doo not by your private spirit as you say distinguish heritiks from true beleevers but by the definitions and declarations of the church that is I trow of the Pope I shewed you a better way by the Apostle 1 Ioh. 4. 1. 4. but you love darknes better then light And by your grounds if you had lived in Christs dayes on earth you would have distinguished Christ as an heretick from true beleeving Iewes by the definitions of that church and Preisthood Vnto Iewes you confess you must shew other grounds then your Popes authority But if they retort vpon you your private spirit as you doo to me eyther your mouth is stopped or your conscience in pleading against me as you doo is corrupted Yea when you are driven about the high Preists that condemned Christ to say their ignorance was most vincible by their own law which was the scriptures your own mouth giveth sentence against you For by the same law say I the ignorance of your Romish Preisthood is most vincible also Your owne traditions are of no more force against us then the Iewes were against Christ. You charge me with racking many wrested places of scripture to prove the church of God invisible and you oppose many scriptures against it I answer eyther your care was litle or your conscience was large to write so vntruely The question was whither the church erred or no that I proved by many examples and testimonies of scripture as is to be seen in my former writing when your mouth is stopped her in you pass by all that I alleged and turne to another matter wherin you seem to say somewhat and answer vnto scriptures which I mentioned not I mean to hold to the point and not to follow your wandrings which are in the moveable pathes of that strange womaÌ„ Prâ— 5. 6 That which you answer to my demonstration of the Labâ—riâ—th of your religion leading to the Pope c. I shall not bestow labour to reply upon but leave it to judgment so for your answers to the scriptures by me alleged for I will not strive to have the last word Whither I answered nothing as you say to your reason let the reader see Your 2. Argument from the hardnes of the scriptures you agayn repete and dilate Seing you make no other proofe then was before I vvil not follow you to repete my answers but referr to my former writings To prov 8. 8. 9. you reply it is to be vnderstood eyther of generall doctrine or of precepts of manners and good life I answer you ought not so to restrayn it For wisdom there sayth al her words are righteous all are playn will you say nay generall doctrines are playn but not particular precepts of manners but not of faith Belike then the foolish woman that whore of Babylon Apo. 17. must explayn matters of faith and particular doctrines Well I shall content me with Wisdoms playn words and vvhat she teacheth not I regard not to learne if you vvill needs goe to the banket of stollen vvaters and hid bread know that the dead are there if you vvill take vvarning Where I shewed how your Popes determinations make Gods law more hard to simple men instancing the second commandement corrupted by your glosses and distinctions You take vpon you to defend your image-worship by the brazen Serpent and Cherubims And might not Ieroboam so have defended his golden calves Gods law sayth Thou shalt not make to thy self any similitudes thou shalt not bow down to them nor vvorship them you make many similitudes of God Christ
vvord spirit Your own hand writing therefore convinceth you of vntruth not me of bad conscience as you charge me I did and doo cal it a bastard phrase as being of your own or of the Popes begetting for th'Apostle Peter neyther spake nor meant so You add to his vvords and therfore are reproved of God Prov. 30. 6. you swary from your authentik Latin translation and therefore are reproved by your own canon law I proved by the scriptures Ephe. 4. 4. Rom. 12. 4. c. 1 Cor. 12. 4. 8. 9. c. that there is but one spirit which al Gods people have though in divers mesures as mans body hath but one soul or spirit to quicken it This you not being able to deny doo vvind away and except though it be the same fowl yet it worketh otherwise in the head then in the foot etc I answer it is very true You inferr then that so it belongs to the head of the church and not to every craftsman to interpret scriptures Why are ther no members in a mans body between the head and the heels that you make such a leap Is there no mean between the head and every craftsman What place then is there for your Cardinals Bishops Preists Doctors Iesuits c. they are not the head of the church yet you think them higher then the feet But if this your answer be good then though Peter were head as you erroneously think I hope the spirit wrought otherwise in him then it did in that divil incarnate Pope Iohn the 22. and in other your monstrous vvicked Popes as your own friends doo vvitnes against them Then had those beasts a private spirit vvorse then any an honest craftsman then it belonged not to them to interpret scriptures No nor to your Preists and Iesuits unless you vvill make them heads A little after touching Pope Stephen vvho repeled the decrees of his predecessor Pope Formosus you vvould have him to doo this not as the head of the church but out of the violencie of his private spirit I like vvell of your answer and think the very same of all the Popes traditions and therefore the privat spirit vvhich so oft you entwite me vvith I return into your own hands to be kept as the Popes Depositum You pretend that for all the vvickednes of some Popes God hath stil preserved the unity of faith in your church And that never any Pope by his definitive sentence did define heresie I answer if the Pope may be judge as vvith you he is I vvarrant you he vvill never condemn himself of heresie But if Gods word be judge many heresies are easy to be found in your late council of Trent and in many Popes decrees Which vvill come to be scanned in particular doctrines after these generall grounds are ended Your digression to another vvriter I omitt you may seek answer if you please of himself And