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
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
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
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
invincible as my rule is uncorrigible Now vnto the point to be decided I breifly answer That a man may eliciâ—t a supâ—rnaturall act of faith many things are required first there must be motiva evidentis credibilitatis prudential motives of evident credibilitie viz. that all nations and men of principall giftes zeal and sanctity and â—â—dowments have beleeved so that it hath stood inviolable against so many and infinite heresies and persecutioÌ„s that it is so ancient so visible so constant and vniforme in all essentiall poincts of doctrine That it hath been sealed and confirmed with the blood of so many glorious Martyrs c. Secondly There must be Ecclesia proponens the Church propounding what is scripture and what is not scripture what is unwritten word viz. tradition and what is not Thirdly there must be prima veritas the first verity â—r Gods veracity that must be ratio formalis the formal reasoÌ„ why we doe beleeve Fourthly There must be a supernatural judgment dictâ—ting that now it is good at least generally to beleeve Fiftly there must be a supernaturall concourâ—â— of Gods holy illumination and a concourse of his infused habit of faith to determinate the indifferent power of our understanding to beleeve or not to beleeve Out of the progresse of which act an answer to your question may easily be deduced For when you ask whither our faith shal be tryed by the verdict of God or of man I answer you directly enough though with a â—â—stinction viz. That if you vnderstand by what formall motive we shall be tryed in our beleefe I answer by the verdict of Gods written and unwritten word But if you aske who shall determine our faith after a propounding manner so we say the Church concurreth after the maner of an applying conditioÌ„ teaching what is Canonicall and that which is not autentike And therefore I will prove first That onely the bare text of the scripture is not a sufficient rule of our faith 2. I will prove that the scriptures expounded by the Catholike Church is a true and indeficient rule of our faith 3. That this rule is onely found in the Romane Catholike church sentence and not in private mens illuminations and motions of a private and unseen spirit First then to prove that the bare scripture is not a sufficient rule of our beleife and that many mysteries and points are to be beleeved that are not expressely taught or evidently deduced out of the holy scriptures I frame this Argument Nothing is to be beleeved that is not taught or gathered out of the written word but that the Bible is Canonicall is neyther directly taught nor by evident consequence deduced out of the same therefore it is not to be beleeved that the Bible is Canonicall scripture The Major is the coÌ„mon assertion of protestants but especially I take it a cheife ground and principle of your sect vide Calvi de vera Ecclesia reformata pag. 473. and the Apologie of the Church of England pag 58. The Minor is approved by Hooker a principall protestaÌ„t in his treatise of Ecclesiast lawes lib. 1. pag. 84. lib. 2. S. 4. pag. 100. 102 who there writeth thus Of things necessary the very cheifest thing is to know what bookes wee are bound to beleive holy which thing is confessed as a thing impossible for the scriptures to teach And afterwardes he confirmeth thus For saith he if any one book did give testimony of all the rest yet the scripture that gives credit to all the rest would require another scripture to be credited neyther could we come to any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way So that we see eyther that he holds scripture is not to be beleived and authenticke or else he requireth the authority of somthing besides scripture to make it authentical The force of this Argument did drive Hooker lib. 3. paragraph the 8. pag. 1â—6 Zanchius in his confess â— â— Brentius in prologo Kemnitij in examine Conc. Trident Doct. Whitak contra Stapletonum lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 298 30â— to flie unto the authority of traditions to prove scripture to be scripture Which if once they graunt that traditions are sufficient to prove and try the groundwork of our beleife viz. scripture to be scripture why can they not ground other poâ—its of faith of lesser consequence 2. I prove that the bare and naked word of God cannot be an infallible rule or square of truth I prove it thus That which is difficult and includeth many senses at least to the ignoraÌ„t cannot be a certayne rule of faith But the scriptures are thus My Anteced Luther in his preface to the Psalmes acknowledgeth Tertull. in lib. De praescripti sayth Nec periclitor dicere ipsas quoque scripturas esse et voluntate dei dispositas ut haereticis materias subministrarunt cum legaÌ„ opportet haereses esse quae sine scripturis esse non possunt Where he confesseth that misinterpreting of scripture set the doore open to heresies S. Peter also sayeth that in S. Pauls Epistles there be many things hard to be vnderstood which the unlearned and unstable deprave as al the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition And the difficultie thereof made S. Augustin though a Doctor of incomparable wit and learning in his 12. conf c. 14. break out in the height of adâ—iâ—ation and say oh wonderfull profoundness of thy words c. Idem to 3. lib. 2. De doctrina Christ c. 6. confess that there was more in the scriptures that he understood not then of that which he understood The â—unuch of the Queen of Aâ—thiopia was dayly conversâ—â—t in the scriptures yet he confesseth that he could not vnderstand them without a master The second part of my Antecedent viz. that the scripture hath many senses litterall many senses spirituall of whose manifold deepe and mysticall sense the ignorant reader cannot be possest And therefore since in the old law when any difficulty happened the Preist was to decyde it and therefore with a farre greater interest is the Preist of the new law that hath that spirit of interpretation redoubled and ratification of his doctrine assigned and confirmed by Christ Jesus himselfe is to expound the hidden senses of scripture And therefore S. John vltim◠〈◊〉 bids S. Peter and his successors feed his flock with the spirit of interpretation which is the food to a reasonable flock and fold This made the Apostles when they were to decyde the controversies about the cessatioÌ„ of the ceremonies of the old law not to repaire vnto their private spirits interpretation but to a counsell gathered in Hierusalem where S. Peter was head where all was concluded with Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis It seemes good vnto the holy ghost and vnto vs. And therefore let S. Peter himself conclude That no propheâ—iâ— of scripture that is no interpretation
not understand the scripture vvithout a master I ansvver as before this proveth no insufficiencie in the scripture but in the reader I vvil further confirm it by your ovvn position vvher aftervvards you undertake to prove That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith But these definitive sentences say I are some of them hard to be understood at least by the ignorant and many cannot understand them vvithout a master if therfore your argument be good your position is naught and you must seek a nevv rule in matters of faith Your humane testimonies say no more then is alreadie heard and ansvvered if they did say more and you pressed it I vvould make ansvver as to you but leave the Fathers to sleep in peace You procede vvith the second branch of your antecedent saying that the scripture hath many senses literal many senses spiritual vvherupon you gather siure is the old law when any difficultie happened the Preist was to decide it therfore with a farr greater interest the Prâ—ist of the new law that hath the spirit of interpretatioÌ„ redoubled and ratiâ—ication of his doctrine assigned and confirmed by Christ Jesus himself is to eâ—pound the hidden senses of scripture I ansvver first that ther be so many senses literal spiritual as you doo say resteth for you to prove in your next for in this you make none I hold the sense of scripture to be one though applied to many tymes places and persons Pentheus in the Poet thought he savv tvvo suns in the firmâ—ment when ther was in deed but one it was but the difâ—â—râ—perature of his own senses that made him so to think You suppose the word which shineth as the sâ—n in the firmament of the church hath many meanings when it is but the dazeling of your eyes Secondly though it were granted to haue many senses yet the law in Deut. 11. maketh nothing against my faith For I graunt the scriptures are to be expounded by the Preists and Ministers of God Deut. 33. 