not understand the scripture vvithout a master I ansvver as before this proveth no insufficiencie in the scripture but in the reader I vvil further confirm it by your ovvn position vvher aftervvards you undertake to prove That the Popes definitive sentence as he is head of the church is an indeficient rule in matters of faith But these definitive sentences say I are some of them hard to be understood at least by the ignorant and many cannot understand them vvithout a master if therfore your argument be good your position is naught and you must seek a nevv rule in matters of faith Your humane testimonies say no more then is alreadie heard and ansvvered if they did say more and you pressed it I vvould make ansvver as to you but leave the Fathers to sleep in peace You procede vvith the second branch of your antecedent saying that the scripture hath many senses literal many senses spiritual vvherupon you gather siure is the old law when any difficultie happened the Preist was to decide it therfore with a farr greater interest the Prâ—ist of the new law that hath the spirit of interpretatioÌ„ redoubled and ratiâ—ication of his doctrine assigned and confirmed by Christ Jesus himself is to eâ—pound the hidden senses of scripture I ansvver first that ther be so many senses literal spiritual as you doo say resteth for you to prove in your next for in this you make none I hold the sense of scripture to be one though applied to many tymes places and persons Pentheus in the Poet thought he savv tvvo suns in the firmâ—ment when ther was in deed but one it was but the difâ—â—râ—perature of his own senses that made him so to think You suppose the word which shineth as the sâ—n in the firmament of the church hath many meanings when it is but the dazeling of your eyes Secondly though it were granted to haue many senses yet the law in Deut. 11. maketh nothing against my faith For I graunt the scriptures are to be expounded by the Preists and Ministers of God Deut. 33. 10. Ephâ— 4. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 yet not by mans owne judgment or at the wil of any mortal 〈…〉 but by the spirit of God and by the scripture it self as did the 〈◊〉 in Israel For no minister of Christ no not the Apostles haue deâ—â—â—nion over our faith but are in declaration of the teach to approve themselves to every mans conscience in the sight of God as Paul sayâ—th Neither mought the Preists of old decide controversies as they 〈◊〉 themselves their words were not oracles but they were to inform the people according to the law which the Lord explaineth by the preist Ezekiel thus In controversies they shall stand to judge and they shall judge it according to my judgements c. Ezek 44 â—4 Thus Gods law is the rule of judgement and the scriptures are not so bare naked as to need the raggs of mens inventions to array them If you yeeld not in this I pray you what answer will you make to the Iewes that shall plead vvith you against Christ and alledgâ— how their high Preists and Rulers which were to decide all controversies Deut. 17. decided this controversie of Iesus of Nazareth thus that he was a seducer a blasphemer a traytor therfore to dye the death If the bare and naked scripture as you call it help you not against their pontifical decrees and expositions you wil hav but a bare and naked faith the shame wherof no â—igleaves wil hide But the Preist of the new law you say is to decide vvith a farr greater interest I grant it for Christ being come the high Preist of good things that were to come hath farr greater privilege and power then any legal Preist and him we are commanded to hear But he is not the Preist you mean for you allege from Iohn 2â— that Christ biddeth S. Peter and his successors feed his flock with the spirit of interpretation c. I marvel hovv this wil make for your opinion that the bare word of God is not an infallible rule or square of truth For doo you think in good â—arnest that Christ would haâ—â—â—th Apostle feed his flock with ought save Gods word because he bad him feed then all other Pastors must doo so too For the same Apostle writeth afterward thus The Elders which arâ— among you I besâ—ech who am a coâ—lder c. seed the flock of God another Apostle sayth to the Elders of an other church Take hâ—ed to your selves and to all the flock wherof the holy Ghost hath made you Bishops to feed the Church of God c. If the commandement to feed privileged S. Peter above the law and word of God then all Christian Bishops or Elders haue like privilege because they haue like commandement But I deny eyther that Peter alone was to feed Christs sheep or that he mought feed them with any thing save Gods word For the Apostles doctrines were the commandements of the Lord. 1 Cor. 14 37. not their own counsels and if S. Peter or any other taught or practised contrary to the word he was to be withstood and reproved Gal. â— 11. Whâ—rfore