your author â—o vvhom you send me for satisfaction about your Popes power of dispensations I shall read vvhen I have leysure therto Your 3. Argument you set down now upon your memorie otherweise then ever before thus That which hath still been a rule to theÌ„ that have erred cannot be a certayn rule to direct all in faith But the scripture interpreted by the private spirit as every one pretends given from God hath led many into dangerous and horrible errors go the scriptures though directed by the private spirits interpretation cannot be a rule of faith I answer your conclusion I grant though your argument be naught for the private spirit wee found whileare to be the violent spirit of the Pope or his like And scripture directed or rather perverted by such a spirit cannot in deed be a rule of faith Against your 2. Proposition I except it implieth a fallacie putting that for the cause which is not the cause The scriptures never led any into errour but vnlearned and unstable persons pervert all scriptures as the Apostle sayth unto their own destructioÌ„ the cause hereof is not the scriptures but mens corruption The Pharisees perverted the doctrines spoken by our Saviour Christ himselfe yet I hope you will not deny but his heavenly words was a certayn rule to direct all in faith So the proof of your minor faileth you Against your first proposition which you say is most certayn I except as not playn and so deceitfull That which is a rule to them that err understanding of it own nature and properly cannot be a certayn rule to direct all in faith But now to assume that the scripture is such were blasphemie Agayn That which is a rule to them that err to weet a rule by accident through their ignorance or malice abusing it cannot be a certayn rule to direct al Gods people in faith now I deny the proposition and leave you to give proof of these things in your next And whither before or now you have drie-beaten mee as you boast let the lookers on give verdict Your 4. argument you omit through oversight I suppose onely whâ—r I shewed by 1. Cor. 11. 19. Act. 15. c. that contentions were in the Apostles times and composed by the scriptures not by setting up a supremejudge or Pope Yow answer barely they prove rather theâ— must be one visible supreme judge to decide controversies Wee are thâ—n at a point Let him that readeth the scriptures and reasons which I there alleged judge whither of the two they doo rather prove Your 5. which yow call your 4. argument is that we beleeve many things which are not reveled in holy scripture c. I told yow and tell yow agayne that I doo not howsoever yow may beleeve any thing needful for my salvation which is not reveled in the Holy scriptures neyther wil I use other weapons against Arians Anabaptists or any heretiks that acknowledge the scriptures to be of God This therfore is no argument to convince me at all You insult for that I will not shewe my particular proofs against those heresies I told you this were to digress from our present controversie Propose yow arguments and I will answer you for the cause in hand els multiplie not words in vaine You now plainly answer that Gods vvord as it is extrinsecal the vvord of God and to be knovvn of us depends of tradition and the authoritie of the church This I reject as an heresie For vvhen vve read or hear the books of Moses or the Prophets vve read that vvhich is spoken to us of God Mark. 1â— 26. compared vvith Math. 22 31. that vvhich the Spirit of God speaketh to the churches Rev. 2 â— 11. novv not to beleeve or rest upon this ground but to rely upon mans record is to make the testimony or man greater extrinsecally to us then the testimonie of God contrarie to 1. Ioh. 5 9. and maketh men lyable to the curse Ier. 17. 5. You
replie unto Act. 26 22. that in tradition nothing is spoken besides that is contrarie to the Apostles speeches First this is untrue many of your church traditioÌ„s are both besides coÌ„ntrary to the scriptures as when we examine the particulars wil appear and yow dare not subject your church and traditions to the trial by the scriptures but yow wil haue mens fayth extrinsecally to depend upoÌ„ your church Secondly you wind away by terms of your owne besides that is contrary vvhereas the Apostle sayth nothing without or except that vvhich the Prophets and Moses sayd none other thing Your allegation from 2. 2. Thes. 2. is answered in my former vvritings You further allege for traditions Act. 15. 41. 16. 4. I answer all Apostolicall decrees such as are ther mentioned we doo receiv but yours decreed by the Pope are Apostaticall Secondly you may see that those which they delivered vvere vvritten before Act. 15. 23 -25 28. c. You say they are uncertayn let the prudent judge And if so they be then are they not necessary for salvation for all such are vvritten Ioh. 20. 30. 31. 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. Here you interlace 2. other points compâ—â—ing the grounds that vve and that you doe goe vpon and you handle them largely in 55. sections I vvill first follow on vvith your 6. part at S. 153. both because that vvas the course of our former vvritings and the examining of the things alleged for your Pope vvil give light touching these other points which also I vvill consider of after in his place The second of your assertions vvhich now you make the 6. part of your longsome pamphlet vvas That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith To this now as a man fearful of your cause you have added the Popes definitive sentence at least with a generall council And this you say you are to show and vve say I are ready to behold your showes Here I find no argument by you set down to conclude your assertion as vvas in the former points vvhich is an other declaration of the weaknes of your cause Heretofore to help the Pope you fled to S. Peters prerogatives vvhich vvere they as great as you feign them to be yet as I told you there is no more proved for the Bishop of Rome then for the Bishop of Babylon or Patriarch of Constantinople Yet having no better grounds you agayn flee to them and labour to repayr your showes of Peters preeminence vvhich I by the scriptures had pulled down And first you say that out of the whole series of them and the circumstances and not onely out of each particular you draw an infallible argument I answer the particulars I have proved to be by you wrested so the vvhole series and rank of them can conclude not hing soundly for you Your 1 show vvas S. Peters naming first I told you this is usual but not alwayes and to help you because you complaynâ— cited not the 〈…〉 see Ioh. 1. 