10. Ephâ— 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet not by mans owne judgment or at the wil of any mortal 〈…〉 but by the spirit of God and by the scripture it self as did the 〈◊〉 in Israel For no minister of Christ no not the Apostles haue deâ—â—â—nion over our faith but are in declaration of the teach to approve themselves to every mans conscience in the sight of God as Paul sayâ—th Neither mought the Preists of old decide controversies as they 〈◊〉 themselves their words were not oracles but they were to inform the people according to the law which the Lord explaineth by the preist Ezekiel thus In controversies they shall stand to judge and they shall judge it according to my judgements c. Ezek 44 â—4 Thus Gods law is the rule of judgement and the scriptures are not so bare naked as to need the raggs of mens inventions to array them If you yeeld not in this I pray you what answer will you make to the Iewes that shall plead vvith you against Christ and alledgâ— how their high Preists and Rulers which were to decide all controversies Deut. 17. decided this controversie of Iesus of Nazareth thus that he was a seducer a blasphemer a traytor therfore to dye the death If the bare and naked scripture as you call it help you not against their pontifical decrees and expositions you wil hav but a bare and naked faith the shame wherof no â—igleaves wil hide But the Preist of the new law you say is to decide vvith a farr greater interest I grant it for Christ being come the high Preist of good things that were to come hath farr greater privilege and power then any legal Preist and him we are commanded to hear But he is not the Preist you mean for you allege from Iohn 2â— that Christ biddeth S. Peter and his successors feed his flock with the spirit of interpretation c. I marvel hovv this wil make for your opinion that the bare word of God is not an infallible rule or square of truth For doo you think in good â—arnest that Christ would haâ—â—â—th Apostle feed his flock with ought save Gods word because he bad him feed then all other Pastors must doo so too For the same Apostle writeth afterward thus The Elders which arâ— among you I besâ—ech who am a coâ—lder c. seed the flock of God another Apostle sayth to the Elders of an other church Take hâ—ed to your selves and to all the flock wherof the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God c. If the commandement to feed privileged S. Peter above the law and word of God then all Christian Bishops or Elders haue like privilege because they haue like commandement But I deny eyther that Peter alone was to feed Christs sheep or that he mought feed them with any thing save Gods word For the Apostles doctrines were the commandements of the Lord. 1 Cor. 14 37. not their own counsels and if S. Peter or any other taught or practised contrary to the word he was to be withstood and reproved Gal. â— 11. Whâ—rfore â—ven Peter himself who knew wel the meaning of his coÌ„mission taught the church that their new birth was not of mortal feed but of immortal by the vvord of God and that was the word which was preached among them and which he exhorted them stil to desire that they mought grow therby willed theÌ„ that if any man spake it should be as the words of God and referreth them to the sure word of the prophets as to a light that shineth in a dark place that strange it is you should gather any thing against the auctoritie or sufficiencie of the scriptures because the Apostle was willed to feed the sheep of Christ vnlesse you think they should not have wheat but â—haff to feed upon And if your châ—if shepheard of Rome use so to feed his flock gather such doctrines from Christs commandement I will never goe over the Alpes to setch my food from him You next allege Act. 15. where the Apostles meaning to decide a coÌ„troversie repayred not you say to their private spirits interprctatioÌ„ but to a council gathered in Jerusalem where S Peter was head wher al was concluded with It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to vs. I answer you hold not to the point which you took upon you to prove viz. that the bare word of God is not an infallible rule of truth the scripture you cite maketh against you for the Apostles were publishers not of their own word but of Gods 1. Thes. 2 13. 1. Pet. 1. 25. 2. Pet 1. 16. They confirmed their sayings in this Council by the former scriptures Act 15 15 16. They expounded and applyed the scriptures to their present questioÌ„ by the same spirit which wrote them which
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.
and the Preists did passe togither Wherefore I may conclude with S. Peter this poinâ—t as I did before That no prophesie of scripture is made by a private spirits interpretation and so consequently not by the naked word And therefore S. John also bidds them trie their spirits whether they be of God 1. Joh. 4. v 20. And as for your distinction of private spirits it liâ—le availâ—th you For though the Pope be also a private man yet he is the head of the Church and hath the promise of our Saviour that his faith should not fayle him and though he may eâ—â— in matter of fact or sinn as well as an other man yet in matter of doctrine when as the head of the Church he is to give his definitive sentence he can not err in that he is directed as Christs Dicar in earth by the holy Ghost Yet for all this he dooth not neglect naturall meanes for the decision of any waighty cause But useth all vsuall serutiuie of causes and circumstances takes advice of the learned councells But you though you be also a private man yet you can not showe me any promise of the holy Ghost made rather to you theÌ„ to any other of your adversaries neyther have you greater signes to manifest the truth then the Protestants have Nay every one of your profession thinks he hath that spirit of interpreting which spirit often times proves no other then the spirit of Aâ—niball a merrie companion who when he had deceived poore Bullbrooke the interpreter of the word by casting out thrice Bullbrooke as from God at the mouth of a cave whither his reformed brethren resorted to heare froÌ„ lum delivered the word of the Lord afterward showed unto the whole campany that flocked more and more to this their illumâ—nated prophet the man of God so strangely called how he alone had deceived the poore man saying hang me if any other spirit but the spirit of Aâ—â—â—iball called thrife upoÌ„ Bulbrook Yet admit you should have a spirite to distinguish the truth of one mistery as I sayd yet you have not the spirit to distinguish the truth of all But that you might câ—y out with the true illuminated prophet now and then Dominus celavit hoc a me Our Lord hath hidden this from me that is in not revealing it Besides you see that every false prophet brags of his spiritt how then can a private spirit decide any controversie And for that you bring of the Israelites it were wel if you with them from the mouth of the Preist would learne wisdome And if you had that visible coming downe of the holy Ghost that the Apostles had if you had the giftes of tongues the power to worke miracles if you were taught with them all truth if your followers though illiterated were indowed with all these priviledges of the Apostles then might they with them take upon theÌ„ to interpret the scriptures For S. Luke recordeth That our Saviour opened his Apostles vnderstanding in all truth that they might vnderstand the scriptures but you can not show that our Saviour hath done more to you then to other men You now proceed and begin to ponder my third argument by which I did occure a future answer Not onely scriptures by themselves but scriptures by a privat mans interpretation or comparing one place with an other are not sufficient to be a rule of faith Which you say I dor not prove here to this I answer I did prove it there but the more sparingly in that this point seemes to be partly proved in that which goes before Yet to give you ful satisfactioÌ„ I wil a litle reinforce the force therof For since the scriptures hath diverse senses or as you say diverse references to sundry places persons and tymes how can a private spirit of a man assure one that this and no other is the true sense of this place Or how can you discern that the true spirit interprets this vnto you For the communication of this infused spirit must eyther be by a publick message bee delivered you so that those that are your adherents and followers may be assured by some visible signe that the holy ghost dictates unto you and I think by these visible apparitions and communication of the holy Ghost you wil not mainteyn your spirits interpretation Or else the holy ghost secretly instilâ—eth into you what is the true sense But here I demand of you how you are assured of this working of the holy ghost since there was never yet hereâ—ick so senseless or error so grosse but would tell vs of this private assuraÌ„ce of the holy Ghost And though the communication of the true spirit should be manifest to your self yet you could give no warrant or assurance thereof to vs to the Protestant adversaries or to your own followers How would you be able to convince an AriaÌ„ that wil thwart you with that of S. John my father is greater then I If you say this place is to be vnderstood in regard of his humanitie and not in regard of his divinitie he will bid you show scripture plainly to affirme that How wil you answer an Anabaptist that will have no man to be baptized before they come to the yeares of discretion to give a reason of their faith How will you answer us Catholiks or the Protestants when we demaund of you why you follow the vulgar translation in saying Elder when the originall and all other languages almost hath stil the word Presbyter which signifies Preist to all Nay since the holy scriptures admitteth divers senses and doe not explaine themselves how should a poore artificer perswade himself that this sense which he apprehends is onely the true sense Nay that he is easily deceided herein by a pâ—…dicated opinion I will show For when he comes to read that S. Peter in his first epistle salutes them from BabyloÌ„ he in that he may not admit S. Peter to have bene at Rome will not have Babylon there to be Rome but he will have S. Peter to salute them from that Babylon in Assyria But when he comes to â—â—ad Apoc. 1â— 18. Babylon againe in that he hath rooted mallice against Rome he will have her alone to be that Babylon he will applie all these mischeifs and deformities to the church of Rome Now if you object that comparing one place with another will afford the right sense I ask you how you are certayne of that since that place with whome you are to compare it hath divers senses or references how are you assured to compare it to the right in regard of each circumstance Nay if these spiritual men be the onely decidants why doe they when the word signifies an evil sense translate traditions though it be the self same Greek word Col. 2. v. 20. Why are you ledd with traditions And when in divers places the self same word imports Apostolicall traditions in stedd thereof they read ordinances