â—ven Peter himself who knew wel the meaning of his coÌ„mission taught the church that their new birth was not of mortal feed but of immortal by the vvord of God and that was the word which was preached among them and which he exhorted them stil to desire that they mought grow therby willed theÌ„ that if any man spake it should be as the words of God and referreth them to the sure word of the prophets as to a light that shineth in a dark place that strange it is you should gather any thing against the auctoritie or sufficiencie of the scriptures because the Apostle was willed to feed the sheep of Christ vnlesse you think they should not have wheat but â—haff to feed upon And if your châ—if shepheard of Rome use so to feed his flock gather such doctrines from Christs commandement I will never goe over the Alpes to setch my food from him You next allege Act. 15. where the Apostles meaning to decide a coÌ„troversie repayred not you say to their private spirits interprctatioÌ„ but to a council gathered in Jerusalem where S Peter was head wher al was concluded with It seemeth good to the holy Ghost and to vs. I answer you hold not to the point which you took upon you to prove viz. that the bare word of God is not an infallible rule of truth the scripture you cite maketh against you for the Apostles were publishers not of their own word but of Gods 1. Thes. 2 13. 1. Pet. 1. 25. 2. Pet 1. 16. They confirmed their sayings in this Council by the former scriptures Act 15 15 16. They expounded and applyed the scriptures to their present questioÌ„ by the same spirit which wrote them which
It is sayd to be full of baâ—iy And the 1. â—â—eg 7. 15. It is sayd that the braâ—en pillars were thirty eight cubiâ—â—â— in length and yer 2. Parall 3. 19. but thirty five Math. 1. 8. It is sayd that Joram begaâ— Qziaâ— but in the 4. book of the Kings which the Protestants call the second it is written that Joram was father to Ochozias Ochoizas to Joas Joas to Amaâ—â—â—s not Joram to Ozias otherwise called Azarias Mat. 1. 3 16. Joseph is called Jacob wheras S. Luk. 3. 23 nameth him 〈◊〉 Mat 10 10. the Apostles sent to prâ—ach are forbidden to have a â—reffe in their â—aâ—ds and yet S. Mark 6 8 baâ— them take onely a staffe or rod in their hand Mat. 26 34 and Luk. 22 34. sayth that before the cock did crow Peter should deny him thrice but S. Marke the 14. 30. sayth Christs words were Before the cock shall crowe twise thou shalt thrisâ— deny me Mar 15 25. â—ayth our Saviour was crucified at the third howre but S. John 19 14 saith it was about the sixt houre before he was condenmed by Pâ—â—ate So that you see the comparing of place onely with place often times may bring a poore man into a maze or circle except he adde to this the authoritie of the Church and the holy Fathers and the learned Doctors exposition by whose helpe all these seeming contradâ—â—tions will easily be salved Now wheras you may answer that these difficults are in matters of fact and not of doctrine so it much imports not whither a man reconcilâ—s these places or no I graunt the first but I deny the sequâ—â—â— For since you teach that al difficults of scripture may be helped by comparing of one place with another now when as ignorant men shall folow this your rule as an unfallible guide when they see themselves ledd by it vnto a contradiction they doe not onely begin to cal into question this but al other things conteyned in the scriptures seing the self same truth affirming the little as well as the great and as much abhorring from coÌ„tradiction of a litle matter as of a great The second braunch of my antecedent which I bring is that holy scriptures hath many senses litterall and spirituall yea and often many senses literrall and many senses spirituall All this you deny wonder that I doe not prove it I answer that no disputant useth to prove comoâ—mâ—â—â—mes and principles and we use not to prove coÌ„mon 〈◊〉 at most Protestants allow of viz. of a litterall and a spirituall sense the lâ—sâ— wherof they divide into three members into an all gâ—ricell tropological anagogicall sense yea and not without great cause they allow of this since D. August lib. 11. confess cap. 26 et lib. 11. De â—â—â—â—tate Dei c. 19. sayth also that the scripture often haâ— many litterall senses But you against the holy fathers held that it hath onely one sense but as you answer appliable to diverse places times and persons Here I wonder that you should be so consideÌ„tly hoveld with your own concâ—â—t and so caried away with your privat spirit that you see not that which to most manifest But even as a pigeon that is seeled in your soaring spirit you see onely the way at length to your own downfall though in your conceit you ascend bolt upright for a season But that the scripture hath many senses we leave as proved and if to prove fitter for another place Now it sufficeth for this place to