45. vvhere Andrew is named before him Gal. 2. 9. vvhere Iames is named before him Mar 16. â— vvhere mention is made oâ— the disciples and Peter so 1 Cor. 9. 5. the Apostles brethren of the Lord and Cephas Though if he had been alvvayes first named it proves him not to be the head of the church more then the first foundation Rev. 21. 19. vvill prove Paul as I shewed you Here you boast that Exod. 28. 18. 19. confutes me vvhere the Iasper you think is the sirt stone and so not the 12. for Benjamin I answer an yll translation hath deceived you For Moses there sheweth that the stone Iaspeh whereof the Greek Iaspis Arabik Iasp Latine Iaspis and English Iasper are naturally derived vvas the â—2 and last in the brestplate and so for Benjamin vvho vvas the last born of the patriarchs to be graved vpon Exod. 28. 9. 10. 21. This your own learned Linguists as Arias Montanus and others doo acknowledge and so correct your translation So the best of the Iewish Rabbines as Maimony vvho sayth Benjamin was written on the Iaspeh Misn. lib. 8. Treat of the vessels of the Sanctuary chapt 9 S. â— And thus Paul of Benjamin hath colour to be the head of the church as vvell as Peter You press Mat 10. 2. the first Simon caled Peter Andrew as you think vvas first in yeres first in caling for proof you cite Ambrose on 2. Cor. 12. I answer first Ambroses humane â—uthority is no proof for Peters pretended divine headship Secondly Ambrose saith not that he vvas first in yeres put that therfore amoÌ„g your own traditioÌ„s but ChrysostoÌ„ if you vvil rely upoÌ„ men maketh Peter elder then Andrew That which Ambrose sayth is Andrew folowed our Sav before Peter this I hold true by Ioh. 1. 40. 41. but it is one thing to folow Christ as a disciple an other thing to be chosen an Apostle as reason teacheth and you may read Mar. 3. 13. 14. 16. compared with Mar. 1. 16. Luk. 6. 12. 13. 14. vvith Luk. 5. 8. 10. That Andrew therefore vvas an Apostle before Peter I deny by vvarrant of scripture thus I wink not as you vvrite but vvith Calvin I confess Peter to be first of the Apostles You grant by that I alleged from 2. King 2. Dan. 3. that such miracles as Peters walking on the water prove no headship of the church so then this also you brought but for a show 3 I corrected your error in translating him for it in Mat. 16. 18. restreyning that to Peter vvhich Christ promised to his vvhole church You stand to it stil. But first against humane learning for autes the feminine gender cannot accord with Petros the malculine as it can and dooth vvith Ecclesias the Church You plead also against true religion for I proved by Ioâ— â—0 27. 28. 29. that all true Christians are invincible of hâ—l gâ—â—â—s and not Peter onely Here you burst out and cry that if I vnderstaÌ„d it in the Calvinisticall sense that one once justified can not be again the child of wrath it is you say a most horrible falshood and against the holy scriptures Rom. 11. 20. 21. Rev. 2. 5 I answer I understand plainly as Christ sayth that his sheep shall never pâ—rish neyther shall any pluck them out of his hand but he vvill give them eâ—er â—al life Ioh. 10. 28. that it is not possible the elect should be seduced 〈…〉 Christ Mat. 24 24. for God putteth his fear in their harts that they shall not depart from him Ier. 32. 40 and Gods gifts and caling are without repentance Rom. 11. 29. and they that are born of God cannot syn vnto death 1 Ioh. 3. 9. And these things accord vvell with Rom. 11. 20. 21. c. for by faith we stand but all men have not faith 2 Thes. 3. 2. there is a vayne fayth
Iam. 2. 14. 17. 20. from that men fall and there is the faith of Gods elect Tit. 1. 1. and this faith justifieth Rom. 4. 3. 5. 5. 1. and from it men never fall finally They may fall into syn by infirmity but shall not be cast off for the Lord putteth under his hand Psal. 37. 24. yea though they fall seven times yet they rise agayn but the vvicked fall into mischief Prov. 24. 16. This is my faith and your contrary Popish heresies I abhorr You deny not but your Popes may be reprobates and damned in hel I trow then hel gates doo prevayl against them and so the promise in Mat. 16. 18. perteyns not vnto them You except the Divil prevayls not against the Pope as he is head of the church as he defines e◠cathedra Yes doubtless therein he most prevayls against him because he allures him into Christs place and so makes him Antichrist And if you had the mind of Christ you would no more regard vvhat Apolluon the P. of Rome defineth ex cathedra unless he could prove it by the holy scriptures then what Apollo the D. of Delphos divined ex tripode 4. Your fourth shew from Peters confirming his brethren being confuted by scriptures Act. 14. 22. and 15. 41. 32. c. you now say the other Apostles confirmed not as the supreme pastor not as the head of the church by office I answer neyther did Peter so if you add that to your wrested text God will reprove you Prov. 30. 6. and your humane testimonies vvhich you abuse also shall not save you You digress to entwite me with gross corruption of the text for Englishing presbyteros an Elder I am loth to folow your outroades onely let me tel you that you check herein your authentik Latin translation which turneth it Senior and Major nat◠and in your divinitie Englishing both Cohen Hiereus a Preist and Zaken Presbuteros a Preist as if these were one you deceiv the simple with a sophistical aequivocatiō And you may as wel say the Apostles were idiots because they are caled idiotai Act. 4. 