institutions c. Why did they in the printed Bible 1â—62 thrust in Rom. 11. Baals image which now Bible â—595 to corrected And if every image be an idoll as they translate it why Genesis the first can we not say God created AdaÌ„ according to his own idol And that all images in the old law were idols Exod. 25. 3. Regum 6. Why doe they make the Hebrew and Greek word that signifies hell when they list onely to signify the grave Though it be against scripture it self Gen. 37. I will goe down to the grave to 〈…〉 mourning which cannot signifie though racked in sense the grave since he thought his sonne to be devoured of wild beasts and so vnburied without a grave But when the self same word Prov. 15. speakes of the danâ—ied they translate onely hell how then can the parallising and coÌ„paring of one place with an other settle all doubts of the ignorant stop the mouth of the contrarie part who shall affirm that it is not the true sense Nay if scripture be a most manifest interpreter of it self Why did Luther that affirmed before this assertion of yours in assertione articulorum 10. damnatorum retraetate and recall that opinion of his before his death in colloq conviviali titulo de verbo Dei No man can vnderstand sayes he the Bucolica of Uirgil except hâ— be first five yeares a shepheard No man can vnderstand his Gâ—oâ—â—icks except he be five yeares a husbandman so let every man know that he hath not tasted sufficiently the scriptures except he hath governed in it a hundred yeares Nay if holy scriptures be so easy of themselves to be understood why doth Luther cal the epistle of S James stramineam and vnworthy of an Apostolicall spirit Why doth Beza writing on the eight chapter call into question the whole book of S. John when he averrs that it was not probable that our Saviour was left alone in the temple with a woman or that he did write in the dust with his finger My fourth argument you being forth thus That which by the lights lanterns of your opinion hath been wronged in the highest degree to bolster up heresie can not be a true and indeficient rule of faith You geaunt my assumption and you instance it in Luther Calvin Beza Onely to answer this you think it sufficient to say it is a rhetorical flourish No flourish that by your own confession hath flonge down your strongest pillars But you say it is the fault in them which willingly I graunt but with this addition that there is the like in you And I pray you tell me if all that have gone over such a bridge being in their right senses perfect judgmeÌ„ts have bene drowned would you think that bridge remayning thus unrepaired as it is a sure safe way So if all or most that have trusted to the naked and bare word of the scripture onely and to their own witts and spirits have grossely and dangerously erred wil you hold it so remayning an vndeficient rule Nay if the bare word so coÌ„firmes them in their errors that without some one common and visible judge they stil remain stiff in their errours can the bare word be the indeficient onely and the infallible rule But that it is so dispute against the Lutheran Calvinist Zuiâ—glian Anabaptist Protestant Faâ—â—list and they wil ell â—ite place of scripture interpretation for interpretation spirit for spirit â—ieng and reâ—ying you with places and spirits dictamâ—ns telling you long stories of the communication of the holy Ghost Wherefore I will conclude breifly this argument that the naked and bare word of the scripture cannot be an infallible rule and judge sâ—…t doth not make the partie overthrowen certaine that the sentence as much as lieth in the judge is passed against him which is the propertie of the sentence of every supreme judge that his decree be plainly seen and that without all contradiction the partie overthrowen in law may yeeld unto it For else there is no end of sentence no end of judgement if the partie overthrowen may with the like probability as before recomâ—nence his suite and offer plea without any â—â—d My fift argument which you put downe thus Many misteries of our faith are beleeved which explicitely are not declared in the word of God nor so infalliblie prescinding from all traditions of the church deduted thence so as they are sufficient to make a man beleeve with so firm an act of â—aith as is required Therefore that which makes that worthy of constant beleefe is a rule of faith aswel as the written word whether they be traditious divine or Apostolicall Now to all the places I bring to prove traditions How the world was onely governed and taught by traditions till Moses tyme who was the first pen-man of the holy Ghost and to that Ero. 14. Deu. 32. 37. c. you graunt that traditions were before necessary but you deny that they are now a rule of faith But you assigne no reason but onely this in disputing as if it were the total rule of faith where I would inferr onely that it was a partial togither with the word of God And whereas you object that these traditions spoken of in Deut. might for the Jewish Cabalists which are rejected by S. Peter 1. Pet. â— Tit. 1. 14 as vain conversation and Jewish fables Is plaine against the holy scriptures Deu. 32. interroga patrem tuum et anuntiabit tibi majores tuos et dicent tibi Ask thy father c. Ero. 14. Narrabis filio tuo in illa die dicens hoc est quod fecit Dominus Et Iob. 8. Iud. 6. Psal 43. Psal. 47. Eccles. 8 where it is plaine that the holy Ghost speakes of such traditions that are good to be followed not to be estemed vain idle fabulous To that of S. Pa to the Thes. is plaine that the Apostle speakes of that which was taught by word of his mouth yea of such traditions as you call humane in vs. For when S. Chrysost. comes to explicate the 2 Thess. 2. he explicates it so plainely for such traditions as wee have in controversie that D. Whitaker de sacra scriptura pag. 678. sayes that S. Chrisost. spoke in this point inconsiderately vnworthy of so great a father Therfore S. Paul and S. Chrysost vnderstood more here by traditions then you would willingly vnderstand And that not onely things of little consequence but of greatest moment are beleeved onely by tradition I prove manifestly since the Bible can not be canonicall without it were delivered by the hand of traditioÌ„ froÌ„ tyme to tyme as authenticke And besides how can you prove the procession of God the son and God the holy Ghost from God the Father as from one beginning or the consubstantilitie of the blessed Trinitie How are you able onely by bare scripture to prove the remedie in the old law vsed to women children for original sinne and
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
should blush but lyes hid in silence First you gather a consequence which here I strowed not I spake of God and of his verdict and authoritie not of the scriptures as yet For whither it be by writing or by speaking or any other way that God manifesteth his will unto us it is to me all one and the authority of the scripture is a second point Thus your answer is not here to the purpose Your reason annexed is a fallacie concluding from a part against the whole unequally The scriptures cited speak of Gods commands in generall you take one in particular and because one is not all therfore all must not be all but more then all must be observed which what they wil be I cannot tel unlesse the commandements of men Mat. 15. 9. 2. You answer that all additions whatsoever are not here prohibited but onely such as ar contrary to the word of God for many other prophets as the penmen of the holy Ghost did add divers pea most part of the holy scriptures c. In deed this answer is your own none of Gods you shew no tittle of his word for that you speak But I will shew you the contrary Prov. 30 ◠Adde not unto his words least he reprehend thee and thou be a lyar Lo here all additions and not onely things contrary are forbidden Againe though it be but a mans testament sayth our Apostle when it is confirmed no man dooth abrogate it or addeth therto If you add to your naturall fathers testament civill lawes would count you an unnaturall son your distinction would not help yow much lesse can it help yow for doing such wrong to the will of our father which is in heaven Your reason is direct against yow for the Prophets being penmen of the holy ghost added nothing of their own the additions were Gods own If the Prophets Apostles mought add nothing of themselves much lesse may we Thus God yet reigneth alone And if yow vvould have mans oil to lighten your lamp hear what Chrisostom sayth for this point Every Doctor is a servāt of the law for neyther may he add unto the law any thing of his own sense neyther may he withdraw any thing according to his own understanding but preach that onely which is found in the law Whereas yow add that your traditions are also from the holy ghost for Luk. 10. it is sayd he that heareth yow heareth me and Mat. 18. If he hear not the church let him be to thee as an ethnik and a publican First these are spoken to all Christs ministers of al his churches and therefore make no more for Rome then for Corinth or Ephesus But yow stil keep from the point yeild the cause unawares For be it tradition definition or whatsoever by whomsoever if it be Gods not mans it is yenough al that I would prove in this first particular After it shal be scanned whither your traditions be of God or no. Wheras therfore in answering my secōd agrument yow wonder how I should be so deceived as to think the places that I cite make for me and against yow yow may wonder rather at your own mistakeing that I say no more who when I plead for God onely his alsufficiency by opposing as the scripture teacheth mans corruption folly yow will not yeild though yow have nothing to contradict And even thus yow turn over the 3. 