show that which you graunt to sufficient to prove the second part of my antecedent For if that one sense hath reference to diverse tymes places and persons it must needes be very difficult require some common help besides themselves to obtaine their severall true expositions nay here me thinks you graunt that the scriptures hath diverse senses since you graunt diverse as it were formalities of senses respecting divers places tymes and persons Here also in prosecuting of this point you seem to mistake our doctrine For we hold that neyther Apostle or the Pope have domintoÌ„ over our faith or authoritie to institut Sacraments of themselves neyther can they make what they will as a matter of faith or tradition But it must be received tyme out of mynde by the vniform coÌ„sent of that Church which hath kept her peâ—petuall succession of Bishops from S. Peter and then S Aug. in epist. 118. will teach you that insolentissimae infaniae est existimare non certe fieri quod ab vniversa ecclesia fit that it is a most insolent madness to think that it should not be right that the whole church doth teach Besides the Pope doth not make a matter of faith but declareth onely that such and such a thing is to be beleeved and that by the inspiration of Almighty God guiding him as he is the head of the church Neyther dooth he for all this omitt to use all humane helpes of counsell and consultatioÌ„ with the learned that though as he is head of the church he hath a promise froÌ„ Almighty stil to assist him yet in that he might not seeme to presume in omitting the vse of naturall and prudentiall helpes and meanes he vseth all diligent serâ—tinp therein The place of 15. of the Acts which you examine of mine where I lay that in the counsel held at Hierusalem all was concluded with this of S. Peter the head It seemed good to the holy Ghost and to us This I sayd and still averr makes much against you For here the Apostles to end the controversy in hand trusted not their own several spirits but to a mature deliberation and counsell where S. Peter was hâ—ad and vinâ—eere though he vsed an Apostolicall inguisition and therfore it is noted in the 7. verse that Peter role up showing thereby that he was head and had the preemineâ—ce of place first to speak noting also his priviledge that the first Gentills were chosen by his mouâ—h though S. Paul was designâ—d to convert them Now unto that which you 〈◊〉 that verse 13. and 14. S. James 〈◊〉 stanâ—â— all and that hence we might rather hold him head of the Church I answer that doth not hence folow in that S. James in that he was an Apostle and Bishop of HierusaleÌ„ gave his sentence nert For surely S. Paul and S. Barnabas also spake though their speach is interposed for the better declaration of the question to be decided and for the greater confirmation of S. Peters sentence And though S. James sayd in his speach I judge he doth not meane thereby that he gave the principal definitive sentence since he and all the rest followed and seconded by their suffâ—ages the decision of S. Peter as it is plaine in the text The whole assembly for reverence of his person and approbation of his sentence holding their peace The which S. Hierâ—m affirmeth saying all the multitude held their peace and into his sentence James the Apostle
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
faith if it be as it ought that is if it be accomodated proportioned vnto the object end of our faith as it is necessary vnto salvation deth eyther require a particular motion of the Holy Ghost or an infused habit of faith as it appeareth out of the 7. chapter of the Aransicanum Conc. and out of the Trident Sess 6. c. 5. et canone Where it is affirmed that without Gods preventing grace and the illuminatioÌ„ of the holy Ghost no man can beleeve things reveled as he ought that is that Gods justifying grace be given him 141. Fourthly I affirme that this certaine and inevident iudgment of the truth of our faith into these humain reasoÌ„s and motives as into the moving applying and impulsive cause but not as into the formal motive of beleeving And the selfe same judgment is resolved into the supernatural light as into the true efficieÌ„t cause of that certitude and proportioÌ„ which it hath with his adequate object and end both being supernatural 142 If I be demaunded therefore whie I beleeve â— persoÌ„s and one God or any other thing I answer if you aske of me the formal reason whie I assent I answer I beleeve because God hath revealed it If I be thenasâ—ed how I know God hath revealed it I answer I doe not evidently know this though certainly I know it for the same revelation and infalible authoritie which the church of God as an intrinsecal condition or application applies to me to be beleeved 143. But if I be further questioned since the revelation of God and the proposing are both obscure and inevident how cames it theÌ„ that I