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
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
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
Gods commandment Exod. 34. 27. so sufficiently written as Paâ—…th it is able to make us wise vnto salvation even perfect and perfectly furnished vnto every good work 2. Tim. 3. 15. 17. away therfore with your partiall rule oâ— vnwritten traditions they may not be neyther are they any rule for our faith for noâ—e must prefume above that which is written 1 Cor. 4. 6. But you ad a clawse to your proposition thâ—s where the written word dooth not sufficiently erpress divers mysteries of vs to be beleeved And where is that trow we I your assumption this clawse dares not shew his face for there it would conâ—â—nce you of falseshood If you affirme it not how frivolous deceytfull is your argumet If you intend to assume it though you express it not for so elsewhere you blame me for not vnderstanding your reasoning then say â— by your assumption you intend a lye against the truth and a stander against me It is a ly against the truth to say that the holy bible which we have written dooth not sufficiently express diverse mysteries of â—s to be beleeveâ— If have before disproved this by evident testimonies from heaven which you cannot withstand Ioh. 20. 31 2 Tim. 3. 1â— 17. Rom. 1â— 25. 26. 1 Cor. 15 3. 4. Aâ—â— 26. 22 Ioh. 5. 39. It is aslander against me when you say I grant your Minor for if this clause be there intended I did and doo disâ—â—aym it Your conclusion can be no better then your premisses even false and fraudulent Which that you or others at least may the better espye I wil shew how you wrap vp things in confusion and darknes First Tradition which title you claym for your vnwritten mysteries is as well the word of God written as vnwritten 2. Thes. 2. 15. but you doo oppose it to the written word Secondly holy Tradition or Doctrine by word of mouth was delivered alwayes by holy persons even as holy Tradition or doctrine by writing was delivered alwayes by holy scriptures The holy persons that spake were eyther God himselfe as to Moses in the Mount to Iob in the whirlwind or some Angel as to Abraham Iaakob c. or some holy man of God as Peter sayth spake being moved by the holy Ghost So Abraham is called a Prophet and so vvas Iaakob and all the holy patriarches from Adam to Moses The manner of speaking the vvord vvas also diverse as by visions or by dreames or by playn speech mouth to mouth or by secret motion of the holy Ghost Novv you shevv not vvhich of these vvayes your traditions come onely you give vs a generall paralogisme vvhich vvill serve as vvel to maynteyn H. N. or Mahomet vvith their nevv Gospel and Alkoran as the Pope vvith his nevv Canon lavv For thus may Mahomet or the Familist reason that vvhich vvas a rule heretofore may be a rule stil but the vvord of God given by visions revelations and instinct of the spirit vvas a rule heretofore therefore it is so still at least in part Here is as good and true an argument as yours that your Logik vvill persvvade as soone to Mahometisme or Familisine as vnto Popery Novv as for the persons there vvil be no disparagement For Mahomet himselfe or H. N. vvill as easily be proved to be holy men of God as Pope Iohn the 23. vvho vvas judged by the Council of Constance to be a divil incarnate and as other your reprobate Popes that vvere monsters among men for their beastly life til their dying day as your ovvn vvriters doo record and your selfe in this your vvriting deny it not nor defend them herein And novv I pray you tel me vvhy men may not be induced by your manner of reasoning as vvel to receive the Turks Alkoran and H. N. his Evangelium regni as your Popish decretals I find no more mention in Gods book that the Pope of Rome in the vvest churches should be a divine person to give heavenly traditions then that Mahomet in the East should be the man of God You find not so much as the Popes name much less his provvd office spoken of for good in the Bible You tel us of the promise to Peter Mat. 16. and Mahomet telleth us of the promise of the comforter Ioh. 16 7. That the Pope is head of the church is as vnpossible for you to prove by Gods lavv as it is for the Turks to prove that Mahomet is that Comforter You vvould have vs take the Popes ovvn vvord for a vvarrant the Turks vvould have us take Mahomets vvord for a vvarrant The truth is these both vvith their new doctrines and traditions are the curse and scourge of God vpon the world because they received not the love of the truth therefore God hath sent them strong delusion to beleeve lyes as th' Apostle prophesied 2 Thes. 2. 10. 11. You proceed for vnwritten tradition cite some scriptures Deu. 32 â— Ps. 43. 1. Ps. 77. Pro. 1. 8. Esa. 38. 19. Ier. 6. 16. Ecclus. 8. 11. 4. Esd. 14. â— 2. Thes. 2. 15. 1. Tim. 6. 20 2. Tim. 2. 1 from all which you inferr that Israelites and Christians were to be directed by the help of traditios I answer your reasons from most of these and the like places I have taken away in my former writings Here you repete the same scriptures againe but ansvver not vvhat I sayd you may thus doo a 100. times and vveary men vvith your tautologies Vnto the things vvhich heretofore I vvrote and vvhereto I referr you I novv add All parents vvere bound to teach Gods lavv to their children and children to heare obey their parents in the Lord. Deut. 6. 7. Eph. 6. 1. 4. If this serves for traditions then vnvvritten verities from all parents mouths vvere to be received as oracles of God If you hold thus I pray you tel it plainly If not then shevv vvhich parents had the facultie to teach traditions and vvhich had not 2. The traditions vvhich those scriptures speak of being novv vvritten are a part of the canonicall bible to be read and expounded in the church as being inspired of God profitable to teach c. if such be the traditions of your fathers Councils Popes which the vvorld seeth now vvritten then are they to be acknowledged also scripture inspired of God as Paul speaketh and so to be read and expounded in churches as other books of the Prophets and Apostles For all Gods divine oracles and traditions are of equall authority If you esteem your decretals of this vvorth I pray you tel me in your next If not then the scriptures by you cited vvill justify your Popes traditions no more then the Pharisees Mar. 7 3 6. 7. 8 9. 13. That the Doctrines taught by the fathers in Psal. 44. and 78. vvere vvritteÌ„ traditions the particulars in the Psalms doo evince against your too bold asseveratioÌ„s For the casting out
faithful vvay of reasoning If as your maÌ„ner is you vvould have me to vnderstand it in the first I vvill so Then it is thus That which is not by it self known for Gods word cannot be tâ—e rule of faith This now I deny and your proof is vvanting The proof vvhich you make for it as you had set it down I admitt of concerâ—ing the vvord of God onely vvhere you extend Gods vvord to the definitions of the church c. I run not so farr vvith you But require you to prove your churches councils fathers definitions to be Gods vvord vvhich you doo not Your 2. proposition I deny for the scriptures by themselves vvithout your traditions may as easily be known for Gods vvord as the Sun in the firmament may be known to give light vvithout a candle This I vvill manifest hereafter Yoâ— seek to prove your aâ—â—ertion by authority of men That I refuse as insufficient by authority of Christ vvho theweth their religion to be vayn vvhich teach for doctrines the precepts of men Mat. 15. 9. Secondly you allege a reason Since we doo not see or heare God in his known Prophets to write or speak the word c. there must you say be one certayn rule or depositum fidei As 1 Tim. 6. 20. 2. Tim. 1. 13. 14. have thou a form of sound of words etc. whence you gather that Christians must keep acertain platforme of words delivered to them over and above Pauls epistles amongst which you name for one Transsubstantiation I answer first God his vvisdome power majesty truth c. are to be seen as evidently in the vvritings of the Prophets and Apostles as his eternall power and Godhead are to be seen in the creatures of the vvorld Rom. 1. Ps. 19. although Atheists cannot see these in the one nor Papists in the other Secondly as men doo not hear God vocally in his Prophets so if they did hear him in them or in Christ his sonn yet could they not beleeve vnless Gods spirit illuminated their harts Iohn 12. 37. 39. So your reason is against Christ himselfe as vvel as against the â—…pture Thirdly the church whereto you vvould send us when 1. â—ayth this is Gods vvord how shall men know it so to be any more then they knew the vvords that Christ spake to be Gods unless you lift vp your church above Christ. Fourthly vvhat church mean you Greek or Latine or AEthiopian and how shall men know Christs Church from Antichrists And if the Latin church tel us the fables of Tobit and Iudith are Gods canonicall scripture and the Greek church say they are nor but apocryphal vvhich of these shall vve beleeve Thus you vvould draw us into a vvilderness vvherein vve may loose all stay of faith and fall eyther into despayr or atheisme To those vvords of Paul I have answered before and to let pass your mistaking as if he did inioyn a sound of words as you vvrite further I vvould have you manifest if you can vvho are Timothees successors and vvith vvhom he left Pauls depositum as you call it And how a man may know your kenophonie and monstrous vvord of TraÌ„substantiatioÌ„ to be one of Pauls holsom vvords rather then the Lutherans Consubstantiation Your contending against the distinction vvhich I gave of beleeving things necessary to salvation and other things not necessary as whither Peter were ever at Rome or no and the like I leave to the judicious reader seing you cannot or vvill not vnderstand and rest in the truth Your marginall argument that The written word is not proved by an other written word therefore by tradition I reject as false and inconsequent so proved in my former vvriting You in reciting the scriptures vvhich I brought doo maym the texts to ease your shoulders In Iohn 20. 30 31. you leave out these words and that in beleeving you might have life through his name So in 2 Tim. 3. 16. 17. you neyther mention nor answer this that by the scriptures the man of God may be perfect and perfectly fitted vnto every good work Whereby â— proved that faith vnto life and every good vvork may be learned out of the scripture as I inferred When you cannot answer you call me the perverter of the holy Ghost Let the prudent judge Vnto your answers made to my evident demonstrations by the book of God that the scriptures and spirit of God are sufficient to prove and approve themselves to every conscience I need not make any replye but leave it vnto judgment But to help you if it may be I vvill breefly note your oversights 1. You allege my words sundrie times as if I had sayd Gods spirit is in all people vvhich I never spake nor thought but proved the contrary by Ioh. 14. 17. I sayd Gods spirit is in all his people vvhich if you doubt of see Rom 8. 9. 16. 1 Ioh. 2. 27. You barely say and prove not that in actu 2. the scriptures need testimony of others besides God and his spirit and themselves meaning your Church and Pope you seem to say the like of Christ himself as others of your side hâ—ve playnly spoken By which blasphemie God must be beholding to men Christ to the Pope that by their witness men may beleeve in Christ and his vvord The contrary is evident by Mat. 16. 17. flesh blood sayth Christ hath not reveled it vnto thee but my father vvhich is in heaven See also Gal. 1. 16. 17. and 2. 6. 9. 3. You are often vp agayn vvith your bastard phrase of the private spirit vvhereas al Gods children have the publick or catholick spirit if you vvill so call it as I playnly proved in my former vvriting you have nothing to say against it but that the spirit worketh otherwise in the head then in the foot vvhich is a manifest tergiversation vvhereof in due place 4. You cary your self in this passage about the spirit of God as a sish out of the element as having no relish or feeling of this heavenly grace whereat I much marvel not though I am sory for it Enter into your self and see by vvhat spirit you doo discern the Pope to be Christs vicar as you suppose and his traditions to be Christs oracles Will you not say it is by the spirit of God Now vve are assured that Christ is more able to furnish us vvith the spirit of God then the Pope is to furnish you That you perceive not Gods spirit to be in us but reproch us it is not strange for the vvorld as Christ sayth seeth him not neyther knoweth him Your fathers also could not perceive Gods spirit to be in Christ himself but sayd he had an vnclean spirit and we his servants are not better then our Lord. 5. So for the majesty of the scriptures shining as the sun in his strength by their majesty vvisdom harmony c. proving approving themselves one an