4. reason by denying them to prove that thing which I there did not cite them for Such oversight hereafter I hope yow will amend that yow weary not both me your reader Now to your former ansvver which was with a distinctiō in this plain point whither God onely or some other should be judge lawgiver to his people for their religion controversies therabout the same distinction yow urge here agayn which whither it be a meet distinct answer or argues not rather fear let the prudent judge For yow yeild not plainly to the thing by me propounded which neyther religion nor reason vvould stick at onely atheisme vvil deny For if ther be a God he of man to be served man knovves not the things of God til by himself they be reveled neyther may doe more or lesse then by the Lord is cōmaunded as I have before proved hereupon it vvil folovv undenyably that in al doubts controversies of religion Gods voice verdict must decide vvhat is truth and vvhat pleaseth him Whither he show it by himself from heaven by Angels or by churches or by particular men by writing or by speaking it is ought to be all one to us But the more to convince yovv yovv shal have humane testimonie as of Ambrose vvho sayth The mysterie of heaven let God himself teach me which made heaven not man which knew not himself Whom should I rather beleev concerning God then God himself Or if yow be not moved by this Fathers judgment the hethen shal rise up and condemn yow vvho esteemed true lavv apt to command and to forbid to be the right reason of the great God that the divine mind to be the cheiflavv Cicero de Legib. lib. 2. The second point novv is Wher this verdict of God is to be found whither in the scriptures of the old and new Testamēt as I beleev or in the writings and mouthes of other men To this I had not before neyther yet have your dir 〈◊〉 answer What makes yow shun the light herein is easy to discern To confirm my faith that the verdict and wil of God is to be foūd in holy writt I alledged divine testimonies many to them yow answer not one word neyther yet doo yow yeild to the truth Beware yow wink not vvith your eyes that yow may not see But seeing the holy scriptures move yow not yow shal have candle light to see the sun shine C. Bellarmine to whom yow referr me twise in your last writing to whose learning yow acknowledge yourself a scholar ingeniously cōfesseth saying Neq n distputari potest c. Ther can be no disputing sayth he except we and our adversaries first doo agree in some cōmune principle now we al hereticks agree in this that the word of God is the rule of faith wherby men are to judge of points of doctrine is a commune principle granted of al men from whence arguments may be drawen is the spiritual sword which in this battel may not be refused Behold here the first point plainly yeilded by your champion vvhich you vvithout dark distinction could not be drawn unto The second concerning the scriptures is in effect also yeilded when he sayth That the Prophetical and Apostolical book◠according to the catholik churches mind explaned both by the 3. council of Carthage c. 47. and late council of Trent sess 4. is the true word of God and the certayn and stable rule of faith
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
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
this Peter was first I confesse in many good things for which he deserveth praise but that he was first in this you prove not When they had the infasion of the holy Ghost they began sayth the scripture to speak It may be Peter was indeed the first for he was first in order among them and as is like in age but not in office above the other Apostles 8. The first miracle in confirmation of our faith is made by S. Peter And you shal work another miracle in confirmation of my saith if from this though it be granted you can by sound argument coÌ„clude him head as your Pope expounds the head ship Howbeit the first miracle was the speaking with strange tongues for that all men admired who was first in that neither I nor you can tell 9. He as supreme judge condemned the hypocrisy of Ananias and Saphira And Paul as supreme judge condemned the blasphemie of Hymenaeus Alexander delivering them to Satan and the forcerie of Elymas striking him with blindnes If miracles prove supremacies the church shall have many supreme heads 10. He first discovered Simon Magus and condemned him If the Pope vvould doe so too Simonie at this day vvould not be so rise When Sergius tertius Benedictus 4. got the Popedome with briberie and Alexander the â— bought the voices of many Cardinals whither was Cephas or Magus their predecessor If the vertue made Peter head the contâ—arie vice made your Popes the taile How be it your Prelates if writers say true have been more ready to receive with with Iudas then to give with Simon All these and other circumstances concurring in S. Peter showes you say manifestly that S. Peter had preeminence above all the other Apostles that he is the rock and head of the churchâ—â— They are showes in deed circumstances standing a farr off but never a one of them have striken a stroke in this your â—â—lâ—tation Peter had for the most part preeminence in order I readily grant but his office and auctoritie was one and the same with the other Apostles Mat. 28. 16. 20. Ioh. 20 21. 22 23. Paul relating the offices ordeyned of God in the church saith first Apostles secondly prophets 〈◊〉 and agayn he gave some Apostles and some Prophets but the scripture no where sayth first Peter the head of the church then Apostles And that Peter was neyther head nor Rock I proved in my former writing if you will admit of proof from Gods book if not then keep your showes and circumstances still but make no such conclusions with a manifest-lye You proceed and say that Peter was particularly pointed out by his ovvn name his fathers name and his new name Cephas that no cavil might be took at a legacie so stronglie particularly firmed unto S. Peter His legacie is no way by me impugned I know it is firme though not so great as you would make it But you impugne the legacie of the other Apostles unto whom in Peter vvas promised and after to them all generally performed whatsoever power Peter had in the ministerie of the gospel Mat. 28. Ioh. 20. Act. 2. yea you impugne the dominion of Christ himself whiles you would make Peter the Rock and Head of the catholik church contrary to the scriptures 2. Sam. 22 32. 1 Cor. 10 4. Ephe. 5 23. And whither you have answered all that I brought to prove Christ onely the Rock let the equall reader of my former writing judge you make bold and bare affirmations without proof of holy scripture or humane learning Petros you say signifies eyther a Rock or a stone but what learned auctor doo you shew for it and he was called Petros you say not Petra because the masculine gender best fitted the name of a man as if Christ were not a man unto whom the title Petra Rock is by Peter himself given 1. Pet. 2 8. But he is unto you the Rock of scandal whiles you stumble at his power and headship and give it to his enemie the Pope vnder the pretence of Peter And that your church hath made shipwrack against this Rock not onely of faith but of learning also appeares in this that you make Cephas upon Optatus credit in Greek to signifie a head as Christ you say is called the head Isa 8 28. Dan. 2. Psal. 117. Mat. 21. Rom. 9. 1. Cor 10. Ephes. 2. What doo all or any of these scriptures shew that Cephas signifies a head nothing lesse You that entwite we with my private spirits interpretation should have been better avized then thus openly and directly to oppugn the publik interpretation of the holy Ghost Ioh. 1. 43. wher Cephas is interpreted Petros a stone not Cephalee a Head Or if you think the Apostle had also a private spirit and knew not Syriak and Greek so well as Optatus yet mought you have preferred the publik approved learning of your owne linguists who interpreting Cephas a Rock shew that Optatus head wanted wit in this that he sayd it signified a head and they want conscience that upon this false ground apply these scriptures that speak of Christ the head unto a mortall creature wheras the Rock is the creator God himself as the Lxxij Greek interpreters if you wil learn of them wil teach you But let me follow your arguments You say my objection that S. Peter answered as the mouth of the Apostles and therfore had not these promises made to himself alone makes much against me for to be spokesman of all the rest the master-spring of all their judgements seems to grant him superioritie If every spokes-man were master-spring of all their judgemeÌ„ts for whoÌ„ he speaks it were something that you say but ask a jurie of any 12 men in England whither this be true in the foreman of the quest The spokesman in a Council the speaker in a parhameÌ„t are they the master-springs of all their judgments with whom they sit When Thomas when Philip when Iude spake unto Christ in the name of the rest were they master-springs of all the others judgements I perceiv your Rock the Pope hath but a weak foundation that is born up by such sandy conclusions If S. Peter could not have the prerogative of place given unto him in that he represented the church no more you say could the sonns of Abraham be two sonns in that they represented two nations You want help to make up your argument thus But Abrahams a sonns were 2. sonns stil though they represented 2. nations therfore S. Peter was S. Peter still though he represented the Church Very true all the Apostles were Apostles still though they represented the Church And so Antichrist shal be Antichrist stil though he take upon him to represent the Church yea and God himself You grant me that all the other Apostles were a foundation Apoc. 21. but not the principal Neyther