13. as say Christs ministers are Preists vnderstanding sacrificing Preists because they are caled Presbyteri 5. You daily agayn about Peters feet first washed as some suppose I let you alone vvith your fansie let the reader judge whither it be a fit proof for his headship 6. So for Peters martyrdome vvhence you conclude it was promised to Peter to be head of the church It is a bold untruth the text sayth no such words proveth no such thing 7. Your 7. show was gathered also from a false translation restrayning they began Act. 2. 4. to Peter as if he began which being but a guess you now shrink from that to the next passage in v. 14 c. where from Peters sermon you would prove him head of the church It is a vvorld to see vvhat shifts you are driven to the very naming of them is to all wise men ridiculous But if Peter for first preaching was head of the church that Pope vvhich first left preaching was the head of the Beast and so all your unpreaching Popes at least are Antichrists You graunt agayn that the first miracle which you uncertainly supposed S. Peter vvrought Act. 2. 11. dooth not solely convince what you would herein I beleeve you But I marvel at your discretion that think a number of futilous and vvorthless arguments being heaped togither would perswade any vnto popery unless they be such as are spoken of Prov. 9. 16. who so is simple let him come hither And here you are too lavish of your tongue in saying I cannot deny but our Saviour caleth Peter the rock first washeth his feet that Peter booth the first miracles c. I denyed the first and you cannot prove the latter Though were they al granted for Peter yet your applying them to your Pope is altogither groundless The first excommunication by Peter inferrs you think that he was head Before you urged the act which being proved insufficient now yee flee to the first doing of the act At the most this sheweth but primacie in order which I graunted seing Paul and others did the like But by your manner of reasoning vvhosoever dooth any thing first shall be head of the church And why I pray you by like reason should not those Popes that first practised Simony sorcerie and hypocrisie be heads of the man of syn You leav it for the reader to judge whither all these reasons togither shew not that Peter was rock and head of the church I also referr it to judgment And if your vayn shewes for Peter be not sound proofs for your Pope then he is left naked as the heath in the wildernes Ier. 17. 6. I proved by the scriptures Mat. 28. 18. 19. 20. Ioh. 20. 21. 22. 23. Act. 2. 4. that the other Apostles had equal office charge and power vvith Peter himself you answer the places prove nothing and if ought it is equality of order not of jurisdiction Thus you resist the truth vvithout reason it vvere vvell if you would add doctrine to your lips When all the Apostles are sent by the power of Christ vvith like vvords and authority vvhen the rest as Paul doo whatsoever Peter himself did in word prayer Sacraments censures miracles c. you barely say they vvere not equall in jurisdiction You vveary me vvith your own words and repetitions without proof Seing Gods vvord moves you not let me trie vvhat man 's will doo The rest of the Apostles sayth one of your Doctors vvere verily the same that Peter vvas indued vvith equal participation of honor and of power Being blamed for your making Peter head and rock of the church vvhich are Christs peculiar titles You answer he is the ministerial subordinat head to Christ as Christ is the foundation 1 Cor. 3. 11. yet the Apostles are foundations Eph 2. 20. I answer first Gods word no where caleth Peter the head and vvhy will you be vviser then God Secondly the Apostles because they layd the foundation vvhich vvas Christ as Paul sheweth 1. Cor. 3 10. 11. therfore the Church is sayd to be built upon their foundation Eph. 2. 20. And in this they vvere equal if any excelled it vvas Paul who laboured in laying the foundation more then the rest 2 Cor. 12. 11. 1 Cor. 15. 10. In this sense if you speak of ministerial head that by the ministery of the word Peter preached the head Christ the thing is true but the phrase is not good it vvas true in Paul also as much as Peter yea in all the Apostles and thus all Christs ministers at this day minister and preach him the head vvhich the Pope dooth not But you feign a thing which never vvas that Christ should substitute Peter for head in his place absence no scripture tells
you this but the contrary for Christ being present and vvalking vvith his churches needeth no vicar And this title head God in his vvord giveth onely to Christ Col. 1. 18. Yet you leaving Gods vvord fly to your S. Basil for succor that all men may see your church and prelacy is built on the sands of mens traditions not on the Rock of divine oracles You vvill not from it but Peter signifies a rock vvhich I have disproved and shewed that Petros of Petra the Rock and Cephas of Ceph is no more then to be a Christian of Christ. Peter vvas a principal stone yea the first if you vvill layd upon Christ the chief corner stone the Rock all Christians are living stones layd on him also Your racked allegations from Augustine and other Doctors I vvil not spend time to confute for I build my religion vpon the Rock Christ not upon men Your reason vvhy the gender vvas not changed in Christs name as in Peters is for that all vvhich admitted of his doctrine vvould not deny him to be head of the church I see you love to say somwhat unto every thing I also may say all vvhich admitt of the Popes doctrine vvill not deny Peter to be head of the church so by your argument there was no need to change the gender for him neyther And so the scripture hath doon somthing needless or els your answer is fruitless How you save Optatus credit and your self from blame for falsely interpreting Cephas a head contrary to the holy Ghost Ioh. 1. 43. vvho interpreteth it a stone I leave it for the learned to judge Your exception that Peter vvas not elected to be the mouth of the rest vvas refelled in my former vvriting if you vvould rest for Thomas Philip Iude vvere not elected any more then Peter to speak for the other disciples Ioh. 14. 