from the flesh of beasts and fowles and to fill them selves with the flesh of fishes with bread and wine and oyl and all such juncates Their prayers being vayn repetitions of their Paternosters Avees c. upon beads in an unknown tongue Albeit many poor people in blind devotion have I grant suffred many hard things in their penance such as Paul caleth things which have a shew of wisdom in voluntarie religion and humblenes of mind and in not sparing the body Colos. 2. 23. So that in verie deed there never was a more carnall pleasing religion in the world As for the Kings and Princes they have had their necks under the Popes girdle partly against their wills by the Popes frawd and tyranny treading them under his feet partly by superstitious fear of the Popes curse and of purgatorie fyre such like buggs wherwith they were kept in aw As for the Popes they were privileged by their own decrees viz. That neither the Emperor nor Kings nor all the Clergie might judge the Pope as Pope Silvester did enact Because the Pope is subject to none but God as sayd P. Symachus Cap. 9 q. 3. Aliorum So it came to passe as the scriptures foretold that Kings gave their power authoritie to the Beast and lived in pleasure with that whore and all nations were drunken with the wine of the wrath of her fornication and all the world wondred after the beast worshiped him and sayd who is like unto him c. And though the vialls of Gods words wrath are now alreadie in great mesure powred out upon that kingdom of syn yet many will not beleeve that it shal fall til in one howâ— the judgment thereof come when also they will bewayl it but heavens and the holy Apostles and Prophets will rejoyce when God hath given their judgement on it These things I pray you seriously to consider of and the Lord give you understanding And now having done with your replies to the former matters I wil speak of those interlaced paragraphes which you bring in S. 98. c of the vicious circle as you call it wherin you think we walk proving as you say the authoritie of the scripture by the private spirit and our private spirit by the authoritie of the scripture c. But your Catholik opinion you say you will defend from such an idle proof and circular resolution of your faith I answer first you doo me wrong to set down my assertion so if yow would deal honestly and plainly you should express an other mans meaning in his own words But you set down vanity and spend many lines in framing objections and answers of your own I referr the reader therefore to that vvhich I sayd in my 2 former vvritings and shall more fully set down here Secondly I told you heretofore that if I had to doo vvith a Turk or Pagan that denyed our scriptures I vvould give him other grounds but dealing vvith you that profess to be a Christian and allow the scriptures to be of God it is ynough to confute you by the scriptures Yet now as if you were about to turn Turk you call for proof that our scriptures are Gods vvord And you regard not my former convictions nor your Mr. the Cardinals reprehensions of your errors though you before referred me to him Thirdly in going about to clear your selves of this idle proof as you cal it vvhich yet you can never doo you goe vpon grounds vvherewith Turks and Pagans may be moved to give credit vnto the scriptures which vvas no part of the controversie between you and me and you lay down motives perswading to Christianity vvhich are nothing unto Popery and Antichristian traditions against vvhich I dispute For these causes I shal not folow you in your raunging movable waves but vvill set down first the things that vve hold and reasons of them secondly I vvill use some motives vvhich may perswade any reasonable man Turk or hethen to incline unto our religion rather then to yours 1. We hold all the vvâ—itings of the Prophets and Apostles to be of God ful of heavenly vvisdome inspired by his spirit 2. Pet 1. 21 and 3 16. 2 Tim. 3. 16. 2. That therefore they are of divine authority and unfallible truth vvherein the creature is bound to rest as in the vvord of the creator and sufficient to make men vvise unto salvation Many reasons there be to perswade men that the scriptures are of God some principal which are froÌ„ God himself others secondary vvhich are froÌ„ men God himself testifieth the scriptures to be of him two vvayes Outwardly vvhereby he prepareth the hart unto faith by motives of credibility and inwardly vvhereby be assureth the hart of the beleever The outward motives are which God giveth us in the word it self First in the Holy scriptures ther is a Majesty wisdom and grace of writing differing from al other writings in the world which the minde of man if it be not blind may see and discerne to be of God as the eye discerneth the light of the Sun from the light of a torch or candle For God hath shewed as great wisdom in the Scriptures as in the making of the world Psal. 19. Secondly the doctrine it self or institution in the scriptures excelleth al humane doctrines and lawes as leading us from our selves from this world from Satan the prince of it unto God in faith love holynes feare humility c. And these things farr passing the reach of any earthly creature naturally to conceiv or comprehend fully though he be taught much less could they be by men devised Thirdly the prophesies which shine through all the scriptures perswade this For as God convinceth al heathens idols and Gods to be vayn because they could not prophesie and proveth his ovvne sole deity by this foretelling of things to come performing theÌ„ Isa. 41. 22. 23. 24. 26. 44. 7. 8. 26. So the Holy scriptures by the prophesies and true events of them may be discerned to be divine and of God from all other writings in the world Fourthly it appeareth by the consent and agrement of al the partes of the Holy Bible though written by severall men at several times even hundreds of yeres one after an other and that also after divers manners some histories some prophesies some songs some parables some epistles c. in al which notwithstanding ther is an harmony that no one writer in any place crosseth or convinceth an other of error or falshood The like wherof is not possible to be shewed of halfe so many writers that ever so agreed togither in their writings since the world began Fiftly the efficacy of the scriptures powrful working in the harts of al sorts of men illumining the mind changing the affections sanctifying the whole body sowl and spirit of men that have read and heard their words Wherby all other false religions
besides prohibits onely that which is contrarie S. Iohn himself otherwise by M. H. A. should sin The like showed My doctrin warranted by Gods own word The desinatioÌ„s of the church are Gods Mat. 18 17. et 1â— Deâ— 19 15. In opere imperfecto c. 7. Math. D. Ambrose lib. de Paâ—adiso c. 12. Nihil igitur l. quod bonum videtur Mark vvel Deut. 32. vers 7. Psal. 43 1. Prov. 1 8. Esa. 38. 19. Ier. 6 16. Eccle. 8 11. 4. Esdr. 14. 3. 2. Thes. 2 15. 1. Tim. 6 20. 2 Tim 2 1. and see whether unvvritten traditions are not to be observed seen 〈◊〉 S. Chrys. plaine vvords for tradition See 〈◊〉 lib. 3. c. 4. Clemens Alexand lib. 5. Streat c. 2. Orig. lib. 5. super numeros Athanas. epistolâ ad Epictetum D. Ambrosius lib. de â—ide 3. c. 7. epistola 83. D. Aug lib. contra Cresco Grammat c. 33 lib contra epistolam Manich quaÌ„ vocant fundamentum c. 5. et epistola â—6 ad Casul vide n. â—1 THE II. PART The rule of our faith the writteÌ„ vnwritteÌ„ word jointly Traâ—it was once the total rule therfore it may be thâ— partial The â—h of God taught onely by tradition 2470 yeres Tradition directed men after writteÌ„ law vide n. 16. Many places of the old testamâ— for tradit 2â— S Dyon Arâ—opag 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Clâ—meas Alex. Thâ—ancâ—â—â— fathers most plain for the allowing of tradition Origen S. Athanasius S. Basil. The 2. coâ—cel of Nice S. Hierom â— S. August 22. yea our â—aâ— adversarâ—oâ— confirm this M. Luther Iohn Calv. Ph MeliÌ„c Diverse reasons whiâ— God vseth traditions D. Hyll supra 2. Psal. Orig. homil 5. Num lib. 4. Esdras c. 14. v. 5 Dyonis Areopag 1. Cor. 3. 2 Hebr 5. 1â— The secoÌ„d third parts conâ—ined THE 3. PART 1. Ratio Major Minor Conclusio My Major proved 27. Stil it is Gods word whether it be mediat or immediat spokeÌ„ or written My Miner proved S. August saying Pâ—oved also by Protestants What S. Pa meanâ— by his â—epositum Platform of words phrase over above the scripture to be observed D. Aug l. 10. de â—iv Dâ—i c â—3 His ans to my â—â—st aâ—â— I did rightly infer out of his wordes The writte word not proved by another written word go by traditioÌ„ A place of script produced ans Another answered Mr H A. his first answ how the word of God is known so to be How Christ both hath no need hath need of mans testimoniâ— Scriptures in actu 2. not in 1. needs witness His 2. answer What he means by the 〈…〉 in all people That this spirit is not in the church of Amsterda His third Answer What is to be understood by comparing one place with another Collatione in diverse times in the self maÌ„ often causeth divers judgments Hereticks have had stil this coÌ„parison oâ— places Your grouÌ„d not able to coÌ„fute an Arâ—an What the seale of your pâ—it is His ground tâ—achâ—th â— mâ—â— beleâ—ves before he reades the scripture Another aâ—s of his Calv. â— inst c. 7. S. â— 2. 