the Martyrs of the primitive church yoâ— will allow of for your Martyrs whether of S. Laurence or â—o 7. Whether you allow of Constantius the first Christian Emperour to be of your religion 8. Whether you will allow of any of our three conversions of England to have been to this religion which you now professe 9 Whether you hold that those that have died or shall die resolved Romane Catholicks have bene or shal be saved 10. Whether you will graunt the Church of Christ or the synagogue of the Jewes to be more visible or less subject to ruin and subversion 11. Whether you allow of the last edition of the protestants Bible or else what edition you propound to your flock â—â—â—etest to be folowed 12 Whether sufficiencie onely since I take you hold ordering or imposition of hands not to be vsed is to be required to make one of your teaching Elders or if onely that sufficeth not to assigne what more is required To these questions I intreat you Mr Henry Aynsworth that earnestly to give an orderly breife and distinct answer to ech one of these questions for on the resolution of these many fruitfull consequences may be gathered to make easie any poinct hereafter to be controverted betweene vs. But now breifly to set downe my arguments which I maintain stil you have not satisfied in no one poinct I will therfore breifly set them downe in forme desiring an answer as breif yet as solid and as substancial as you can affoard onely graunting denying or distinguishing which in deed is to answer in forme like a scholler Your conclusion as I take was this The written word of God contained in the Bible is the onely sufficient rule of our faith My reasons were these in substance to prove the contrary though the same in word I can not affirme not having one line of yours or my conference That which is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the onely rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knowen for scriptures go the bare scriptures which is the written word of God can not be the onely rule of faith My Major is most certaine and evident My Minor I proved out of Dr. Whitaker Hooker Zanchius Brentius all holding traditioÌ„ necessarily to distinguish scriptures froÌ„ no scriptures Also I take I proved this out of the holy Councells out of S. Augustin contra epistolam fundamenti Manichaeic 9. Ego Euangelio non crederem c. I would not beleeve the Gospel except the authoritie of the church should move thervnto Neyther did you answer my Minor when you said scriptures â—r knowen by themselves For first you slight and let slip the authority of those that in common reason I should beleive assoâ—ne as your self 2. You doe not answer to the authoritie of S. Aug 3. your answer is against common sense Since if scriptures were as prime a principle as that the sun shines or that honie is sweet no man could beâ— ignorant thereof that had all his naturall faculties and if more then the natural faculties and the object disposed be required you eats your owne words For then it is not so knowen a truth And how shall I know I have this spirituall eye of discerning truth more theÌ„ my adversarie that accepts of some things for no scripture that I do allow of as scripture c. Why had not S. Aug this â—ie that with whole Councel of Carthage accpted of the bookes of Machabees as divine and Canoricall scripture why had not S. Hierom that translated the holy scriptures Another reason that I urged was thus Many things were beleeved before the written word of God many things are now beleeved that are not expressely taught in the written word of God go the written word of God is not onely the rule of faith The first part of my Antecedent is easily proved For the church of God till Moses tyme was well governed and yet had no written word My second part was proved I giving instance that the Sacrament in the old law for expâ—ating of original syâ— in women The mysterie of the B. Trinity that God the holy ghost did proceed froÌ„ God the father and God the sonne as from one beginning That Easter day should be celebrated on Sunday and not on Saturday That the Creede of the Apostles is to be beleeved and yet no one of these is expressely taught in holy scriptures you sayd yes but you cited no place of scripture for probation thereof Moreover you have not satisfyed the places of holy scripture I cited to prove traditions especially you have not answered to that place of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. v. 15. nor to the authoritie of S. Chrysost. homilie 4. iâ—â— Thes. 2. wherin Dr. Whitaker sayes he speaks unworthy of so holy a father nor to the place off Basil or S. Hierom or S. Aug. De Genesi ad literam lib. 10. c. 23. where he tearheth many fasts feasts solemnities to be kept and beleeved onely through tradition and he testifieth there that in no wise we could beleeve the baptising of childreÌ„ without vnwritten tradition Another which I vsed was this That which is most difficult hard and almost for occurring difficults inexplicable can not be to the unlearned at least a certaine and unfallible truth But the scriptures are thus as well witnesseth your own conscience and divers places I set downe that seem to contradist one another go Moreover how should an artificer know whether this Bible be well translated or no since he can neyther conferr it with the original or the vulgar Latin And I showed how these difficults are not trivial Amongst other places I cited that place of S. Peter the â— chapter v. 16. In which are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the unlearned and vnstable deprave as also the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition No doubt S Peter meanes of those things S. Paul delivered touching vocation grace justification and predestination In which I showed how parvus error in principio magnus est in sine to which the words of S. Peter alludes to as also the rest of the scriptures meaning that an error in some one transcendall poinct of these doe cause error in many other places that depend hereupon But is these and more plainly examplified I had nothing but quotations imâ—ertinently alleged and no determinate answer to the difficult That whose onely the hath been defective and erroneous yea to the greatest Elercks to every one howsoever unfâ—ilfull and unlearned can not be a certaine and unfallible rule of faith But that the bare scripture is so I showed by diverse seming plaine piares cited by the Arrians Pelagians Semipelagians Donatists EutheraÌ„s Anabaptists â—t All which vie scripture for scripture If you give an interpretation of their place of scripture that they bring to confirme their hereste they will give also an interpretation
For first and formost you doe not distinguish what are scriptures and what are not by the authoritie of the church For so you should admit of all that she dooth receive and if ye reject any thing that she hath doubted of you should as well as yow refuse those bookes called Deutrocanonici of the old Testament you should as well reject those Deutrocanonici of the new testament as the epistle to the Hebrewes Judas epistle and the Apocalyps but the touch of your triall is the private spirit and the unction not of the holy Ghost but of an addle head and a self conceipted phancie 100. And that you like a blind baiard walk in this round though you may apprehend you have gone many a mile and to show that you have confined your selfe in the selfe same circle I prove 101. For first I aske how you know the scripture of the Prophets and Apostles is Gods word you answer the spirit of God the testification and witness of the spirit the annointing of the spirit doe testifie to you that they are written by God But then againe I demaund how you prove that you have that spirit of God this spirituall annointing You answ what maÌ„ knoweth what is in him but the spirit of God that is in him 1. Cor. 2. He answers again that he can make no proof of that to another that is onely knowen to himself againe no man knoweth how the wind bloweth or knowes how the bones do grow in the wombe of a woman Eccles. 11 5. it is the spirit that testifies 1. Joh. 5 6. So that we see you prove the scripture by your private spirit and your spirituall annointing and you prove you have this spirit by the scripture As if a child should prove he were no bastard in that his mother sayes so and she likewise prove that she her selfe were honest in that he saies so Or prove the Church of Amsterdam to be a true church in that the Amsterdamian spirit interpreting the scripture saies so And that the Amsterdamian spirit is a true spirit in that the AmsterdamiaÌ„ spirit sayes so So I demand of you how you doe know the scripture to be Gods word you answer out of the testificatioÌ„ of the holy ghost And how you know the internal testificatioÌ„ is froÌ„ God you answer likewise out of the scripture interpreted by the Spirit My sheep heares my voice and how doe you know how it is the scripture You answer by the testification of the inward spirit so that we see your discourses like puppets have their motioÌ„ froÌ„ one string speak by the mouth of the same interpreter 102. But now to show the falshood and unprofitablenes of your circular discourse I demand what you hold the testification of the inward spirit to be For you must hold that it proceeds from God as wel as your inward habit or act of faith and then againe I aske whether you be certaine by the certaintie of faith that you have this inward act of faith that you have the testification of the spirit Then I argue this certitude must proceed from an other testification and that from another and the other from another so wee shall runne headless in infinitum 103. Besides I ask whether that testification of the spirit since it can not have his residence in the will being a certaine perswasion or speech of God belonging to the understanding and so it must be a certain notice or cognitioÌ„ If it be obscure I aske how it is distinguished froÌ„ faith if it be clear evident how is it to be distinguished froÌ„ the knowledg or vision of a thing so that wee see you affirme a thing that indeed you doe not understand what it is 104. But before I gathered your mind when you