certainly and evidently doe beleeve 144. I answer then I returne vnto the motives of evident credibilitie that maie induce any prudent man to beleeve that saith and that church warranted by so many motives 145. Neither is here coÌ„mitted any vitious circle between the authoritie of God the church as I have before convinced you in your grounds to commit For first the authoritie of God revealing in vertue of which the infailibilitie of the proposition is beleeved and the selfe same infallible proposition in vertue of which we beleeve that God â—â—ies and reveales hath two diverse objects For the object of the infailible proposition is that God reveales And the object that God reveales or of the revelation of God is the veritie beleeves 146. â— I saie in that when out of the authoritie of God revealing is given the formal reason of our beleeving the motive is given by the formal cause But when out of the infallible proposing of the church a reason to given whie we beleeve the divine revelation If it be vnderstood aright it is not to be given by a formal cause or motive but by an intrinsecall and requisite application of the motives whie we beleeve which is doone by the proposing of it by the church so that ther is no circle ab eodem in idem secundum idem which Aristotle only coÌ„demns 1. Post. text 5. as I have shewed before 147. Yet to goe one degree further in shewing how we are free in another regard from this mere circular and fruictless resolution of theirs I presuppose that then is coÌ„mitted a circle when the selfe same is proved by the selfe same to him that graunteth neither or doth aequallie deny both or doubteth of both For proofe of which we learne out of Aristotle that we ought to proceed from that which to knowen to that which is not knowen or at least from that which is graunted to that which is not graunted for so we shall proceed from that which is knowen after a manner to that which is not knowen 148. Whence I inferr that he should coÌ„mit this circuler discourse that to an Ethnick that equally should denie both scripture and the infallibilitie of the church should prove that the scripture were of divine authoritie in that the church teacheth vs it and the church of infallible authoritie in that the scripture teacheth vs it But to a protestant that admits of most of the scripture it is no circle to prove the infallibilitie of the church which he denies from the scripture which he admits of but first you do not give a resolutioÌ„ of your faith as I doe that is powerful against Ethnick or heretick 2. though wee admit of scripture yet wee cannot be vrged therevnto by you that receiving from the church the scripture will not beleeve all that she proposeth alike to be beleeved 149. The foresaid manner of proof is vsuall both in the scriptured and in ancient Fathers The Pharisees did admit of Moses and denie Christ. Therfore our Saviour convinced them with these words Joh. 5. 46. If you did beleeve Moses you would beleeve me for he gave testimonie of me Againe contrariwise the Manicheies did admit of Christ and the gospel did deny Moses and the Prophets therfore S. Aug. contra FaustuÌ„ ManichaeuÌ„ in his book lib. 1. de moribus Ecclesiae Catholicaec 1. et seq did convince the Manichees The like manner of proceeding wee take to instruct a Catholick that should denie any parcel of scripture wee convince him by the judgment of the church to whom he submits himselfe And Hereticks that denie tradition the church and the Popes authorâ—tie wee convince them out of scripture out of the writings vniform consent of the holy Fathers thowsands of whom M. â— A. saies he preferres for wisdom truth and holiness before himself whose vniversall consent of them living in all times being most expert in tongues neare our Saviours times many of them being the Apostles schollers not partiall to eyther of our causes writing so long before many delivering matters of facts that doth prove or coÌ„firme many poiâ—â—â— of our doctrine I cannot see how you can denie them especially since you saie you admit so farr of them as they agree with scripture For S. Hierom translated it S. Ambrose S. Aug. S. Greg. S. Barnard interpreted it and they all cite many places of scripture to prove fundamentall points of doctrine of our religion But I shewed how the holie Fathers agreed with scripture to which you are silent 150. But that you doe not proceed after the self same manner is plaine For though you abound with wrested places of scripture which we admit of all in their true sence Yet you denie the interpretation of the Fathers interpreting the scripture that by common consent and your owne graunt should better vnderstand them then you And wee doe not admit of scriptures as a sufficient proofe by themselves but togither with the interpretation of the holy Fathers of whom by your own words you should admit of since you prefer their wisdome truth and holynes before your selfe 151. Wherfore then M. H. A. would you have me beleeve you alleaging onely scripture for your self iâ— sense depraved before the holy Fathers that cite scriptures both for them and