4 〈◊〉 â— Al heretiks doe bâ—ag of their private spirit How I distinguish hereticks The Iewes cannot object against us the law and the Prophets Generall motives to conâ—â—nce a Iew. How the high preist hood did not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Many places oâ—â—olâ— scripture to prove the visibilitie of the church That the church of God hath never erred AdaÌ„ did not err in doctrine if he did against our adversaries owne grounds Moses al the Levites free froÌ„â—dolatrie Iudg. 2. How the word all is to be understood In what sense Elias was said to be left alone A breif râ—â— so that the ch of God is and hath been stilâ— visible The resolution of my religioÌ„ the same with S. Cypr. How the word of God the Church may depâ—â— I doe not deny for my witness the spirit of God The difficultie and hardness of thâ— scriptures in principal matters Parvus error in principio magnus est in fine His answer refuted Not onely the matter but the manner of proving is difficult The brasen serpent before an image became an idol a. Cor. 6 16 Our adversaries ignorance like that of the Moabites 〈◊〉 Latria Dulia All the Apostles alike in power of order but not in jurisdictioÌ„ The Popes confirmation of the CouÌ„cel of Châ—lc required contra hereticum Eutich This was a judicial coÌ„firmation Diverse Councelâ—s confirmed by Popes Act. 15. against M. H A. Note The 19 v. examined S. Hieron Also v. 15. 16. Act. 15. The reason why S. Iames did speak S. Peter did not speak risen but rising Why Gamaliel rose up Gamaliel spoke rather as a â—â—â—ind then as a judge Gamaliel did use rather a favorable perswasion then a definitive sentence Act. 17 16. makes against him His similitude against him self The First of Pope Stephen examined Pope Formosus witnessed for a holy man Decret 40 examined Boniface no flattâ—â—er of the Pope ad â— 6. distinct 〈◊〉 How the P. dispenseth against the law of nature in som sense â—â— My third Argumenâ— M. H. A. contented to be drie beaten The uniform consent of the church may easilie distinguish whether scriptures 〈◊〉 â—acked Many thinges beleeved not expressed in the 〈…〉 Thatâ—… Intriâ—secal he the word of God is so of it self but to bee knowen of us it depends of the tradition of the Church THE FOVRTH PART Mr. M. A. walkes in a circle Ioh. 15 16. Ioh. 16. 14. Ioh. 3. 9. 11 Here it is proved that he doth petere principium Mr H. A. walkes in a circle Jo. 10. 27. His discourse is unprofitable Mr H. A. to solution circular fruitless endlesse He cannot tell what this inward testificatioÌ„ is Mr H. A. resolution uncertain Many absurdities sequeles of his doctrin No parcel of scripture affirms the whole scripture to be scripture What should authorise that scripture that should give autheÌ„tickness to all the rest By his opinion Gods providâ—ce is weakned Whether the holie fathers had this spirit or not makes against him That the auncient fathers had this spirit Mr H. A. places of scripture retorted on himself His spirit not Apostolical His answ pretended General groundes reselling the privat spirits proofe A threefold difference between the old and new testament The Catholicke opinion defended from such a idle proofe A general doctrine first to be presupposed The motives of our religioÌ„ of evident credibility The author of our religion the first motive This argument S. Chrysost orat 2 et 3. contra Iâ—â— a os et D. Augustin lib. decaâ—â—chisandis rudibus The second motive The third motive antiquitie Our Antiquitie in cluded in the name Catholick Beza in praefatione novi testa printed 1565. calls the name catholick a vaine word Humfrei in vita Iuelli a vaine terme pag 113. Sutlcif in his chalenge pag 1. fruictless name the like did Gaudentius as appeareth out of S. Aug. lib. 2 contra Gaud. c. 25. Muscul in
THE TRYING OVT OF THE TRVTH BEGVNN AND PROSEQVVTED IN CERTAYN Letters or Passages between Iohn Aynsworth and Henry Aynsworth the one pleading for the other against the present religion of the Church of Rome The chief things here handled are 1. Of Gods word and scriptures whither they be a sufficient rule of our faith 2. Of the Scriptures expounded by the Church and of unwritten traditions 3. Of the Church of Rome whither it be the true Catholike Church and her sentence to be received as the certayn truth Published for the good of others by E. P. in the yeare 1615. E. P. to the Christian reader CHristian reader I having had some interest in the conveyance of the passages here following and with the coÌ„sent of both the writers taken knowledge of the matter in controversie was moved and did resolve to publish it to the view of others Considering that the subiect and question handled is very profitable and the truth therein necessary to be knowen And whereas the controverters are so different in iudgment and yet both of them for conscience sake suffer afflictioÌ„ being separated froÌ„ the Ch of Engl the one to the practise of a Romane Catholik the other to a way thereunto most opposite and both of them being leaders men of note in their so much different religions it may move a desire to see the thing further prosecuted between them and provoke a going forward where the stay is I have without prejudice but not as I hope without the good liking of both parties who ech of them seemed unto me very willing that any should read their writings put forth these things hoping that some benefit may come to the readers hereby whom I wish all of them to follow the Apostles counsel to try the spirits whether they be of God His grace be with us all to guide us in the truth Amen E. P. The occasion and beginning of the passages following MR. Iohn Aynsworth whiles he was prisoner in London had conference with some other prisoners that differed in religion from him about the right way of mans justification before God c which things he after answered in writing also with this challenge at the end Let who will answer it I could wish for name sake Mr Henry Aynsworth might see it If any answer it let him set to his name as I set down mine to stand to all and then I will deal with him Iohn Aynsworth This writing was as he wished sent to the party by him nominated who upon the receipt thereof wrote as foloweth To Mr Iohn Aynsworth prisoner in London Mercy from God our Father and the Lord Iesus Christ our hope MR Aynsworth I received a writing under your hand and name touching some controversie in religioÌ„ you defeÌ„ding the faith of the church of Rome that now is against such as haue forsaken her for departing from the ancient faith of the church that was in Rome when Paul wrote thereunto among whom we are the witnesses of Iesus Christ. You provoke in the end who will to answer your writing but wish for names sake my self mought see it promising if any answer it affixing his name you then will deal with him Though I have at this tyme other opposites to answer and affayres important lying upon me yet vvould I not altogither let passe this occasion offred by your self whom for nation and name I knovv not vvhither also for neerer alliance I regard as is meet greeving for your estate who are in captivity not so much in body as in soul from vvhich if I could procure your release I should be glad The vvay to doe you good or any that is in like error I take to be this that vve begin at the root and ground vvork of our religions in vvhich if vve can accord there vvilâ—e more hope of other things As first hovv our differences shal be tried and composed vvhether by the verdict of God or of man If of God as I hold then vvhere this is to be found vvhâ—ther in the scriptures of the old and nevv testament or in the vvritings and mouthes of other men If in holy scriptures vvhich is my faith then commeth to be considered vvhat they are and hovv to be used My self doe imbrace the vvritings of all the Prophets novv extant from Moses to Malâ—chie vvho vvrote all in Hebrue the Chaldee in Ezra and Daniel counted therevvith of all the Apostles and Evangelists vvhich vvrote in Greek as is novv generally received By all and every of these I offer my faith to be tried and to make tâ—yall of other faith offred The use of these to be vvith all care and reverence sobriety sanctitie and vvisdome ministred by the holy Ghost And here may be questioned in vvhom the faith of a ChristiaÌ„ should rest vvhither on the Churches sentence vvithout doubt or contradiction or vvhither he should also have assurance in his owne hart by Gods vvord and spirit If the Church be our stay then are vve to inquire vvhere and vvhich it is and so to consider the doctrines that it teacheth Among vvhich this is one principal vvhich you treat of in your vvriting hovv our synns shal be forgiven and vve justified in the sight of God Thus may vve proceed in order if you please to begin vvith these grounds I am vvilling as my leysure shal serve me not only to hear vvhat you can say for your religioÌ„ but also to inform you vvhere I see you err If you like not thus to deal but vvill insist on the question in hand I shall not be unvvilling to defeÌ„d my Saviours suffrings as alsufficient for my salvation and of all that trust in him That vvhich shal be prosecuted betvveen us if ought be I desire may be doon in love and meeknes in simplicitie and sincerity vvith brevity and perspicuitie all vvhich I shall labour for through the grace of God and exhort you to doe the like Othervveise from fruitlesse quarrels I shall furcease folovv more comfortable meditations Thus vvish I your farevvell in soule and body From Amsterdam this 4. of September 1609. Your freind to use in all Christian dutie Henry Ainsworth Vnto this letter Mr Iohn Aynsworth returned this answer I Accept with all willingnes Mr Aynsworth of your ready offer viz. that we should draw our disputations and controversies to a maine and principall point and foundation of our religion For as in the spiritual building faith is a foundation and main pillar so also in the mysteries and principalls of our faith there be some that as it were transcend through the whole body of controversies and serve therein as Maister-springes by whose motion and proof all things rest sufficiently satisfyed and proved to any indifferent judgement Amongst others this question by you propounded hath no meane place For if I square out all the beleife I mainteyn onely by approved and vnfallible rule my affertioÌ„s must needs be as
invincible as my rule is uncorrigible Now vnto the point to be decided I breifly answer That a man may eliciâ—t a supâ—rnaturall act of faith many things are required first there must be motiva evidentis credibilitatis prudential motives of evident credibilitie viz. that all nations and men of principall giftes zeal and sanctity and â—â—dowments have beleeved so that it hath stood inviolable against so many and infinite heresies and persecutioÌ„s that it is so ancient so visible so constant and vniforme in all essentiall poincts of doctrine That it hath been sealed and confirmed with the blood of so many glorious Martyrs c. Secondly There must be Ecclesia proponens the Church propounding what is scripture and what is not scripture what is unwritten word viz. tradition and what is not Thirdly there must be prima veritas the first verity â—r Gods veracity that must be ratio formalis the formal reasoÌ„ why we doe beleeve Fourthly There must be a supernatural judgment dictâ—ting that now it is good at least generally to beleeve Fiftly there must be a supernaturall concourâ—â— of Gods holy illumination and a concourse of his infused habit of faith to determinate the indifferent power of our understanding to beleeve or not to beleeve Out of the progresse of which act an answer to your question may easily be deduced For when you ask whither our faith shal be tryed by the verdict of God or of man I answer you directly enough though with a â—â—stinction viz. That if you vnderstand by what formall motive we shall be tryed in our beleefe I answer by the verdict of Gods written and unwritten word But if you aske who shall determine our faith after a propounding manner so we say the Church concurreth after the maner of an applying conditioÌ„ teaching what is Canonicall and that which is not autentike And therefore I will prove first That onely the bare text of the scripture is not a sufficient rule of our faith 2. I will prove that the scriptures expounded by the Catholike Church is a true and indeficient rule of our faith 3. That this rule is onely found in the Romane Catholike church sentence and not in private mens illuminations and motions of a private and unseen spirit First then to prove that the bare scripture is not a sufficient rule of our beleife and that many mysteries and points are to be beleeved that are not expressely taught or evidently deduced out of the holy scriptures I frame this Argument Nothing is to be beleeved that is not taught or gathered out of the written word but that the Bible is Canonicall is neyther directly taught nor by evident consequence deduced out of the same therefore it is not to be beleeved that the Bible is Canonicall scripture The Major is the coÌ„mon assertion of protestants but especially I take it a cheife ground and principle of your sect vide Calvi de vera Ecclesia reformata pag. 473. and the Apologie of the Church of England pag 58. The Minor is approved by Hooker a principall protestaÌ„t in his treatise of Ecclesiast lawes lib. 1. pag. 84. lib. 2. S. 4. pag. 100. 