said the scriptures of themselves are so cleare that by themselves they appeare for scriptures so that you seeme to resolve that which you beleeve in to the holie scriptures and the formal reason why you beleeve it into the testification or perswasion of the spirit yet this also you doe not hold to alwayes For other times you resolve both the one and the other into the testification of the inward spirit with you most often which showes your great inconstancie grounded on seare 105. But admitting that you had onely sayd the things to bee beleeved or fides externa were to be resolved into the holy scripture onely Yet so you should admit of as great an absurditie For so you should say the gospel of S. Mathew or the whole scripture taken totally togither are not canonical and authentick nor that Mr. H. Aynsw is predestinated or that his sinns are remitted All which Aprove For nothing he is to beleeve for which he hath not the expresse word of God But none of these are expressed in the word of God If he will say he will gather these by necessarie consequence his adversaries may oppose him and he can show no certaintie If he flie unto the inward testification of the spirit theÌ„ I inferr that the things to be beleeved ar not to be resolved into the scriptures alone So Mr H. A. eates his own word though without one graine of salt or pretence of reason Yet to show this a little more plaine I reason thus Is the scripture the word of God you answer it is and that without all question But I demaund how you know it is the word of God if you answer by the testification of your inward spirit you ride your first circuit If you say it appeares by it self this is not so plaine since most parts and parcels of scripture have bene doubted of and that by schollers Yet admit scripture were so cleare a light by it self yet you cannot avoid as great a difficultie For I aske whether you will prove the whole scripture by the whole and then every one will see you â—â—ie for refuge thether which you ought to defend If you say that the whole scripture is proved by some particular parcell of scripture you are bound to show me that which you can never performe viz. that any part of scripture dooth affirme the whole scripture and every part and parcel thereof to be scripture 106. And if I should graunt you this yet another absurditie at the suit of reason hath arrested you For by what will you trie that particular parcel of scripture that so authoriseth al the rest to be scripture Thus you see in defending your private spirit you have undergone the labours of Hercules the difficulties arising as Hydraes heades two for one as one is dissolved 107. Besides this opinion of theirs doth not onely lead a man into these endlesse windings but it makes against coÌ„mon sense that God should leave his holte scriptures so carelesse at six and sevens unsettled that every hereticli might challenge to himself to be taught from God so that he might reject the
vs and whose judgment you saie you preferr before your selfe For first you intangle your selfe in an endless circle For you prove the privat spirit to be true in that the written word saies as interpreted by you that it is true and you prove the writteÌ„ word to bee true by the private spirit both which wee denie since we will have neither the writteÌ„ word alone or privat spirit to be the rule of our faith And you doe not only coÌ„mit a circle but perswade against your owne perswasion since you would have me to beleeve you onely citing scriptures before thowsand Fathers citing scriptures also whose worth by so many titles you preferr before your selfe suerly suerly you have no guift in perswasion 152. And not onely thus vnreasonablie doe you proceed but as the Manichies to S. August you object many places of scripture whose infereÌ„ces still â—re Nolâ— Catholicis credere doe not beleeve the Catholicks I can then returne you this answer with St. Aug. noÌ„ rectè facies per EuaÌ„geliuÌ„ me cogere ad Manichaei fidem q. ipsi EvaÌ„gelio Catholicis praedicantibus credidi You doe not wel by scriptures cited from the gospel to vrge me to beleeve your Brownisme against the Catholick faith For this Gospel out of which you cite these wordes and wrested places I received froÌ„â—he Catholick church from whence you would diâ—â—wade me 153. The â— thing that I am to shew is that the Popes definiâ—tive sentence at least with a generall counsel is sufficient to determine all controversies and is a sufficient groundworke of faith This you saie I propound faintly in that I did alleage I did not of purpose dispute it though as you object it was the maine question 154. I answer most true it is according to my answer wherin I did voluntarily yeild to this to which by force of argument I was never vrged so it is the maine drift of the question But in regard of the satisfaction of you or your arguments it is not the maine question For when I saie there is something els required besides the writteÌ„ word to make it a compleat rule of faith I did not answer faintly when I graunted more then that to which I was vrged For your Argument required to know how the judgment of the church and in what sence might be infallible might have a manifold sence For if you take the definition of the church for the consent of all the fathers doctors of the church so it is infallible If you take it for a general CouÌ„cel coÌ„firmed by the Pope so it is also of infallible authoritie If you take it for the definition of the Pope with the councel of Cardinals defining ex cathedra so it is of infallible authoritie And since in all these sences the Catholick church is an indeficient rule to determine a matter of faith and to interpret the scriptures I did not therefore faintly answer when I insisted on the last 155 As for your rhethoricall flourish and forged resolution of my faith I have sufficiently excluded our opinion from that circle in which you stick fast Nervaeus wheÌ„ he saies the Pope is virtualy the whole church meanes nothing else but that he is the spiritual head to direct the whole church by the infallible assistance of the holy Ghost 156. As for my vellitation those few that I brought were sufficient to overthrow your groundles opinioÌ„ As for my reasons in the armadoe of mine as you terme theÌ„ that you saie wil never enter the feild It may be well they scorn to oppose one that lies at their fellowes mercie already 157. Now you come to examin the prerogatives of S. Peter Out of the whole series of which the circuÌ„stances therof not onely out-of each particular I drawe an infallible Argument but you in an swering them rather seeke to shun or avoid a blow then to give any 158. First you graunt that ever almost S. Peter is named first of the Apostles you except some 3. or 4. places but you cite none though otherwise most frequent in multiplicitie of cited places to no purpose Hence you graunt that primacie of order and not of authoritie maie be gathered You saie this gratis But since the holy Ghost both not repeat this prunacie to no purpose surely there his authoritie above his other brethreÌ„ is argued thence And since to be named still first through the whol scripture rather argues primacie of autority then of order Why should not wee rather iâ—ferâ— the vsual then the vnusual significatioÌ„ especiallie since in all records wee see the prioritie of the place is given to the preheminencie of the person 159. But let us examin one place the 10. of Mat 2. And the names of the 12. Apostles be thâ—se The first Simon who is called Peter and Andrew his brother and so Marci 3. Luc. 6. he is still named first Which cannot bee vnderstood of prioritie of your order you vnderstaÌ„ding therby prioritie of yeares or vocatioÌ„ Since S. Andrew that is named next excelled S. Peter in yeares was first called As S. Ambr. witnesseth on the 2. of the Cor. 12. and he inferreth then that although S. Andrew was his elder yet S. Peter was his superior This place made so much for this that Theodorus Beza although he coÌ„fessed all copies agreed herein yet he would have this word first to be â—oisted in see Beza in the annotations of the new testameÌ„t 556. As for that of the Galatians where S. Paul not numbring or reckoning the Apostles of set purpose as the 3. Euangelists doe meÌ„tioneth first S. James Bishop of Jerusalem whom first he met and who led him vnto the other Apostles as it appeareth Act 21. I. Calvin seing in his conscience the force of this Argument at which you wink grants that hence may be gathered that he was first of the 12. Apostles but not the head of the whole world 160. As for that which you object the 21. of the Apocalyps 19. where the foundation of the wall of the citie is described to be adorned with pretious stones And then you inferr in that in the Preists habit or ornament the Jasper which is as you say the stone of Benjamin by his place makes against you if I would plaie the part of a Cabbalist or naturalist But the scripture it self Exod. 28 v. 18 19. confutes you For there in the first place is said to be placed the stone Sardius Topazius and Smaragdus In the second the Carbunâ—â—â— the Saphyrus and the Jaspis So that we see the Jaspis or the stone Benjamin by your doctrine should not have the first place 161. Secondly against my congruitie alleaged for S. Peters primacie Math. 14. 29. where S. Peter walkes vpon the water Out of which place S. Chrysostom homil 57. and S. Bernard lib. 2. de consider ad EugeniuÌ„ doth inferr S. Peters prerogative above the other Apostles you saie rather argues his
of the 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
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
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
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