5. 8. 22. yet you vvill not have them heads So your distination of the Apostles equallity in power of order not of jurisdiction is a bare repetition of a thing never proved but before refuted And where you add equall as they were Apostles but not as they were Bishops it is mere trifling you might as vvell say equal as they were men but not as they vvere living creatures For they vvere no otherweise Bishops then as they were Apostles And in Act. 1. you may see that Iudas his Episcopee or Bishops office vvas no other then his Apostolee or Apostles office Act. 1. v. 20. compared vvith v. 17. 25. 26. Besides by 1. Cor. 12. 28. and Ephe. 4. 11. you may see the Apostles were by office the first in the church that if the other were equal vvith Peter in the Apostleship as you graunt they vvere equal also in al power that if you resist any longer you vvill be condemned of your self Your succession grounded but vpon mens report I allow not of for you build on boggs Your understanding of that admonition Rom. 11. 20. 22. c. is partly true and against your self in that you vvrote before S. 162. partly it is frivolous vvhiles you dream of more previlege to the See of Roome and Bishop there then to others churches and Bishops You have no colour for this in the testament of Christ yet is it the mayn thing that yow should prove if it were possible No citie in the world remayneth so execrable by Gods word as Rome for killing Christ of old by her power and pollicie and for being Antichrists throne Rev. 17. and 18. It is worth the noting that you doo not hold the Pope is necessarily indued with Gods holy grace And that in matters of fact he maysyn you say as well as any other Your Popes facts I am sure prove this if any shoud have the face to deny it Hereupon I inferr that your Popes are not members and so not possibly heads of the catholik church of God It is high blasphemy to say the head of that church may want Gods holy grace Colos. 1 18. c. 2 19. How now doo you know that the traditions and definitions of your graceless Popes are of God If you trie them not by the scriptures which you dare not because of the private spirit they may deceive and damne your soul as well as any other men You say you hold a necessary assistance which the Pope hath of the holy Ghost as he defines ex cathedra And upon what ground hold you this You find in Gods book no mention eyther of your Pope or of his Chayr for good The Apostle Peter directeth us to that vvhich holy men of God spake not to that vvith Satans slaves doo teach such as vvas P. Silvester the 2. of vvhom Cardinal Benno vvriteth that he came up out of the abyss or bottomless deep o◠divine permission And by the same answers of the Divils vvherby he had deceived many he vvas also deceived himself vvas intercepted vvith suddayn death by the judgment of God And yet vvil you trust such a miscreant that out of his chayr he vvill tel you none but divine oracles Never vvas there such a thing known since the beginning of the vvorld that a graceless reprobate should have necessarily the assistance of the holy Ghost so often as he sits him down on his chayr to define or determine the matters of God No religion on earth to my knowledge ever admitted such an unreasonable doctrine for vvhich you have no proof unless from the Popes own ungracious spirit vvhereby he exalteth himself against all that is caled God 2. Thes. 2 4. Notvvithstanding you labour to justify your S. Leo that sayd the head meaning I trow your ministeriall head at Rome infuseth grace to the whole church that God took S. Peter into the fellowship of the individual vnity And doe you in earnest beleev these things of your reprobate Popes as of S. Silvester the 2. of that Divil incarnate S. Iohn the 22. their like I perceive it is not vvithout cause that the scarlet coloured beast is sayd to be full of the names of blasphemie And here you say I see your religiō is no upstart religiō that so many yeres agoe was mainteyned Yes upstart it is but many yeres agoe I grant for the mysterie of iniquity did vvork evē vvhiles Paul lived 2 Thes. 2. 7. he told how after his departure greivous wolves should enter not sparing the flock under the name of wolves comprehending it may be Lions also and all other salvage beasts Wherefore Antichrist is an old man though you mistake as if he were yet scarse in his cradle 2. You helpe S. Leo as meaning that vvhich S. Peter sayd of such as should be partakers of the godly nature I answer first this is a very friendly interpretation that the fellowship of the individual unity should be but participation of the godly nature which al Christiās are partakers of A man may
thus interpret the Familists blasphemie that they are Godded with God But I wil take S. Leo at the best Secondly therfore I answer that this speach of Peter vvas to all the Saincts that fled the corruption vvhich is in the vvorld through lust 2. Pet. 1. 1. 4. so that S. Peters privilege vvill get litle hereby much less the Popes For these graces have not appeared in many heads of your church but the contrary vvhiles your Popes folowed the corruption in the vvorld through lust as your self deny not so then such vvere not partakers of the divine but of the Divils nature And now consider vvhat grace they have infused into your church But for this participation you say S. Greg. the 7. prayed to S. Peter I think vve shall have a God of him anone You say nay but that he vvould be an intercessor And herein say I you make him Christ for there is as the scripture telleth us one God and one mediator between God and man the man Christ Iesus But if this reason be good the Pope may kneel and pray to you also for if you be as you suppose a true Christian then have you that participation of the divine nature 2. Pet. 1. 