102 who there writeth thus Of things necessary the very cheifest thing is to know what bookes wee are bound to beleive holy which thing is confessed as a thing impossible for the scriptures to teach And afterwardes he confirmeth thus For saith he if any one book did give testimony of all the rest yet the scripture that gives credit to all the rest would require another scripture to be credited neyther could we come to any pause whereon to rest our assurance this way So that we see eyther that he holds scripture is not to be beleived and authenticke or else he requireth the authority of somthing besides scripture to make it authentical The force of this Argument did drive Hooker lib. 3. paragraph the 8. pag. 1â—6 Zanchius in his confess â— â— Brentius in prologo Kemnitij in examine Conc. Trident Doct. Whitak contra Stapletonum lib. 2. cap. 4. pag. 298 30â— to flie unto the authority of traditions to prove scripture to be scripture Which if once they graunt that traditions are sufficient to prove and try the groundwork of our beleife viz. scripture to be scripture why can they not ground other poâ—its of faith of lesser consequence 2. I prove that the bare and naked word of God cannot be an infallible rule or square of truth I prove it thus That which is difficult and includeth many senses at least to the ignoraÌ„t cannot be a certayne rule of faith But the scriptures are thus My Anteced Luther in his preface to the Psalmes acknowledgeth Tertull. in lib. De praescripti sayth Nec periclitor dicere ipsas quoque scripturas esse et voluntate dei dispositas ut haereticis materias subministrarunt cum legaÌ„ opportet haereses esse quae sine scripturis esse non possunt Where he confesseth that misinterpreting of scripture set the doore open to heresies S. Peter also sayeth that in S. Pauls Epistles there be many things hard to be vnderstood which the unlearned and unstable deprave as al the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition And the difficultie thereof made S. Augustin though a Doctor of incomparable wit and learning in his 12. conf c. 14. break out in the height of adâ—iâ—ation and say oh wonderfull profoundness of thy words c. Idem to 3. lib. 2. De doctrina Christ c. 6. confess that there was more in the scriptures that he understood not then of that which he understood The â—unuch of the Queen of Aâ—thiopia was dayly conversâ—â—t in the scriptures yet he confesseth that he could not vnderstand them without a master The second part of my Antecedent viz. that the scripture hath many senses litterall many senses spirituall of whose manifold deepe and mysticall sense the ignorant reader cannot be possest And therefore since in the old law when any difficulty happened the Preist was to decyde it and therefore with a farre greater interest is the Preist of the new law that hath that spirit of interpretation redoubled and ratification of his doctrine assigned and confirmed by Christ Jesus himselfe is to expound the hidden senses of scripture And therefore S. John vltim◠〈◊〉 bids S. Peter and his successors feed his flock with the spirit of interpretation which is the food to a reasonable flock and fold This made the Apostles when they were to decyde the controversies about the cessatioÌ„ of the ceremonies of the old law not to repaire vnto their private spirits interpretation but to a counsell gathered in Hierusalem where S. Peter was head where all was concluded with Visum est Spiritui sancto et nobis It seemes good vnto the holy ghost and vnto vs. And therefore let S. Peter himself conclude That no propheâ—iâ— of scripture that is no interpretation
partu et post partuÌ„ Besides the equallitie of three persons and their processions to Nestorius will not easily be proved or to an Arian if you stand onely to a writteÌ„ word for he will cite scripture for himselfe Pater major est me and if you say that is to be vnderstood onely in regard of his humanity and not in regard of his divinity he will bid you prove that by the written word and what place of scripture soever you shal bring he wil answer it with an other to his own purpose The like will the Annabaâ—tist doe about the baptisting of infants How will you without tradition prove the procession of the holy Ghost from God the Father and the Sonne as from one onely fountayne How wil they justify the not keeping of the Sunday on Saturday with the Jewes the receiving of the sacraments fasting the eating of blood and strangled meat prohibited in the Actes of the Apostles How can they cat a black pudding without the help of tradition since they know it is forbidden by the written word and no writte word found plainely to license it Therefore S. Paul seing how necessarie the vse of traditions were in Gods church so ofteÌ„ coÌ„mendeth it unto vs. Therefore brethren stand and holdthe traditions which you have learnt whether it be by word or by our 〈◊〉 Th'â—fficacy ' and force of which is so necessary by experieÌ„ce and so coÌ„ve nâ—â—t by the judgmeÌ„t of coÌ„moÌ„ sense that I wonder how men should deny the necessary vse therof For I aske if the Apostles were alive and should by word of mouth tel us the contents of many things conteyned in the scripture without all doubt with all readynes we should beleeve them why then will they not beleeve them that lived in the Apostles dayes and such holy Fathers as flourished shortly after Dyâ—â—isnis Areopagita affirmeth the Liturgie of the Masse for the dead to be an Apostolicall tradition in fine eccles Hier. c. 7. parte 3. Tertull. de corona militis S. Aug. De cura pro mortuis c. 1. D Chrvs. homil 3. in epist. ad Philipp in Morali D. Damascen sermone de defunctis initio Also the â—rcede is affirmes to be an Apostolicaâ—l tradition sic Ruffinus in exposit symboli in principio D. Hier. epistol 61. c. 9. D. Ambros. sermone 38. D. Augustinus de Symbolo ad Catech lib. 3. c. 1. Yea that traditions wâ—re of this account we may gather out of the antient Fathers of the Church We may easily gather by the irreverend speaches which Doctor Whitaker vseth against S. Chrysostom for whereas he in the 2 of the Thess. 4 graunts that traditions are as wâ—ll to be beleeved as scripture he sayth his speach was irreverend and vnworthy of a Father And wheras Euseb. lib 1. De demonstrat Euangel c. 8. sayth the Apostles did publish and propagate the fayth of Christ partly by scriptures and partly by tradiâ—iâ—â—s he breifly rejects one of the famousest recorders of antiqâ—â—ty saying his authority is not to be received Raynolds also in his conclusions aâ—â—ered to his conference 1. conclus pag. 689. Cartwr â— 8. in his defense pag. 103. affirmes that the fathers did still allow of vâ—written traditions Wherefore I will breifly conclude this point showing that a man ruled by his private spirites direction can have no faith For since they beleeve scriptures only to be scriptures in that 〈◊〉 are delivered vp by the Church why should not they theÌ„ beleeve any thing that the Church with a generall consent propouâ—â—eth as ◠〈◊〉 of our beleefe For if I beleeve the relation of my freind because my freind tells me I must beleeve all that my freind relates with the like firme assertion and with the like reason or else I doe not beleeve my freind but my owne affection that is thereunto incliâ—ed to beleeve the one and not beleeve the other No more doth no protestaÌ„t or any other sect beleeve with a supernatural act of faith for then would â—e beleeve al that the scripture propoâ—â—â—eth to be beleeved aswell as beleeve the scripture by reason it is of her propounded else they beleeve onely their private spirits dictament and fanâ—ies that hath derived unto the knowledge of many other mysteries as well as of the truth of the scriptures The second thing I am to prove breefly is that the Popes definiâ—ive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficieÌ„r rule in matters of faith The which is proved out of Luc. 22. Simon ecce Sathan expetivit vos ut cribraret sicut triticuÌ„ ego auteÌ„ rogavi pro te ut â—ides tua non deficiat et tu aliquando conversus confirma fratres tuo Where our Saviour that is the founteyne of all grace and goodnes sayth that he hath prayed for S Peter and so coÌ„sequently for his successors since Christ speaketh of the confirmation of the Church against hell gates not onely for a tyme but for ever promising that S Peter and their faith should not faile commaunding both him and them and therefore bidding theÌ„ coÌ„firm their brethreÌ„ And that this prayer was powred forth for S. Peter and his successors appeareth â—vidâ—tly First iâ— that our Saviour points forth one particular man saying Simon Simon particularizing the speech with a pronowne of the second person saying for thee thy fayth and thy brethren 2. Though our Saviour did begin to speake in the plurall number Sathan expetivit ut cribraret vos Sathan desired to sift you immediately changeth the maÌ„ner of speech I haue prayed for thee and not for yee 3. Our Saviour prayeth for him to whom he bidds thou being converted confirme thy brethren but onely S. Peter and not the Church in generall hath brethren Besides S. Math 16. He sayth he builds his church vpon S. Peter Tues Pâ—trus et super hanc Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam and therevpon he chaunged his name of Simon he makes him Peter and Petra and Cephas which name in the Spriaâ—k tong signifyes a rock thereby to prevent all fâ—â—volous answers to a point so clearly declared As appeareth first in that first he designes him first out by the name of his father Bar Jonas 2. by his own name Simon then doth he as it were seclude him from the rest saying super hanâ— Petram aedificabo ecclesiam meam then by the authority and preheâ—inence given him showed by the delivery of the kepes All which the auncient Fathers doe affirme with an uniform consent as Tertull lib. dâ— praescript Orig. homil 5. in Exod. Sanctus Cypr de unitate Ecclesiae S. Hyll Cano 16. in Mat. S. Ambros. sermo 47. 68. lib. 6. in cap 9. Luc. D. Hier. lib 1. in lovini S. Epiph. in Anchor S. Chrysost. homil 55. in Mat. etc. every one of them affirming expressly that the Church of God was built on S. Peter as vpon a rock Besides this our Saviour in S. John 21. gives S.