eâ—r deceiv you You dare not say this nay in deed you deny it whiles you refuse any doctrine or expositioÌ„ give by Doctor Father or Council vvhich the Pope approves not of and this is ordinary to be seen in yourbooks Follow you now still vpoÌ„ vvhat assurance you stay it is your Pope is Christs vicar caÌ„not err ex cathedra because himself sayth so And this is to make him a God For onely God is the ground of truth on whose word al creatures should rest And so by this argumeÌ„t alone if there were no more your Pope is proved to be that maÌ„ of syn which exalreth himself above al that is caled God you are of those upoÌ„ vvhom God hath sent strong delusioÌ„ to beleeve lyes as the Apostle prophesied 2. Thes. 2. 4. 11. Besides it is against al reasoÌ„ to take a mans witness of himself The law of God and Christ is against it the law of maÌ„ coÌ„demns it Nemo in sua causa testis esse vel jus sibi dicere possit l Generali C. Ne quis 2. q. 1. C. de manifesta Behold M. I. A. this third time I have vvritten unto you God by me warning you of your fearfull estate Take heed and despise not the mercy of the Lord calling you to repentance Be not unsensible of your calamity extreme peril as he that sleepeth in the midds of the sea on the top of the mast and sayth they have striken me but I vvas not sick they have beaten me but I felt it not To day if ye vvil hear the voice of God harden not your hart least he swear in his anger that you shall never enter into his rest My prayer shal be against your evil and that you may finde mercy unto life if such be the vvil of God Amen From Amsterdam the 6. of November 1613. Your freind that vvisheth your vvelfare Henr. Ainsw I. A. his 4. and last writing to H. A. To his loving friend Mr Henry Aynsworth these At Amsterdam Mr H. Ainsworth AS small hope have you in deed of the former viz. the defense of the truth as you graunt you have of the second â—â—tendement of yours viz. my conversion For trust me your allegations your prooses are so weak though many in 〈◊〉 ber that I wonder that he that professeth himself to hunt after the light onely should content himself so in the dark like Senecaes poore blind woman who accounted all others to be blinde and that onely she did see But if you would as well have taken paines but even to have summed my reasons and proofes faithfully as you vainely repeate so often your owne Mine and yours indifferently paralleld would have manifested long ere this the truth But you conceale so my proofes and so magnifie your own that it is no wonder your seâ—tarâ—â—s prifeth yours as things of worth when in deed they are but gaâ—die glasse and plaine Bristowes stones in sted of Diamonds And therefore as I remit you for all your slight replie to my former answer in so many sheates of paper delivered so I remitt your auditorie but to compare both for their satisfaction and manifestation of the truth if they bee intelligible It being a tedious thing to take so often such fruictless paine as to plough 〈◊〉 so many sheetes the barraine sands A short answer especially being not compatible to many vnjoincted and scattered citations were not your vanitie therin sufficiently vâ—â—asked in the former And since you doe confess to bee tyred as indeed I profess I am but to reade your slight stuff I shall content my selfe to poinct out how you have satisfied me in no one poinct referring my selfe to my former defence which doth and shall stand in force for ought therin that you can justly oppugne To the first of mine wherein as I showe that your reasons vanish of themselves you keepe a greate pudder to no purpose Naie you overthrow your selfe graunting the vnwritten word of God to deepde controversies that the law must bee explicated by Preists For as traditions the vnwritten word are included and implied in the written word or belonge to the explication or performance of the same so also fasts feasts and ceremonies of the Church are virtuallie included in those generall precepts and prerogatives of the Church as I expressed in my former Now to add that which is gathered thence or to explicate that which is included is not contrarie as you doe in your replie not obscurely confess as I show in my 12. parag as also the 16. 