4. and the prayer of the righteous one for another even in this vvorld avayleth much as th'Apostle telleth us Yet for al this I think the Pope vvill scarse pray unto you as he dooth to S. Peter Whereas I sayd one of your Canonists caled him our Lord God the Pope you first charge me vvith untruth as if I sayd your Canonists and so made it an ordinary style of the canon law I answer you mistake my vvriting whâ—re you may see it sayd one of them But had I vvritten as you say you need no more blame me for untruth then a paynim might cavil at the Euangelist for flying that the theeves reproched Christ Mat. 27. 44. vvhen it vvas but one of them that did so Luk 23 39. 40. You say in a vvritten copy in the Vatican library the vvord God is not found but our Lord the Pope I rest in your reporte for the blasphemy vvas so gross as I think you are all ashamed of it Yet that so it hath been divulged by your selves in other copies you cannot deny And I trow you are not ignorant that your Pope is caled God oftner theÌ„ once for see vvhat is also vvritten Clement in proem in Gloss. and Concil Lateran Sess. 4. sub Leo. 10. Therefore you vvould help it by scriptâ—re alleging Ps. 81. 6. I have sayd you are Gods c. I am sory that you set your self to justify all grossnes Our Lord God is a peculiar phrase to the onely true God not to magistrates caled Gods by office much less to any Vsurper But if you vvill needs have it so let the Pope be caled God of the Papists D. Stapleton saluteth Pope Gregorie 13. as his supreme Numen or God on earth He vvas not therefore of the Prophets religion vvho sayd vvhom have I in heaven but thee oh Lord and there is none on earth that I desire besides thee Psal. 73. 25. Your self have vvritten the Pope to be the Universal Pastor Ioh. 10. he as I told you is one with the Father Ioh. 10. 30. and you retract it not I know no reason if you hold this stil vvhy you may not say as the Apostle Thomas sayd to the true Universal Pastor Christ My Lord my God Ioh. 20. 28. and pray to the Pope as did that vnclean mouth vvhich sayd o thou that takest away the synns of the world have mercy vpon us Your opinion about deposing Princes I am not ignorant of as you suppose Your Mr. the Cardinall hath lately vvritten more then a good deal hereabouts But I forbear to urge this point least you should think I went about to ensnare you I wish more good vnto you For a conclusion you repete your former scriptures togither for S. Peters preeminence I referr you and al to my former refutation of your showes Onely I will answer where you add now somwhat more as you say The Angel directeth Peter to goe before them as their Captayn Mark 16 17. This is a palpable perverting of the scripture for the Angel there speaketh of Christ to the women goe tel his disciples and Peter that he goeth before you into Galilâ—e there ye shal see him This which Christ had promised to doo himself Mark 14. 28. and now performed it Mark 16. 17. you falsely apply unto Peter to prove him head and Captayn and so by Peters feighned Captainship to intrude your Pope as head and Captayn so thrusting out Christ. Did ever men offer such abuse to Gods word as you doo No better is your next addition S. Peter you say came first to the monument Ioh 20. 4. were this so what sense is there to conclude him head of the Church for it Mary Magdalen was there before Peter Ioh. 20. 1. why doo you not make her head But you falsify the scripture for it sayth they rann both togither but the other disciple did outrun Peter and came first to the monument That which the holy Ghost witnesseth of Iohn the other disciple that doo you ascribe to Peter How unsufferably doo you vvrest the scripture What lyes may vve think vvill you not preach to your seduced people vvhich may not read the scriptures vvhen you vvrite thus to me But any thing is good ynough to help your Popes like proofe like prerogative Thirdly you add S. Paul came to Ierusalem to see S. Peter Gal. 1. 18. This had had some show if he had come to Rome to see S. Peter now if it could prove S. Peters preemineÌ„cie it might have some colour for the Bishops of Ierusalem but for the Pope of Rome none at all No more then as if one should reason thus Iudas betrayed his master therefore the Pope is Antichrist I think you vvil not graunt the conclusion though it be truer then yours I further answer that Paul there proveth his authority to be no vvay inferiour to Peters both by his caling v. 1. and his behaviour after his caling for he vvent not to Ierusalem to them vvhich vvere Apostles before him but as he saith vnto Arabia and turned agayn unto Damascus v. 17. then after 3. yeares he vvent to Ierusalem to see Peter vvhich being compared vvith his words and deeds after Gal 2. 6. 7. 8. 11. c. argue rather Pauls Priviledge then Peters For his going to Peter vvil no more debase him then the mother of our Lord vvho vvent into the hil country to Elizabet vvith vvhom she taryed much longer then Paul did vvith Peter Luk. 1. 39. 40 43. 56. And now we have seen your plea for S. Peter I vvil shew how a man might plead better for S. Paul that he was the head of your Catholik Roman church as you vainly call it
Pet. 1. 24. 25. Finally you are farr from an uniforme consent of the fathers to prove your haeretical assertion Though many of them were mistaken in some things yet were they not so senseless as to beleeve that graceless reprobate Popes must needs have such grace as to desine nothing but truth out of their chair But you that have abused the holy scriptures as I have proved what wrong wil you not doo to the fathers You are moved I see with my free applying of the scriptures that speak of Antichrist unto your Pope I am content to bear your contempt but I must call evil evil and faithfully witness what God hath manifested though men gnaw their tongues for payn You goe about to prove that the Pope is not Antichrist First for then it should folow that hel gates have prevayld against Gods church many 100. yeres c. I answer nay For it is prophesied the woman the church should flee into the wildernes where God should feed her 1260. dayes Rev. 12. 6. which may be so many prophetical yeares as Dan. 9. 