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
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
But the Lordship which your Pope claimeth is to be a true ecelesiastical prince in the whol church of his own auctority without coÌ„sent of the people or counsel of the preists to make lawes which bind the conscience c. with other like exorbitant power which hath neyther proof nor colour of proof from this 15. of the Acts but the contrary is playn by the scripture as in my former writing I shewed and leav it to the judgment of the prudent Your 3. arguments force you would reinforce by a long speech of privat spirits interpretation of errors and heresies unfit translations manifold and ambiguous senses c. where I must acknowledge you have put to more strength but you have not whet the edge as I sayd unto you so that your purpose is not effected For al that you say may with as good if not better right be retorted upon your selves and the Pope himself who hath as private and erroneous a spirit as al other Byshops hath given as absurd and erroneous translations wrested the scriptures broched as deadly errors is as unable to prove his mission froÌ„ Christ as any prelatâ— or preist in Christendom So in al your discourse you have neyther proof from scripture nor argument upon ground of reason therfore I need not spend labour in vayn and the points some of them are before handled othersome belong not to the matter in hand With like successe you repete your 4. argument that the scriptures have been wronged by our men to bolster up heresies c. you say I grant your assumption but deceiv not your self or others I did leav to strive about it because it was personal touching Luther Calvin c. who when they lived were able yenough to mainteyn their cause against Rome gates though as men they had their infirmities I told you the like charge mought be returned upon your Popes and Prelats Your proposition I deneyed and shewed reasons of my denyal from the scriptures You replie as your manner is with your popular carnal reason that al sorts of hereticks alledge scriptures boast of the spirit unlesse there be a supreme judge strifes can have no end You have been answered that so it must be and so it was in the Apostles times who yet referred not Christians to the Pope as supreme judge but laboured to compose controversies and correct errors by the scriptures Strife wil continue without end til the world have an end then al warr shal cease in the mean while the church is militant under her head Christ. and no other He alone walketh amids the 7. golden candlesticks al churches have their several Bishops and Pastors and onely Christ is Archpastour at his appearing shal supreme judgement be In the mean time they be Antichrists that usurp his office and place But why alledge you this against the divine scriptures onely for doe you not think that men have wrested the late Fathers also to bolster up heresies yea and councils too yea and the Popes own decrees Now if whatsoever be wrested to bolâ—â—er up heresies can not be a true rule of faith then the world wil soon be without rule and so that Anomos that unruly and lawlesse fellow foretold of wil be fittest to be their captayn even as he hath been now too long a day sitting in that citie which in S Ioh is time reigned over the kings of the earth and fayn would mainteyn that regiment stil. Your 5. and last argument was for vnwritten traditions You affirmed that many mysteries of our faith are beleeved that are not explicitly declared nor infallibly deduced from the scriptures I deneyed that any mysterie of our faith was without due sufficient proof from the scripture Now you recken up divers matters as before and ask of me proof for them otherweise then by tradition My answer was and is that some are your own inveÌ„tioÌ„s I wil not undertake to approve but to reprove them by Gods word others that are truths I can prove by Gods word better then you can by mouth tradition But you find great fault think it goes hard with me since I prove not one particular of them all therfore desire me to answer distinctly to ech point as it lâ—es c. I marvel you would expect proofs of these points now Would you hav me enter into battel with Arrians Antitrinitarians Anabaptists other like hereticks and shâ—w how I can convince them by scripture I list not so to digresse When thâ—se matters in hand are ended if you wil take up their buklers I wil fight against you by the scriptures onely if you wil adventure the credit of your unwritte traditioÌ„s in the battel In the mean time make you proof as order requireth of your argument and seek not to turn it away by setting on foot new questions The scriptures that you brought to prove unvvritten traditions I answered In this your reply you say that I dispute as if you made traditions the total rule of faith whereas you would inferr onely that it was a partial togither with the word of God Then belike you graÌ„t some word of God without unvvritteÌ„ traditioÌ„ vvhere is that but in the scriptures If vve have Gods vvord in the scriptures vvithout unvvritten tradition hovv is it that vvhilear you reasoned vve could not knovv scriptures to be Gods vvord but by such tradition Doe not you make mouth traditioÌ„ the total ground of your faith For take avvay this tradition the scriptures you think are lost then Gods vvord is lost unlesse unvvritten tradition give it us So dead tradition is the ground of grounds that must tel us vvhat is scripture vvhat is the meaning of scripture vvhat is true beside scripture and so in effect is all in all Though yet to make it a partiall rule of faith as you speak is too much man may not think to part stakes vvith God his vvord is yenough if vve can be content You say I object that those traditions spoken of in Deuteronomis might make for the Iewish Cabalists which are reiected by S. Peter c Nay I knovv they make neyther for them nor you but as I sayd rather for them then for you I proved unto you out of the Psalmes that the Fathers taught their children vvritten traditions I proved by other divine testimonies that yenough is vvritten in the scriptures for faith all good vvorks As for Gods acts in al ages fathers are to tell them to their children such tradition I allovv We tel our posteritie novv by tradition the great vvork of God in confounding the Spanish armado that came against England in the yere 1588 If I in my dayes should see Rome â— become Rumee as Sibylla prophesied and the Pope like Nabuchodnoâ—or turnd out to graâ—â—e or like Pharao drovvned in the sea I vvould hold it my dutie to tel
this Peter was first I confesse in many good things for which he deserveth praise but that he was first in this you prove not When they had the infasion of the holy Ghost they began sayth the scripture to speak It may be Peter was indeed the first for he was first in order among them and as is like in age but not in office above the other Apostles 8. The first miracle in confirmation of our faith is made by S. Peter And you shal work another miracle in confirmation of my saith if from this though it be granted you can by sound argument coÌ„clude him head as your Pope expounds the head ship Howbeit the first miracle was the speaking with strange tongues for that all men admired who was first in that neither I nor you can tell 9. He as supreme judge condemned the hypocrisy of Ananias and Saphira And Paul as supreme judge condemned the blasphemie of Hymenaeus Alexander delivering them to Satan and the forcerie of Elymas striking him with blindnes If miracles prove supremacies the church shall have many supreme heads 10. He first discovered Simon Magus and condemned him If the Pope vvould doe so too Simonie at this day vvould not be so rise When Sergius tertius Benedictus 4. got the Popedome with briberie and Alexander the â— bought the voices of many Cardinals whither was Cephas or Magus their predecessor If the vertue made Peter head the contâ—arie vice made your Popes the taile How be it your Prelates if writers say true have been more ready to receive with with Iudas then to give with Simon All these and other circumstances concurring in S. Peter showes you say manifestly that S. Peter had preeminence above all the other Apostles that he is the rock and head of the churchâ—â— They are showes in deed circumstances standing a farr off but never a one of them have striken a stroke in this your â—â—lâ—tation Peter had for the most part preeminence in order I readily grant but his office and auctoritie was one and the same with the other Apostles Mat. 28. 16. 20. Ioh. 20 21. 22 23. Paul relating the offices ordeyned of God in the church saith first Apostles secondly prophets 〈◊〉 and agayn he gave some Apostles and some Prophets but the scripture no where sayth first Peter the head of the church then Apostles And that Peter was neyther head nor Rock I proved in my former writing if you will admit of proof from Gods book if not then keep your showes and circumstances still but make no such conclusions with a manifest-lye You proceed and say that Peter was particularly pointed out by his ovvn name his fathers name and his new name Cephas that no cavil might be took at a legacie so stronglie particularly firmed unto S. Peter His legacie is no way by me impugned I know it is firme though not so great as you would make it But you impugne the legacie of the other Apostles unto whom in Peter vvas promised and after to them all generally performed whatsoever power Peter had in the ministerie of the gospel Mat. 28. Ioh. 20. Act. 2. yea you impugne the dominion of Christ himself whiles you would make Peter the Rock and Head of the catholik church contrary to the scriptures 2. Sam. 22 32. 1 Cor. 10 4. Ephe. 5 23. And whither you have answered all that I brought to prove Christ onely the Rock let the equall reader of my former writing judge you make bold and bare affirmations without proof of holy scripture or humane learning Petros you say signifies eyther a Rock or a stone but what learned auctor doo you shew for it and he was called Petros you say not Petra because the masculine gender best fitted the name of a man as if Christ were not a man unto whom the title Petra Rock is by Peter himself given 1. Pet. 2 8. But he is unto you the Rock of scandal whiles you stumble at his power and headship and give it to his enemie the Pope vnder the pretence of Peter And that your church hath made shipwrack against this Rock not onely of faith but of learning also appeares in this that you make Cephas upon Optatus credit in Greek to signifie a head as Christ you say is called the head Isa 8 28. Dan. 2. Psal. 117. Mat. 21. Rom. 9. 1. Cor 10. Ephes. 2. What doo all or any of these scriptures shew that Cephas signifies a head nothing lesse You that entwite we with my private spirits interpretation should have been better avized then thus openly and directly to oppugn the publik interpretation of the holy Ghost Ioh. 1. 43. wher Cephas is interpreted Petros a stone not Cephalee a Head Or if you think the Apostle had also a private spirit and knew not Syriak and Greek so well as Optatus yet mought you have preferred the publik approved learning of your owne linguists who interpreting Cephas a Rock shew that Optatus head wanted wit in this that he sayd it signified a head and they want conscience that upon this false ground apply these scriptures that speak of Christ the head unto a mortall creature wheras the Rock is the creator God himself as the Lxxij Greek interpreters if you wil learn of them wil teach you But let me follow your arguments You say my objection that S. Peter answered as the mouth of the Apostles and therfore had not these promises made to himself alone makes much against me for to be spokesman of all the rest the master-spring of all their judgements seems to grant him superioritie If every spokes-man were master-spring of all their judgemeÌ„ts for whoÌ„ he speaks it were something that you say but ask a jurie of any 12 men in England whither this be true in the foreman of the quest The spokesman in a Council the speaker in a parhameÌ„t are they the master-springs of all their judgments with whom they sit When Thomas when Philip when Iude spake unto Christ in the name of the rest were they master-springs of all the others judgements I perceiv your Rock the Pope hath but a weak foundation that is born up by such sandy conclusions If S. Peter could not have the prerogative of place given unto him in that he represented the church no more you say could the sonns of Abraham be two sonns in that they represented two nations You want help to make up your argument thus But Abrahams a sonns were 2. sonns stil though they represented 2. nations therfore S. Peter was S. Peter still though he represented the Church Very true all the Apostles were Apostles still though they represented the Church And so Antichrist shal be Antichrist stil though he take upon him to represent the Church yea and God himself You grant me that all the other Apostles were a foundation Apoc. 21. but not the principal Neyther