as the holy fathers interpret is made by a private Spirit interpretation Thirdly I argue and by my argument I break the force of a pretended answer thus Not onely scriptures by themselves are not sufficient to prove what is Canonicall and what is not but also that scriptures helped by private mens interpretation are not sufficient to prove the same For they doe not onely allow of private learned mens interpretation but the poorest handycrafts man or the sillpest huswife that is they doc allow to interpret the hardest places of scripture to shoulder the vniforme consent of all the fathers Doctors and schoolemen with some fond toyes of their owne braine and invention yea to give their glosse of those places of S. Paul where he speakes of justification and predestination whereas they should â—â—y Oh altit ido sapientiae et scientiae Dei quaÌ„ incoÌ„prehensibilia sunt judicia ejus â— When as they should rather rely on the auncient Fathers exposition S. Hierome in his old yeares went as farre as Alâ—randria to heare Didimus S. Hier. ad Paul Epist 103. c. 5. 67. vsed such hard discipline retirement into the desert abstineÌ„ce for obteyâ—ing the tâ—ue interpretation of the holy scripture How should we beleeve each private handycrafts manns censure and his silly interpretation against the vniforme consent of the holy Fathers against the streâ—me of the learned of all ages But admit they should have iâ— warâ—ly that speaking spirit to satisfy themselves how should a man be perswaded they it to be a lanterne unto others stepps Nay how will they prove against their adversaries that they also have not that motion of the spirit and though we should graunt they be illuminated in the truth of oneâ—â—ysterie how shall we know with like certainty all other different mysteries But you will answer out of the 1. Cor. 2. Spiritualis autem homo judicat omnia ipse autem a neminejudicatur a spirituall man judgeth all things and he is judged of none To which I answer admit that a spirituall man knoweth something yet it doth not follow that his supernaturall insâ—â—â—â—ts extendeth it self to all things but onely to the knowledge of those for the obteyning of which that illumination was inspired For Deliseus that had a redoubled spirit of Elias sayth Domiâ—â— celavit hoc a me et non indicavit mihi Our Lord did hide this from me and did not shew it why then may not these simple soules rather feare that their private spirits defect in the declaration of some mysteries rather then the redoubled Prophet confesse â—â—s ignorance in some things Yet let us graunt that some few men should fully comprehend and penetrate the mysteries of our beleefe yet for a twofold reason we denâ— to give unto them a definitive sentence and censure of matters of faith First in that we are not so certified who these particular men be that have these especiall illuminations and illustrations and therefore we are to preferr the definitive assertion of the Popes holynesse and his counsell before uncertainty of mens inventions 2. Since that the effects of this particular illumination and assistance of the Holy Ghost is not manifested and warranted by any extraordinary workes or miracles or the like in the it were to make a desperate tender of Gods truth to point this or that man whole vinpâ—ore of any controversy in that many other men in the pretence of some few mens illuminatioÌ„s might challenge unto theÌ„selves the like prerogatives of interpretation Fourthly I argue that which by the â—ights and lanterns of your 〈◊〉 have ben wroÌ„ged in the highest degree to bolster vp heresies cannot be a true and indeficient rule of faith For what more frequeÌ„t with â—eretickes then at their fingers ends to â—ite places of scripture to back their heresies as the Arians Pelagians Luther aÌ„s and Sacramentaries The Lutherans and Calvinists both disagreeing in a maine point of the real presence the one holding Christs pretious havy and blood to be really and corporall in the Sacrament though with a certayn companation and the other holding Christ to be present with a signification onely and yet both cite scripture both of theÌ„ yet â—â—â—ing scripture for scripture John Knell of Kent led with this private spirit denyed Christ to have tooken flesh of our B. Lady William Cowbridge sayes Bishops have no more authority then Priests pag. â—70 and yet by and by ledâ— vp the selfe same spirit sayd that Christs name was a filthy name Alanus Copus Dialog 6 c. 17. John Mesel denyed the holy Ghost to proceed from the Father pag. 1151. Frith the excellent Martyr of John For pag. 942 943 944 affirmeth the reall presence to be no Article of beleefe affirmative or negative John of Teurbury that the Iewes of good zeale did put Christ to death pag. 9â—5 Fiftly and lastly Iargue many mysteries of our faith are beleeved that are not 〈◊〉 declared in the word of God nor so infalliblie prescinding from all traditions of the catholike church deduced thence so that they are sufficient to make one beleeve that witâ— so firme an act as our faith requireth therefore that which makes those mysteries worthy of constaÌ„t beleefe is a rule of faith as wel as the written word whither they be traditions Divine or Apostolicall My antecedent may castly without all just contradiction be proued in that till Moses the virtuous steps and perfect acts of Noe Abraham Melchisedech was guided without the helpe of any written word by the hand of tradition derived from mouth to mouth from man to man yea after the witteÌ„ word it appeares by Erod 14. Narrabis filio tuo in illa die dicens hoc est quod fecit Dominus c Deut. 32. Interroga patrem tuum et annuntiabit tibi majores et dicent tibi Iob. 8. Interroga generationem pristinam et diligenter investiga memoriam patrum And not onely they of the old law but also they of the newe even after the coÌ„ming of our Saviour were without a written word the Apostles and disciples being busied in preaching and instructing viva voce Besides many things we beleeve though we have not the warrant of a written word for it viz. that there was a remedie for women children as well as for men to purge them of originall sin and something to be used to men children if they were ready to â—y before the 8. day which was the prefixt time of circumcision and that such a parcell of writing was scripture and such not Moreover wee beleeve constantly against the condemned heresy of Delvidius yea and against as it were the seeming letter of the scripture where it is sayd that Joseph knew not our blessed Lady til she brought forth her first sonne Now every one knowes the phrase of the Hebrue word know as Abraham knew Sara and yet we fâ—â—â—nly beleeve according to the prescript of the church that she was a perpetual Oirgin ante partum in
the secret and mysterie of the Gospel so as none need to say in his hart who shall goe up into heaven or who shall goe down into the deep for the word is neer us in our mouth and in our hart even the word of faith which they preached And by them we learn that all scripture is the opneustos inspired of God profitable for doctrine for reprehension for correction for instruction which is in righteousnes that the man of God may be artios and exeâ—tismenos perfect and perfectly fitted unto every good work These also after vocal preaching did write their gospel that such as read mought beleeve and in beleeving might haue life through Christs name and that their joy might be full Wherfore as we are referred to the scriptures for assurance of our faith so also are we willed not to presume or be wise above that which is written This being the auctoritie and authentia of the scriptures as we are taught of God let us now weigh your reasons alleged to disable them Your first argument is Nothing is to be beleeved that is not taught or gathered out of the written word But that the Bible is canonical is not directly taught nor by evident consequence deduced out of the same Therfore it is not to be beleeved that the Bible is canonicall scripture The Major as you say is the coÌ„mon assertion of Protestants citing Calvin and the Apologie of the Church of England The Minor you say is approved by Hooker a principall Protestant I answer the pillars of your propositions being earth and ashes the whole frame and conclusion of your argument lieth in the dust I told you before we entred into this feild that it is Gods word not mans that I would trie and be tried by Wherfore you bet the aier in vain if by any mans auctoritie you think to supplant my faith Much lesse will I approve what every Protestant hath written So leaving others I return unto your self Your first proposition is too generall I grant many things may be beleeved though they be not gathered out of the written word but I hold not any thing needful to be beleeved for salvation with God but that which is taught by his written word Which perswasionâ— ground upon these and other like scriptures Ioh. 20. 30. 31. 2. Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17. Eccles. 12 11 12. Your second proposition I deney Your reason learned from M. Hooker 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is Fâ—â— if any book did give testimonie of all the rest yet the scripture that gives credit to all the 〈…〉 scripture to be credited neyther could we come to any paâ—se wheron to rest or assurance this way I answer Al scripture such as I rely upon is theopneustos inspired of God and therefore authentik and to be a canon and rule of our faith and actions To discern what scripture is inspired of God none is able but by the spirit of God For the Apostle sayth What man knoweth the things of man save the spirit of a man which is in him even so the things of God knoweth no man but the spirit of God 1. Cor. 2 11. Of this spirit God powreth out upon all his children some mesure without this spirit none can say that Iesus is the Lord though men should see all his mighty miracles and hear all his gracious words yet could they not be pâ—rswaded unless God opened their harts Therfore sayd our Saviour to Simon bar Ionas flesh and blood hath not reveled this unto thee that I am the Christ the son of the living God but my father which is in heaven And as of him so of all he sayth No man can come unto me except the father which hath sent me draw him Whither the word therfore be spoken or written it cannot be beleeved to be of God but by the spirit of God which therfore is called the spirit of beleef or of faith which spirit is joyned togither with the word in the Saincts as Isaias prophesieth who therupon are all taught of God have received as Paul sayth not the spirit which is of the world but the spirit which is of God that they may know the things which are given to them of God 1. Cor. 2 12. and it is the Spirit which testifieth that the Spirit is truth 1. Ioh. 5. 