24. though therefore the church was persecuted into secret places yet hel prevayled not agaynst it In the old world the church was but in that one familie of Noah Gen. 6. 1. Pet. 3. 20. And Christ likeneth these last dayes vnto those Mat. 24. 37. Agayn you except how many martyrs Doctors c. in offring up homage to the beast should broyl in hel c. I answer this is no proof if it were as you inferr But howsoever it is true the sowl that synneth shall dye yet in many things we syn all and the blood of Iesus Christ clenseth us from all syn except the syn against the holy Ghost even from our secret synns Although therefore many Doctors helped vp Antichrist vnawares yet doubt I not but Gods mercy hath superabounded above all their syn and saved them for they did it ignorantly Your 2. reason is Antichrist shal be one particular man as Ioh. 5. 43. another shal come in his own name so he is opposed by Christ person to person c. but the Popes are many successively And 2 Thes. 2. he is caled the man of syn c. I answer when Christ sayd Another shal come he meant not one persoÌ„ but many of one kind successivly My reasons are first because he sayd elswhere many shal come in my name saying I am Christ and there shal arise false Christs false Prophets Secondly because Antichrist is described as a Beast Rev. 13. which beast in the Prophets signifieth a kingdom and many persons of one sort as is sayd in Dan. 7. 23. the fourth beast shal be the fourth kingdom c. So the Lion vvas for all the Kinges of Babylon the Bear for all the Kings of Persia c. Dan. 7. 4. 5. so by proportion that deformed beast Rev. 1â— for all Popes Thirdly because the word Allos another vvhich Christ useth often noteth many particular men of one kind as in Ioh. 4. 37. one soweth and another reapeth which he expoundeth in the next words v. 38. other man laboured meaning the Prophets and ye my Apostles enter into their labours And thus the man of syn though he be one person at once yet successively meaneth many as when Christ sayth Ioh. 10. 10. the theef coÌ„meth not but to steal he restreyneth it not to one theef in person alwayes but meaneth every theef whensoever he coÌ„meth Fourthly Antichrist cannot be one singular man as you think because he must reign at least 1000. yeres as may be gathered by Rev. 20. 4. vvhere the godly vvhich worshiped not the Beast lived reigned with Christ 1000. yeres during vvhich time the Beast persecuted and kylled them also by the vvomans lying hid in the vvildernes so many dayes Rev. 12. Your 3. reason is Antichrist shal be of the tribe of Dan as Gen. 49. 17. Dan shal be a serpent c. Ier. 8. 16. the neyghing of horses was heard from Dan. c. I answer first you shew no reason that this is meant properly of Antichrist And if figuratively it is nothing to the purpose for Antiochus Nabuchodonosor and others figured him also Secondly Iakobsprophefie which was a blessing and not a curse as Antichrist is vvas literally meant of Samson a man of that tribe caled therefore Bedan 1 Sam. 12. 11. vvho for his subtile vndermining of the Philistins vvas likened to a serpent Iudg. 14. c. And thus the Chalde paraphrast on that place expoundeth it saying There shall be a man which shall be chosen rise out of the house of Dan vvhose fear shal fal vpon the peoples and he shall valiantly smite the Philistians as an adder as an asp he shal lye in wayt by the path he shal sâ—ay the strong horsmen in the host of the Philistians c. That of 〈◊〉 8. is meant properly of vvarrs in those costs of Dan in those times not of Antichrist now as the vvhole scope of the scripture there manifesteth Your 4. reason is Antichrist shal oppugn the misteries of our saviour 1 Ioh. 2. 22. and extol himself above all that is sayd God 2. Thes. 2 I answer this is true in your Popes for they oppugn Christ in his office of prophesie preisthood and kingdom in their heretical doctrine of mans merits mass sacrifice purgatorie c. and in making lawes for the church in forbidding people the holy scriptures in their mother tongue and many the like Though this is doon vnder colour of meeknes and holynes for the beast hath 2. hornes like the lamb as if he were Christs own vicar Rev. 13. 11. If you rest not in the scripture let S. Bernard move you who vvitnessed that the Beast in the Revelation which hath a mouth speaking blasphemies occupied Peters chayr Your 5 reason is The 7. mountayns in Rev. 17. are sayd to be 7. Kings none of vvhith agree vvith the Pope I answer yes the seventh agrees very vvel For the woman is the great city Rome Rev. 17. 18. the beast on vvhich she rideth hath 7. heads vvhich are expounded there to be both 7. mountains and 7. Kings Rev. 17. 3. 9 The 7. mountayns ar famous through the world as Palatinus Capitolinus Aventinus Esquilinus Caelius Viminalis Quirinalâ—s on vvhich mountayns Rome was builded The 7. Kings are also the 7. goverments of Rome renoumed also in histories As by Kings by Consuls by Decemiviri by Dictators by Triumviri by Caesars by forreyn Emperours and Popes Therefore vvhen Iohn vvrote the five first vvere fallen removed Rev. â—7 10. and one sayth he is namely the sixt by the Caesars and another is not yet come vvhich vvas the forrayn Emperors as Trajan the Spanyard and the like who vvhen they came should continue but a vvhile Constantine going to Bizantium and the Empire being overâ—un by the barbarous Gothes c. And the Beast sayth