17. parag is to answer Where as you charge me that you have often answered that which I object parag 20. I referr to the indifferent reader But verily I maie speake and not from my own judgment that your writings deserve no answer I answer Apostollicall traditions are to bee taught as the word of God and to bee expounded what then In answering my first reason faine you would reâ—aiâ— we with a spllogisme of your owne seing that which is known for Gods word is the rule of faith which I denie not But holie scriptures are knowne for Gods word which in your sense I denie For they are not knowen by themselves but by tradition and the authoritie of the church For many paâ—â—ells of scripture have bene doubted of by those that bragged of the spirit of God to discerne scripture And you neyther save your self from an infinite process in that kind if you could doe that how can you prove the whole Bible to be canonicall as I have proked In my 32 parag I fullie satisfied your tortured places and if I doe leave out som places it is in that they are virtuallie answered in other places expounded For if a man should examine each place you bring wee should never have an end And if the scriptures bee as cleare as the Sunne to be distinguished it followes that they must bee knowne of all if you saie of all his you doe petere principium since everie one will pretend to bee his I proved also by the authoritie of S. Aug that scriptures in Actu 2 to bee knowne to others requireth necessarily the authoritie of the Church to which as to verie manie places more you never answer You wrong your self and not I you since you giue just occasion to me to terme the guide of your religioÌ„ your privat spirit for the word â—pâ—ly befitts your grounds as I prove effectuallie and I doe convince that our faith is not subject to any such circular vagarie I resolving my religion into no other grounds then St. Cypr did his S. 55. And you might see if you would that the Pope doth not make what he wil a matter of faith but onely doth declare it parag 69. And to what end should I answer him that never answered me as I did procede but onely by snatches which is not to answer me but his owne phancie and
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
should blush but lyes hid in silence First you gather a consequence which here I strowed not I spake of God and of his verdict and authoritie not of the scriptures as yet For whither it be by writing or by speaking or any other way that God manifesteth his will unto us it is to me all one and the authority of the scripture is a second point Thus your answer is not here to the purpose Your reason annexed is a fallacie concluding from a part against the whole unequally The scriptures cited speak of Gods commands in generall you take one in particular and because one is not all therfore all must not be all but more then all must be observed which what they wil be I cannot tel unlesse the commandements of men Mat. 15. 9. 2. You answer that all additions whatsoever are not here prohibited but onely such as ar contrary to the word of God for many other prophets as the penmen of the holy Ghost did add divers pea most part of the holy scriptures c. In deed this answer is your own none of Gods you shew no tittle of his word for that you speak But I will shew you the contrary Prov. 30 ◠Adde not unto his words least he reprehend thee and thou be a lyar Lo here all additions and not onely things contrary are forbidden Againe though it be but a mans testament sayth our Apostle when it is confirmed no man dooth abrogate it or addeth therto If you add to your naturall fathers testament civill lawes would count you an unnaturall son your distinction would not help yow much lesse can it help yow for doing such wrong to the will of our father which is in heaven Your reason is direct against yow for the Prophets being penmen of the holy ghost added nothing of their own the additions were Gods own If the Prophets Apostles mought add nothing of themselves much lesse may we Thus God yet reigneth alone And if yow vvould have mans oil to lighten your lamp hear what Chrisostom sayth for this point Every Doctor is a servāt of the law for neyther may he add unto the law any thing of his own sense neyther may he withdraw any thing according to his own understanding but preach that onely which is found in the law Whereas yow add that your traditions are also from the holy ghost for Luk. 10. it is sayd he that heareth yow heareth me and Mat. 18. If he hear not the church let him be to thee as an ethnik and a publican First these are spoken to all Christs ministers of al his churches and therefore make no more for Rome then for Corinth or Ephesus But yow stil keep from the point yeild the cause unawares For be it tradition definition or whatsoever by whomsoever if it be Gods not mans it is yenough al that I would prove in this first particular After it shal be scanned whither your traditions be of God or no. Wheras therfore in answering my secōd agrument yow wonder how I should be so deceived as to think the places that I cite make for me and against yow yow may wonder rather at your own mistakeing that I say no more who when I plead for God onely his alsufficiency by opposing as the scripture teacheth mans corruption folly yow will not yeild though yow have nothing to contradict And even thus yow turn over the 3. 