the Martyrs of the primitive church yoâ— will allow of for your Martyrs whether of S. Laurence or â—o 7. Whether you allow of Constantius the first Christian Emperour to be of your religion 8. Whether you will allow of any of our three conversions of England to have been to this religion which you now professe 9 Whether you hold that those that have died or shall die resolved Romane Catholicks have bene or shal be saved 10. Whether you will graunt the Church of Christ or the synagogue of the Jewes to be more visible or less subject to ruin and subversion 11. Whether you allow of the last edition of the protestants Bible or else what edition you propound to your flock â—â—â—etest to be folowed 12 Whether sufficiencie onely since I take you hold ordering or imposition of hands not to be vsed is to be required to make one of your teaching Elders or if onely that sufficeth not to assigne what more is required To these questions I intreat you Mr Henry Aynsworth that earnestly to give an orderly breife and distinct answer to ech one of these questions for on the resolution of these many fruitfull consequences may be gathered to make easie any poinct hereafter to be controverted betweene vs. But now breifly to set downe my arguments which I maintain stil you have not satisfied in no one poinct I will therfore breifly set them downe in forme desiring an answer as breif yet as solid and as substancial as you can affoard onely graunting denying or distinguishing which in deed is to answer in forme like a scholler Your conclusion as I take was this The written word of God contained in the Bible is the onely sufficient rule of our faith My reasons were these in substance to prove the contrary though the same in word I can not affirme not having one line of yours or my conference That which is not knowen for Gods word cannot be the onely rule of faith But scriptures by themselves are not knowen for scriptures go the bare scriptures which is the written word of God can not be the onely rule of faith My Major is most certaine and evident My Minor I proved out of Dr. Whitaker Hooker Zanchius Brentius all holding traditioÌ„ necessarily to distinguish scriptures froÌ„ no scriptures Also I take I proved this out of the holy Councells out of S. Augustin contra epistolam fundamenti Manichaeic 9. Ego Euangelio non crederem c. I would not beleeve the Gospel except the authoritie of the church should move thervnto Neyther did you answer my Minor when you said scriptures â—r knowen by themselves For first you slight and let slip the authority of those that in common reason I should beleive assoâ—ne as your self 2. You doe not answer to the authoritie of S. Aug 3. your answer is against common sense Since if scriptures were as prime a principle as that the sun shines or that honie is sweet no man could beâ— ignorant thereof that had all his naturall faculties and if more then the natural faculties and the object disposed be required you eats your owne words For then it is not so knowen a truth And how shall I know I have this spirituall eye of discerning truth more theÌ„ my adversarie that accepts of some things for no scripture that I do allow of as scripture c. Why had not S. Aug this â—ie that with whole Councel of Carthage accpted of the bookes of Machabees as divine and Canoricall scripture why had not S. Hierom that translated the holy scriptures Another reason that I urged was thus Many things were beleeved before the written word of God many things are now beleeved that are not expressely taught in the written word of God go the written word of God is not onely the rule of faith The first part of my Antecedent is easily proved For the church of God till Moses tyme was well governed and yet had no written word My second part was proved I giving instance that the Sacrament in the old law for expâ—ating of original syâ— in women The mysterie of the B. Trinity that God the holy ghost did proceed froÌ„ God the father and God the sonne as from one beginning That Easter day should be celebrated on Sunday and not on Saturday That the Creede of the Apostles is to be beleeved and yet no one of these is expressely taught in holy scriptures you sayd yes but you cited no place of scripture for probation thereof Moreover you have not satisfyed the places of holy scripture I cited to prove traditions especially you have not answered to that place of S. Paul 2. Thes. 2. v. 15. nor to the authoritie of S. Chrysost. homilie 4. iâ—â— Thes. 2. wherin Dr. Whitaker sayes he speaks unworthy of so holy a father nor to the place off Basil or S. Hierom or S. Aug. De Genesi ad literam lib. 10. c. 23. where he tearheth many fasts feasts solemnities to be kept and beleeved onely through tradition and he testifieth there that in no wise we could beleeve the baptising of childreÌ„ without vnwritten tradition Another which I vsed was this That which is most difficult hard and almost for occurring difficults inexplicable can not be to the unlearned at least a certaine and unfallible truth But the scriptures are thus as well witnesseth your own conscience and divers places I set downe that seem to contradist one another go Moreover how should an artificer know whether this Bible be well translated or no since he can neyther conferr it with the original or the vulgar Latin And I showed how these difficults are not trivial Amongst other places I cited that place of S. Peter the â— chapter v. 16. In which are certaine things hard to be vnderstood which the unlearned and vnstable deprave as also the rest of the scriptures to their own perdition No doubt S Peter meanes of those things S. Paul delivered touching vocation grace justification and predestination In which I showed how parvus error in principio magnus est in sine to which the words of S. Peter alludes to as also the rest of the scriptures meaning that an error in some one transcendall poinct of these doe cause error in many other places that depend hereupon But is these and more plainly examplified I had nothing but quotations imâ—ertinently alleged and no determinate answer to the difficult That whose onely the hath been defective and erroneous yea to the greatest Elercks to every one howsoever unfâ—ilfull and unlearned can not be a certaine and unfallible rule of faith But that the bare scripture is so I showed by diverse seming plaine piares cited by the Arrians Pelagians Semipelagians Donatists EutheraÌ„s Anabaptists â—t All which vie scripture for scripture If you give an interpretation of their place of scripture that they bring to confirme their hereste they will give also an interpretation
Pâ—â— 26 16 〈…〉 Deut 32. v. 7. Psal. 43 1. Prov. 3 8 〈◊〉 6 â—6 〈◊〉 8 1◠〈◊〉 4 4 3. 2 Thes. 2 15. 2 〈◊〉 2 1. so we saâ— the proposing of the word of God by the church and the 〈◊〉 of the Church bâ— hâ—r hâ—ad councells and hâ—lfe ancient faâ—â—â—â—◠〈◊〉 not resist but rather help the scriptures And aâ— to â—â—plicate the law 〈◊〉 neither 〈◊〉 deâ—itâ—e to tâ—e right hand or to the lâ—ft no more 〈◊〉 â—â— to 〈◊〉 the scripture according to vâ—â—â—ersalitie antiquitiâ— and consâ—nt And here 〈◊〉 â—â— to be understood that such an addition is prohibited that to 〈◊〉 to the law of God as appeareth vp 〈◊〉 which 〈◊〉 before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 4 chap. v. 3. where he brings in before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 how he did 〈◊〉 Bâ—al phâ—gor for 〈◊〉 of 〈◊〉 for adding or 〈◊〉 as the teâ—t â—â—pâ—ies v 2 â— 4 Deut. Againe 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 out of Deut. 12. â—2 That 〈◊〉 I coâ—â—aund thee that 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 Lord thou 〈◊〉 â—â—t adde o◠〈◊〉 〈◊〉 what is here 〈◊〉 but an heath 〈◊〉 and an 〈◊〉 of their children to God as they did to their idols as appeareth out of the 30 verse of the same chapter Is here any prohibition of câ—nsicating the true sense of the law And in the self â—â—me sense â— prohibition of an idolatrous or falâ—â—fying addition is prohibited Deut. 4 v. 2. â—â—u shall not adde unto the word I speak unto you and in this sense that of the â—poâ— the last chap. v. 18 et â—9 and first of S. Paul to the Gal. chap. 1 v 8 as S. Aug teacheth vs in tract 98. in Johannem 10. Now wheras you retort my reasoÌ„ vrged against you showes you have good will to maintayn the tennis plaie how unpractised soever you are therein For as I remember I reasoned thus taking occasion out of Deu. 5 v. 32. no man may ad unto the fourth coÌ„maÌ„demeÌ„t it is to be kept therfore the 4 coÌ„mandemeÌ„t is to be kept onely to be kept As it should follow by the selfe same reason No man may adde in that â—â—â—â—d to any particular scripture and this or each parcel of scripture is the word of God therfore this or each parcell of scripture is onely scripture or the word of God Or thus the scripture is a sufficient rule in that kind for that which it teacheth therfore it is the onely sufficient rule where you may plainly see if you will not blinâ—â— that I conclude sufficiently against you But you complayn that my redditum or conclusion doth not showe his head I answer we doe not use ever in the schooles the premises being presupposed veâ—â—â—lliâ— to inferr the conclusion which followes necessarily As if I should argue thus Whosoever builds his religion onely on the privat spirit is a flat hereriche But Mr. Henry Ayns worth doth this the go without any more I know will excuse me from inferring a lame conclusion in that every one that hath common sense wil see what followes 11. Now to answer to that of the Gal. 1. v. 8. But though we or an Angel from heaven should euangelise to you besides that I have euangelised un to you be he an anathema which text makes much against