have been confounded and abolished and this hath been stablished against the forces of the divil and of the princes and powers of the world and sense of the flesh and naturall minde of man Al which doo manifest that these cannot but be of God The inward testification of God is by his Holy spirit which illumineth the mind to vnderstand the things given us of God writeth them in our harts and sealeth up the assurance of the promises that ar in them unto the beleeving conscience The secondary testimony that the scriptures ar of God is from men as First the Vniversal consent of churches in all ages of the Iewes first and after of the Christians in all places which have received beleeved and obeyed the Holy scriptures as the Oracles of God yea even Antichristians themselves acknowledge them to be from heaven Secondly the multitude of men that have given their lives for defense of these scriptures and doctrines taught in them yea even the heretikâ—s themselves who thought their errors were confirmed by these scriptures and therfore died in them are not excluded from this motive which is such as the like can not be shewed of any book under the sun The first outward proofs which God hath engraved in the scriptures themselves are sufficient to convince al men and make them without excuse For as the invisible thinges of God that is his eternal power and godhead are to be seen in his works the creatures Rom. 1. 20 so the invisible things of Gods word the powrfulnes wisdom and alsufficiencie therof unto mans salvation are to be seen in the Holy scriptures which they that beleeve not wil not be perswaded though one should ryse agayne from the dead Luk. 16. 31. And if God will damn the wicked that doo not by his works discern him and honour him as God much more wil he damn the prophane that doo not by his scriptures discern his holy wil and obey the same The inward testification by the spirit of God in the beleevers hart is for the comfort and assurance of every one that hath it not for any outward proof to others much less to the wicked which have it not neyther can perceive it In vayn therfore doth Mr. I. A. and the papists cal for manifestation of that which they can not discern and cavil against the spirit as not a due outward proof when we allege it not for that end Now wil I set down some motives which may draw any reasonable infidel if God shut not up his hart from understanding to come â—ather unto true Christianity with us the Reformed churches then unto Catholikisme or Popery with the Romists First we allege for the triall of our faith and religion the most ancient records in the world as Moses and after him the Prophets and the Apostles Euangelists first founders of ChristiaÌ„ religion through the earth But Papists dare not stand to these but allege for the triall of their religion later new records of Doctors Councills Popes c. Novv in all reason that vvhich is most ancient should be most true both as Gods lavv shevveth and as Tertullian also heretofore pleaded Secondly we allow al men by that common light and judgment which God hath graven in the hart of man which is the ground of al expositions to read hear examine and judge of our proofs reasons testimonies and therfore â—oâ— exhort al to have the scriptures and to peruse them and to try the spirits of al men But Papists allow not their ignorant disciples â—o read or hear the scriptures in their mother tongue nor to try their doctrines spirits which is a signe that they ar not of God but doo captive al mens judgments unto the definitive sentences of their Popes which is as if men should put out their own eyes that the Pope might lead them blind Thirdly the grounds which we build upon namely the Prophets and Apostles writings are both commanded of God and by Papists themselves the scriptures are acknowledged to be of God authentik and canonical so that we build upon the Rock even our adversaties being judges But their traditions and Popes decrees besides scripture are forbidden of God and allowed of none save themselves neyther doo vve acknowledg or can they ever prove them to be of God any otherwise then Mahomet may vvarrant his Alkoran or the Iewes their Thalmud Fourthly the writers of our grounds the Holy scriptures vvere all holy persons governed by the spirit of God and not any one of them vvas a reprobate But the writers and determiners of popish traditions have been many of them and that by the papists owne confession most wicked and vile persons that sold themselves unto syn and Satan al dayes of their life and got their popedomes some by simonie and bribes some by schisme and sedition and other like evil meanes Therfore in al reason they are nothing so vvorthy to be beleeved or rested vpon as the sacred vvriters on vvhome vve depend Fiftly the Holy Apostles Prophets to vvhose vvritings vve cleave preached not themselves but Gods law and Christ drew no man to subjection unto themselves but unto God sought not in their doctrines or vvritings their ovvn vvealth or vvorldly prefermeÌ„t sold not the Gospel nor made marchandise of it Wheras Popes on vvhose definitive sentences Papists doo rely preach themselves as wee declare sayth P. Boniface we define and pronounce that it is altogither of necessity to salvation that every humane creature be under the Byshop of Rome So other their traditions and definitions tend to the maintenauce of their own pomp dignity vvorldly vvealth and pleasures for their Popes bulls pardons and blessed reliks are set to sale for money so are their Preists masses and Trentals as the vvorld vvel knoweth and therefore of all naturall vvise men are justly to be suspected and the holy Prophets to be preferred much before them Sixtly the holy vvriters vvhom vve depend on are all of such authority and credit as vve admit of proof from any one of them because they all teach one faith and obedience Whereas Papists send men to Bishops Doctors Fathers Councils which disagree one from another so making great show of them to the simple wheras themselves as often as they lyst refuse the judgment and exposition of their fathers doctors c. as is to be seen in Cardinal Bellarmine and others that often doo refuse the sentences of the Fathers and conclude vvith the Council of Trent or definitive sentence of the Pope Seventhly the scriptures that vve build upon doo all agree and are â—one contrary one to another but hovv ever there â—ay seem contradiction yet they are easily even by themselves reconciled if men vvil labour in them But Papists have also for their rules of faith Apocryphal booke and fables vvherein are many open lyes and vnreconcilable contradictions against the Prophets as Tob. 12. 15.
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
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