4. reason by denying them to prove that thing which I there did not cite them for Such oversight hereafter I hope yow will amend that yow weary not both me your reader Now to your former ansvver which was with a distinctiō in this plain point whither God onely or some other should be judge lawgiver to his people for their religion controversies therabout the same distinction yow urge here agayn which whither it be a meet distinct answer or argues not rather fear let the prudent judge For yow yeild not plainly to the thing by me propounded which neyther religion nor reason vvould stick at onely atheisme vvil deny For if ther be a God he of man to be served man knovves not the things of God til by himself they be reveled neyther may doe more or lesse then by the Lord is cōmaunded as I have before proved hereupon it vvil folovv undenyably that in al doubts controversies of religion Gods voice verdict must decide vvhat is truth and vvhat pleaseth him Whither he show it by himself from heaven by Angels or by churches or by particular men by writing or by speaking it is ought to be all one to us But the more to convince yovv yovv shal have humane testimonie as of Ambrose vvho sayth The mysterie of heaven let God himself teach me which made heaven not man which knew not himself Whom should I rather beleev concerning God then God himself Or if yow be not moved by this Fathers judgment the hethen shal rise up and condemn yow vvho esteemed true lavv apt to command and to forbid to be the right reason of the great God that the divine mind to be the cheiflavv Cicero de Legib. lib. 2. The second point novv is Wher this verdict of God is to be found whither in the scriptures of the old and new Testamēt as I beleev or in the writings and mouthes of other men To this I had not before neyther yet have your dir 〈◊〉 answer What makes yow shun the light herein is easy to discern To confirm my faith that the verdict and wil of God is to be foūd in holy writt I alledged divine testimonies many to them yow answer not one word neyther yet doo yow yeild to the truth Beware yow wink not vvith your eyes that yow may not see But seeing the holy scriptures move yow not yow shal have candle light to see the sun shine C. Bellarmine to whom yow referr me twise in your last writing to whose learning yow acknowledge yourself a scholar ingeniously cōfesseth saying Neq n distputari potest c. Ther can be no disputing sayth he except we and our adversaries first doo agree in some cōmune principle now we al hereticks agree in this that the word of God is the rule of faith wherby men are to judge of points of doctrine is a commune principle granted of al men from whence arguments may be drawen is the spiritual sword which in this battel may not be refused Behold here the first point plainly yeilded by your champion vvhich you vvithout dark distinction could not be drawn unto The second concerning the scriptures is in effect also yeilded when he sayth That the Prophetical and Apostolical book◠according to the catholik churches mind explaned both by the 3. council of Carthage c. 47. and late council of Trent sess 4. is the true word of God and the certayn and stable rule of faith
horrible errors go the scriptures though directed by the private spirits interpretatioÌ„ cannot be a rule of faith My major is most certaine My Minor is also certainely knowen since ther was never yet any heresie so absurd or monstrous that did not pretend to vse for his weapon cited places of scripture and their collations as the Arrians Pelagians Semipelagians Lutheranists Calvinists go that private spirits interpretation cannot be a certain rule to all 90 To this Argument you saie I have put to much strength but you say I have not whet the edge All that you can bring against me is that you saie you can retort it on the private spirit of the Popes determinations and definitions but you can not deme but that the churâ—h hath more promises and so consequently her visible head as I shall prove And so I see howsoever you would not be cut with the edge you care not much to admit a fore bruife by the blowes And it is the greatest disgrace a man can have still to be drie beaten as you confesse you are and are sure to be But for your virtuall retorsion I shall actually answer you in his due place 91. That you object out of the 1. Cor. 11 19. Act. 15. 