6. The whole word of God being of it self worthy to be credited and having testimony of the same Spirit which spake wrote it is also further confirmed by the power effect therof in the conscience peircing more sharply then any two edged sword and discerning the thoughts and intents of the hart The power majestie excellencie of the scriptures above all humane writings felt in the hart and confirmed by the spirit evidently prove to all that are Christs that they are of God and if from him then are they canonical the rule and mesure of our faith and actions these all doe bear witnesse one to an other the latter Prophets and Apostles commenting upon Moses the first divine writer Iohn the last coÌ„firming and abridging all other from the first in his heavenly Revelation The ear fayth Iob discerneth words as the palat tasteth meat for it self wherfore though the natural man discerneth no difference between Gods canonical and mans apocryphal scriptures yet the spirituall man discerneth all things and by testimonies of the scripture is able for to prove that the Bible is canonical contrary unto your Conclusion although perhaps he cannot perswade it to them which are carnal have not the spirit as the Apostle speaketh It this be not as I have shewed but we must rely upon men for the ground of our faith then would I know how you can perswade an infidel to beleeve Christianisme rather then Mahometisme to be the way of life For the Turk will say swear that the Alkoran is of God as the Pope will say of the new Testament And if mens voices shall cary it away our beleef in Christ is lost If miracles be alleged there is still the same controversie whither they be divine or divilish for hethens and idolaters have had miracles many and Antichrist as it is prophesied shal shall doe great wonders making fyre to come down from heaven on the earth in the sight of men Your other allegations of antiquitie Vniversalitie c. wil not stop the mouth of Iuliâ—â— the Apostata but he will bear down Christianitie and restore Paganisme as being ancient and universal So there wil be no setling of the conscience til it come unto God and rest upon him alone and receive the plerophorian the full assurance by his spirit without which men can not discerne between the propheticall writings and the Iewes Thalmud between Christs Testament and the Turks Alkoran or between Gods oracle out of the Debir in Ierusalem and the Divils oracle out of his temple in Delphos Again as
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
Then descending more particularly he answereth that my Major is too generall For he sayes many things may be beleeved though they be not gathered out of the written word so that we see he holds some tradition necessary besides the written word for he sayes to be beleeved that is with an act of faith now that which is to be beleeved must be certaine and must have also infallible most certaine motives proportionable to so firm an act and must be beleeved of those at least that are schollars who are more precisely to examine the articles of beleef then laiemen so that wee have drawen water out of the rock since you graunt that tradition is necessary to your own beleef which afterwards you deny when you say there is nothing necessarie to salvation but is taught by the written word For now I ask those many things that may be beleeved without the written word eyther have their motives infallible and sufficiently propounded so they shal be faultie if those schollers to whom they are sufficiently proposed beleeve not or else the motives that are propounded are not certaine infallible and constant and so they shall onely cause an opinion or at most a humane beleefe and not a most firme constant supernaturall art of faith that is ever most certaine and infallible caused by the written and the vnwritten word of God and the church propounding Moreover your answer is found halting when you say that there is nothing necessary unto salvation but is delivered by the writteÌ„ word which is most false since nothing with you is more necessarie unto salvation then the written word which word is not proved by an other written word for so that also by an other and so we should never have an end so that hence you must coÌ„fesse though against your position that something most necessary vnto salvation is to be belâ—eved and that without the written word now if that which is most necessary and the rule of all the rest be beleeved in that it is delivered by tradition surely things of lesse consequence though necessary to salvation may also be beleeved though ther is no written word of God to affirme it having tradition which is Gods vnwritten word tyme out of mynd to deliver it As for the proof of my Minor proposition you put down these words I cited though not learned out of Mr Hooker For if any book gives testimonie to the rest yet the scripture that gives credit to the rest would require another scripture to be credited neither could we come to any pause wheron to rest or assurance that way and if you answer that all scriptures are theopneustoi that is in pired of God I will graunt you that but I wil demaund how you prove that this book or this parcel of scripture without tradition is inspired of God For to say it is inspired of God by reason it is scripture and scripture by reason it is inspired of God is to prove idem per idem and petere principium to suppose that provâ—d which is given you to prove And besides I would know of you how you know that your interpretation is onely true But you have your answer ready ceyned you say the things of God no man knoweth but the spirit of God But how doe you prove you have the spirit of God How doe you prove you have the effect thereof in your conscience piercing more sharply then a two edged swoâ—d For the Mamchei Montanist Arian â—estorian Pelagian Semipeâ—agian Lutheran Calvinist Familist will â—ll boâ—st of this private spirit will all say they are illuminated of God that they have the spirit that discerneth all things they are able as wâ—l as you to uphold their religion with wrested peeces of the scripture Now whereas you object that the Turk câ—n urge against us their Allcoâ—ans antiquitie I answer no siâ—ce the Romane catholicke church can shewe their beginner beginning increase and their declining estate And wheras you object againe that Iulian the Apostaâ—a may offer plea with us for antiquitie I answer no since he went out of the catholick church to whose faith he was Apostata and therfore supposeth the catholik church to be more ancient then he as he particularly opposed himself against her And if it be here objected that the heatheâ—â—sme he â—â—lo is anciâ—â—ter then our Christianitie I grant all but not ancienter then Judai me For God is more ancient then the Divil truth then falshood and so those Christians that are most ancient have the most true religion Your second Objection made against this point I answer that the high Preisthood that was judge did not err in that Moses was never â—viltie of Idolatrie Moses was joint Priest with AaroÌ„ as it is recorded in the Psalmes Moses et Aaron in sacerdotibus ejus et Samuel inter eos qui invocant nomen ejus All which appeares and is most manifestly showen also in that he ordered Aaron Exod. 29 And in that there Moses is coÌ„manded to sacrificâ— Applicabis et vitulum etc. maâ— abis euÌ„ in conspect Dei etc. offeres incensum super altare And that Moses did execute al this it appeares out of Levit. 8. Likewise I answer that when our Saviour Iesus Christ was condemned the high preisthood did not err in that the high preisthood remayned in our Saviour for he was then cheif judge and decider or â—he the high preist was our Saviours superiour which ye wil not grant For that prâ—â—sthood was infallible onely till Christs coming being also clearly foretold that at his coÌ„ming the highpreist should concurr vnto his death and condemnation and so not to be directed by the holy ghost Finally wheras you would confute me by my own practise in that I râ—solve all things by the definitive sentence of the Church grounded on Christs promise to S. Peter Math. 16. that his faith should not faile and that he being converted he should confirme his brethreÌ„ all the other Apostles I answer that as our Saviour was of infinite grace and mercy to promise so he was of infinite power and fidelitie to perform Now wheras you object that I know onely this promise by Mat. 16. that by the Popes churches sâ—ntence I knovv onely S. Matthevves gospell to be canonicall and that the gospell of Nicodemus is not authenticke I grant all but I deny that here there is any maze or circle that you would fayne from hence inferr since this mutuall reference and reciprocall dependence is in diverse kindes and then Aristotle will tell you that it is no circle or vitious argumentation to demonstrate a causa ad effectum et ab effectu ad causam and a younge Philosopher wil tell you that the materia and the form doe mutually depend and reciprocally cause one an other but the one in genere subjecti and the other in genere causae formalis And as a Iewel in his prize
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
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
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