you dooth nothing prove that which you would inferr viz. that the written word of God is sole sufficient For first there it is sayd besydes that which I euangelize that is eyther in writing or word of mouth so that you see tradition is not obscurely implied 2. we may note out of these words that the text doth not prohibit any explicatioÌ„ or true glosse on the text but onely that which is contrarie for verse 6. he marvails that they should be transported to another gospel So that you see all additions not contrary additions are forbidden in this and the like place But first here your gospelling is against S. August lib. 17. contra FaustuÌ„ where he teacheth that the Apostle saies not more theÌ„ you have received but besides that you have received or else S. Aug saies he should have prejudicated himself that did desire to come to preâ—ch to the Thessalonians and he concludes he that supplies that which was too litle doth not take away that which was too litle or wâ—nting 12. And S. Augustin in his 98 tract notes that the word besides doth not prohibit more or other preaching or teaching as the trabitioâ—â— and explications of the church bee but such as are contrarie or disagreeing to the rule of faith and S. Augustine notes that the Apostle both not say if any doe euangelize to you more theÌ„ you have received but besides For if he had forbidden any more S. John had synned that wrote after the Apocalyps 13. You upbraide me in saying this answ is none of the word of God but my owne saying that I have not a tittle of the word of God to prove it which you have and for to prove pour purpose you â—â—te the 30 of the Proverbs the 6. v adde nothing unto his wordes least he reproove thee which text proves no more theÌ„ the other text explicated that coÌ„rrarie doctrine â— not explicatioÌ„s aâ— here prohibited so that we see our archer hath lost another bolt shot at randâ—Ì„ to seek his brother 14. But wheras you say my answer is not warranted of God is not true For read RoÌ„ the last v. 17. Observe diligeÌ„tly those that cause division and diffention besides the doctrine you have learned where Erasâ—us turnes it in his translation contra against and your Bezaes translation reades so if contrarie S. Ambrose also reades si contra so that we see repugnant and not explicating doctrine contrarie and not more doctrine of the self same kind is prohibited 15. Wheras you say my reasoÌ„ is against myself in that the Prophets did not adde of their own but of Gods no more I say the definitions of the church be mans own but Gods ther being one self samâ—… of Christ and hiâ— Church He that heareth you heareth me and he that contemneth you contemneth me S. Luke 10 16. which is true also of particular churches but so fart forth as their doctrine accordeth with the Romane catholik church 16 But where you say you will inlighten my eyes with the lamp oil that stincketh by your false interpretation of the holy fathers sense I am litle beholden to you For S Chrysost and S. Ambrose in those places cited by you wil have nothing else understood but that the expositors must applie theÌ„selves to the true sense of the scripture the law â— not to corrupt the sense though on good pretences But you 〈◊〉 H. A. if you would haâ— the dust wiped of your spectacles might have seen Dyonisius Areopagita in the yeare of our Lord 100 and the Apostles schollar in his first chapter of his celestial Hierarchie show how the Apostles did declare their doctrin partly by writing partly not by
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
authoritie of all the Fathers which could not chuse but puffe up men with pride 108. Against which men I reason thus Eyther the holie Fathers had this spirit of God or else they had not If they had as surely they should have if Mr H. A. did not feynedly preferr them before him then they infalliblie were instructed by his spirit in matters of faith why are their authorities rejected by Mr Henry Aynsworth as earth and ashes If they had not then this spirit is a new and so not a true spiritt since it differrs from that spirit that ruled the auncient fathers many whereof were the Apostles schollers 109. But that the holy Fathers had this spirit I prove since you cannot deny but that they were of the elect the sonnes of God but they can not be of the elect and of the sonns of God without his spirit John 10 27. My sheep heare my voice 6. Joh. 45. erunt omnes docibiles Dei 1. Joh. 2 27. You have no need that any teach you of ought And here by better reason the places that you cited before for the proving of your privat spirit return on your own head Joh. 14. 17. vers 26. Joh. 15 26. John 16 14. Rom. 8 9 1. Joh. â— 27. Joh. 3 9. v. 11. â— 8 Joh. 1 5. 1. John 4 1. there is no triall of the spirits then to trie whether it be of God but these menâ—s spirit were of God since they were of the elect And if you prescribe the tree of the spirit by the fruit Gal. â— 22 25 these mens virtues learning pietie as you confesse are to be preferred before your self 109. Againe I will not onely prove your spirit to be dissonant frâ— the holie fathers but that it is not Apostolical For if the Apostles had been inspired with this spirit every one had â—â—ayed it so that by himself without the help of another he could have distinguished of truth from falshood what needed then a Conneâ—l to be held at Hierusalem since every one could sufficiently distinguish of this truth 110. And to show further how your spirit is incompassed with difficults I argue thus This spirits testification is ever infallible or not If it doe deceive them it is not of God If it be still infallible how can ther come such various coÌ„troversies in the Church of God 111. If you answer this is ever infallible when it agrees with the word of God to which it is to be compared But then I argue if this spirit doth never testifie but when it is read what will they doe then if they were to dispute with a Turke if he should deny the whole Bible or about a controversie of the whole Bible whether it be Canonical or noâ— But admit that the testification of the spirit were onely to be tried by the written word of God How comes it then that the Lutherans and Calvinists are at such an unreconcïlable diffentien in comparing the scriptures This is my body and this is my blood by their private spirits interpretation every one contends to have this spirit to have the true sense of the word How will you then be able to settle these variances by the bare word to the liking of both 112. And to answer the placrs that you doe or may be produced for the mainteyning of the privat spirit I wil give generall grounds to answer all answering some in particular First then to that of John 10 27. My sheep heare my voice you must mark what sheep he meanes viz. the sheep that he committed to S. Peter as Pastor John 2â— 17. feed mysheep And not content with this he showes how these sheep should hear his voice Luc. 10. 6. He that heares you hears me and he that contemns you contemns me The other place is of Esaie the Prophet 54. 13. I will give all my sonns learned c. Jer. 31. 34. Herafter the man shall not teach his neighbour all shall know me from the least to the greatest Joh. 6. 45. out of which and such like places they falsly gather they have testificatioÌ„ of the spirit 113. But these men abuse scripture drawing it to their own sence For these places and the like doth not prove that which they seeke but onely show a threefold difference between the old testament and the new First in that the Prophets did teach in the old testameÌ„t but Christ Jesus himselfe did teach in the new â—cv 1. 1. Where our Saviour is said to have spoke to the Fathers in the Prophets but to vs in his Sonn 2. Moses and the Prophets did propound to the people what they were to beleeve but Christ Jesus vy his inward prace given them did help them to beleeve he not only teaching them by his voice but also helping them by his grace 3. that Moyses and the Prophets did preach Christ onely to the Jewes but Christ and his Apostles to all nations â—oÌ„ 10. 18. in omnem terram exivit sonus eorum so that interpreting what places soever you have or shal produce for the establishing of this privat spirit shall easily be answered by referring them to these places THE 5. PART 114. That I am to prove is to defend our Catholiche opinion from such an idle proofe or circular resolution of our faith The which that I may better performe some coÌ„mon grounds are to be handled before that being presupposed the difficults that oppose our opinion may be the better cleared 115. First then we must 〈◊〉 suppose that since every Heathen or Jew doth know by the light of nature that their is one God the author of all things and that wee are created to serve and honor him and that God is the rewarder of vertue and punisher of vice And since by discourse he may naturally reach vnto this that although it was most free for God to create any thing or to will any thing ad extra yet supposing that he hath created and so if not necessarily yet infaliblie by the excessive propension of his goodnesse he doth propose to men the best and fittest meanes for his honor and divine service And since the Monarchical government is best as appeareth by necessary subordination of creatures elements nations causes beasts vnto one supreme Mr. spring of all So since God having created man would be worshipped of him It is most readie to any mans discourse that he hath ordained one vniform kind of church or service to al people The which as it cannot chuse but seem most probable to a man through the great conveniencie and congruitie Yet if we shall suppose that the multiplicitie of religious and ceremonious services should as coÌ„tradictories or contraries thwart one another so their supreme end It would necessarily be gathered out of the coÌ„pass of any reasonable reaching brain that al these religioÌ„s were not instituted of God and that everie man was bound to weigh ponder the
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