1 2. Act. 15 15 16. etc. proves rather that there must be one visible supreme judge to decide controversies As for your calumniations they are most proper to men of your coat and ranck and when time place and paper wil scarse give sufficieÌ„t vent to our reasons I wonder you should blow abroad these glassy bubbles breathed against the Sea Apostolick But the best that you can answer is that they will serv your children of Amsterdam to run after I never return your jests but provoked by you Where you say that counsels and Fathers may be racked to favour heresie as well as the scriptures I deney that they can be but that the vniforme and generall consent of the church may easily distinguish them 92. My Fourth Argument as I take was this THere be many things we beleeve by a divine and not by a humaine art of faith which are not revealed in holy scripture nor with such evideÌ„ce deduced out of holy scriptures if you exempt the authoritie of the church My antecedent I proved by instances that we beleeve against Helvidius our Ladies perpetuall virginitie that God the holy Ghost proceedes from God the Father and the sonne as from one beginning the twelve articles of our beleefe as they â—â—e the abstayning from strangled meat baptising of infants relebration of the Sabaoth on Sunday and not on Satterday the receiving fasting and kneeling â—c All which I did urge against you You answer you have sufficient proof of these things that ar of faith but you show neither scripture or denie them to be beleeved with a divine aâ—t of faith or give reason why we practise other things out of scripture contrarie to the practise of the primitive church 93. And when I have twice or thrise desired a distinct answer â—o eaâ—â— particular you would satisfiâ—â—â—e with your marvaile that I would have you enter battaile with the Arrians Anti-Trinitarians 〈◊〉 and have you convince them by scriptures And with great reason I prove I urge this For since you adventure to assigne an adâ—quate rule of faith you are bound to show me how this rule of yours is able to mainteyne it self against whosoever and to distinguish truth from falshood as I offer to doe by my assigned rule So that this is not to put on foot new questions but it is properly 〈◊〉 presse the footing of our cheife questions answer 94. You proceed and would have me to mainteyne Tradition to be the totall and not the partial rule of faith togither with the written word of God Hence you inferr that I graunt some word of God without tradition to be knowen I answer the word of God as it is extrinsecall the word of God and to be knowen of vs depends of tradition and the authoritie of the church Though intrinsecallie and in it self it is the word of God though it be knowen to none so that you may see in what sense I make tradition to be the rule of faith and apostolicall tradition also I affirme to be also the word of God though unwritten 95. Here make you a long digression and you show what acts kept by tradition are to be kept and to be remembred to children after ages as you say to see the destruction of Rome but we knowe certainly the opposers by their oppositioÌ„ will work themselves their destruction and confusion of their Babylon And we know that Balaam in stedd of cursing Gods people did blesse them John Fox was your Nabucodonosor turned so out to grasse that he durst not come neare the wall by reason of a deep mellancholie apprehension for feare of being crased like an vrinall As for the spanish Armadoe whatsoever the Spaniards intended to doe here in England our Countrymen did performe much at Cales howsoever they ded speed at Lisborne before I answer onely this God and St. George for my religion King and Countreymen I would doe that which befitted a good subject but these your instances are malitious and odious 96. To that plaine place 2. Thes 2. v. 15. Therefore brethren stand and hold the traditions which you have learned whether it be by word of mouth or by epistle This place is so playne that S. Chrysost affirms S. Paul herein to have meant of unwritten traditions that Doct. Whitaker sayes his speech is herein very unworthy so holy a father And that which you bring out of S Chrysostom against me showes that all sufficient precepts of manners and good life are set down in scripture That which you bring out of the 26. of the Acts 22 we say that in tradition nothing is spoken besides that is contrarie to the Apostles speeches As for that which you bring the 1. of the Cor. 14 37. is nothing to the purpose For we doe not deny but those things that are written are true But if you would have more plain places of scripture in defense of tradition â—â—s the 15. of the Acts 41. Where he in confirming of the church commands them to keep the precepts of the Apostles and what precepts S Paul meanes he explaines himself chap. 16. v. 4. He delivered unto them to keep the decrees that were decreed of the Apostles and auncients that were at Hierusalem which deliverie without question were by word of mouth what these decrees were it is uncertain by scriptura though they may be kept by the help of tradition 98. The fourth thing that I am to show is to prove how you walk in a vitious circle proving the selfe same by the selfe same as the authoritie of the scripture by your private spirit and your privat spirit by the authority of the scripture by which manner of proof you may prove any thing 99