best meanes for the obtaining conserving her ende to which the end of the temporall is subordinate And this indirect authoritie of the spirituall power over the temporall is grounded on scripture Exod. 22. v. 18. Deut. 2â— 1. Deut. 17. 12 3. Reg. 18. 40 4. Reg. 10. 11. 1. Esdr. 6. 10 1. Esdr. 7 26. Psal. 105. 34. Dan. 3. â—6 Act. 5. et 13. 11. 1 Cor. 5. 6 Tit. 3. 10. 2. Joh. v. 10. Which places wee doe not interpret so rigorously that it is lawfull for the comminaltie as you doe to depose him or that it is lawful to kil an anointed King which doctrine we abhorr as bloodie A declaration of which we may give that of so many Antipaâ—es though they are ever the greatest enimies to the Sea Apostollicke that ever any one was privately or publickly made away But how barbarous your procedings have beene in that time to which you have not answered 191. Though I have proved before that S. Peter had preheminence of authoritie above the other of the Apostles yet I thought good to set downe certaine proofes out of the holie scriptures to prove S. Peters primacie so also the Popes so then to confirme them by the authoritie of the holie fathers so that their authoritie citing scripture cannot â—ee refuseh Math. 10. v. 2. Simon is called first Mat. 15. 6. he chaungeth his name that it now signifies a head or superior and the channging of a name I proved commonly to be mysterious Mark 16. 7. The Angell directeth Peter to goe before their as there captaine Luc. 22. â—1 He praied particularly for S. Peter that his faith should not faile him and viddes him coÌ„firme his brethren Joh. 1. 42. He calles him Cephas that is a great stone a foundation stone Joh. 1â— 5. Christ washed S. Peters feete first John 20 4. S. Peter came first to the monument Joh. 21. 15. he bidds him 3. tymes feede his sheeâ— Act. 2. 14. Peter speakes for the rest Act. 5. 4. Peter exerciseth first the power of excommunitation Act. â—5 7. S. Peter in the councell of Hierusalem first gives his definitive sentence Gal. 1. 8. S. Paul came to HierusaleÌ„ to see S. Peter 192 For the confirming of which primarie of S. Peter so established by holie scriptures the holie Doctors are sâ—â—laiâ—e that falsehood it self cannot denie it For s. Clemens Romanus in the year of our Lord 80. saies that S. Peter by the merrit of his faith was assigned to bee the foundation of the church and he is the first of the Apostles etc. wheâ—e you see that to bee the first is to bee the foundation of the church Dyonysius Areopagita in the yeare of our Lord 100. lib. de divinis nominibus c. 3â— teacheth that St. Peter was supreme honor the ancientest head of divines Hyâ—â—olytus in the yeare 220. in his oratione de consummatione â—â—ndi calls S. Peter prince and rocke of faith And Origenes in the yeare 230. in his 5. homilie on Exâ—â—â—s he calles S. Peter the rock and sollid foundation of the church et ad Psal. 1. as you maie read in Eusebius lib 6. â— â—â— he calles Peter the rocke against whome hell gates shall not prevaile et 17. homil in Lucam he calles him Prince of the Apostles and on the 6 to the Roma he expounds that of S. John 20. of the threefold charge of feeding his sheep to bee made the foundation of the church 193. And Eusebius Alexandrinus in the 260. in his homilie of the resurrection expounding those wordes Saie vnto the Disciples vnto Peter he there declares how onely to Peter he gave the keis Petrus Alex in the year 280. in his sermoÌ„ de Poenitentia calles Peter the Prince of the Apostles And Constantyne the Emperor in the yeare 280. in his donation calles Peter the vicar of God on earth And the first Councell of Nice in the yeare 325. canone 39. Arabicâ— calls the Byshop of Rome the prince of all the Patriarchs S. Aâ—ha in the yeare 340. in his epistle ad Felicem calles S. Peter the piller on whom of the foundatioÌ„ and Apostles of the church And S. Basil the great in the yeare 370 in c. 2. Esaiae et in prohaemio de judicio dei 〈◊〉 in orat 3. de peccatis et lib. 2. contra EunomiuÌ„ he calls Peter the prince of the Apostles and foundation of the church Cyrillus Hierosol in the yeare 370 calls Peter the prince of the Apostles â—â—â—echs â— 11. he gives the reason in that Math 17. whâ—â— the â—â—her Apostles were silent Peter confessed Thou aâ—t Christ the sonne of the living God S. Chrys inferreth from thence whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth it shall be bound in heaven that he is the foundation of the church and in his 83. homil in Math. he inferrs the like ouâ— of these words I will build my church and in the Psal. â—0 he inferrs asmuch out of these words Simon Simon Sâ—â—â—aâ— hath sought 194. And for the same primacie of Peter the â—â—â—in Fathers are as plaine Tertull in the yeare 200. â— 21. de pudiciâ—ia on those words on thee I will build my church and to thee I wil give my keies he inferres in that it is said whatsoever thou loosest and not whatsoever yee loose that S. Peter was head And s. Cyprian in the yeare 25â— lib. 1. epist. 8. He saies there is one God one Christ one church one ehaire seated on S. Peter by our saviours voice And s. Cyprian lib. de vnitate Ecclesiae Cathol out of the words of S. Math. 16. Vpon this roche etc. and of S. John the 21. Feede my flocke and of S Joh. the 20. As my father sends me so I send you He showes there that S. Peter is the onely foundation and though the Apostles were sent yet with a mission subordinate to S. Peter and to the virtue of his chaire s. Ambrose in the yeare 370. out of these words Mat 16. Vpon this rocke I will build my church he gathers that S. Peter is the rock s. Hier. in the yeare 380 ad Ps 13 calls S. Peter the head of the church et in â— 16. Mat. coÌ„cording the rebuke of our Saviour the authoritie of S. Peter given to him he saies that preheminence was onely promised then and after his infirmitie it was performed et in his epist. 89. ad Aug. c 2. he saies S. Peter was of such authoritie that S. Paul writes he came to â—ome to see S. Peter And S. Aug. in the yere 400. in his book quaestionuÌ„ veteris et novi testam q. 75. he inferrs that all the Apostles were contained in S. Peters firmness that before you brought as an inference of great absurditie against me et in tract 124. in Joh. he inferrs out of these words Vnto thee I give the keies c. et in sermone 5. in festo Petri et Pauli he inferrs froÌ„ those words Vnto thee I give the keies
Mr. I. A. I proposed to my self when first I began to answer you in these questions of religion the defense of the truth which God hath vouchsafed me mercy to witnesse and 2. the saving of your soul from death by turning you from your evil way vnto Christ if such were his pleasure Now although for this latter I have small hope left seing you so stiffly bent to keep the religion â— received by tradition of your fathers yet for the first respect I cannot be silent for I have still what to answer in the behalfe of God and of his written word against the reasons which you bring for the Pope and his Traditions The Lord guide my hart and hand vnto the mainteyning of his truth if it may be vnto the gayning of your soul. You first profess to have a reverend esteem of the scriptures which you set down I like well of But somewhat you want as That by the scriptures we come to beleive in Christ in beleeving may have life through his name Ioh. 20. 31 That by theÌ„ the man of God may be made wise vnto salvatioÌ„ may be perfect and perfectly furnished vnto every good work 2 Tim. 3. 15. 16. 17. and therefore that no man presume above that which is written 1 Cor. 4. 6. This if you graunt as you cannot with reason deny there wil be no necessary or profitable vse of your vnwritten traditions eyther for faith in Christ vnto life for wisdome vnto salvation or for any good work Whiles we therfore keep us to this heavenly light of Gods written word so commended by your selves though againe you disclaym it as not sufficient without your Popes traditioÌ„s I may say with Moyses †Their Rock is not as our Rock even our enimies being judges You devide your treatise vnto 7. parts The first thing which you promise is to shew that my reasons taken from the word of God doo vanish of themselves This you attempted before but were defeted let us see now what your latter thoughts doo bring forth For answer vnto Deut. 5. 32. you aske ‡ what I can inferr hence but that the law ought strictly to be kept that we ought neyther to add nor to take from the 10. commandements c. I answer you strayten the words too much in restreyning them to the 10. commandements for you may see before in Deut. 5. 4 -22 that the people themselves did hear the 10. commandements promulgated and â—durst here no more but prayed Moyses to goe neere and heare the rest what God would say and to declare all vnto them This he did and God told him all the commandements ordinances and lawes which they should doe in Canaan whereupon he inferreth that generall admonition v. 3â— 33. touching all the wayes of God and not the 10 commandements onely So your limitation being weighed in the Lords ballance is found too light You proceed and ask what this is to my purpose to prove that the written word alone is sufficient to decide all controversies I answer I did express my purpose was to prove this That God onely is to be the umpier and arbiter of all controversies about religion whither it were by his word written or unwritteÌ„ I stood not vpoÌ„ that in this first point This I told you plainly before if your purpose were not wilfullie to mistake and make needless coÌ„troversie you would not after warning have doon thus the second time Like fruitless labour you bestow to prove that the law of God should be explicated by the Priests c. A thing which I never doubted of yea I hold that the B. of Rome if he were as he ought to be should spend all his dayes in explicating Gods lawes to the people so should all Bishops in the world But Popes lawes devises traditions should neither be explicated nor once meÌ„tioned in the church without detestatioÌ„ You say such additioÌ„ is prohibited as is contrary to Gods law as appeareth Deut 4. 2. 3. where the idolatry with Beelphegor was punished for adding or diminishing as the text implies I answer though you costreyn the text to seem to help you while you set that before which Moyses setts after yet to let that pass I grauÌ„t that you say if you vnderstaÌ„d it wel For seing all additions to Gods law is forbidden whatsoever is added by others is contrary to Gods law Now all additioÌ„ is plainly forbidden Deut. 4. 2. and 12 32. Prov. 30. 5. Therefore nothing can be added by your Pope or any which is not contrary to the law of God Your Doctors whom you rely vpon tel you the same nothing is to be added sayth Ambrose no though it seemes to be good That which hath not authority froÌ„ the scriptures saith HieroÌ„ is as easily coÌ„teÌ„ned as allowed The answer you â— give to Deut. 12. 32. is what is here forbidden but an Hethen imitation and immolation of their children c. Is here any pro hibition of explicating the true sense of the law c. I answer you run into your former fault abridging the scope of the text To imitate the hethens was vnlawfull but to divise things of their own heads yea and to imitate God otherwise then he commaunded them was wicked also Proofe in Ieroboam who made a feast not like the heathens but like the feast in Iudah 1 King 12. 32. yet was it sinful and the holy Ghost brandeth him with forging the moneth out of his own hart v. 33. Many of your Popes idolatrous feasts have nothing so good a colour And your devised worship of Lord Lady Angels Saincts Popes Confessors c. is not onely an imitation of the hethens but an idolatrie worse then many of theirs as when we have ended these questions in hand I will vndertake to prove vnto you As for explicating the law I before approved it Your former reason from the 4. commandment you seek to vphold with a staffe of reed For when God gives many commandements why will you make the keeping of one to be the keeping of all In deed if he had given but one precept and men had given the rest it were somwhat that you say But they are all given by the same God to be our life and righteousnes if we keep them For man to add any thing to the 4 or to any or to all the commandements is an odious syn Mat. 15. 9. Whereas against all additions to Gods word I alleadged Prov. 30. 6. and Gal. 3. 15. to overthrow your fraudulent distinction you frame a reply to Gal. 1. 8. which place I produced not In Gal. 3 15. the Apostle sheweth froÌ„ the similitude of a mans TestameÌ„t that much more vnto Gods nothing may be added Against this you having nothing justly to except doo choose to your selfe an other place more easy to pervert What els dooth this bewray but the helplessnes of your cause